Home/News/Extra £174m earmarked for ‘spiralling’ bill for Lower Thames Crossing
The Guardian World3 min read

Extra £174m earmarked for ‘spiralling’ bill for Lower Thames Crossing

Extra £174m earmarked for ‘spiralling’ bill for Lower Thames Crossing

The UK government has allocated an additional £174 million for the Lower Thames Crossing, a proposed road tunnel connecting Kent and Essex, bringing the total public expenditure earmarked for the project to £3.1 billion. This supplementary funding comes amidst growing concerns about the "spiralling" costs of what is slated to be one of the nation's largest infrastructure undertakings. The project, which aims to create a new route under the Thames, is already projected to incur higher costs per mile than the HS2 high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham. The total estimated cost for the Lower Thames Crossing is £11 billion, with the government anticipating a further £7.5 billion investment from the private sector. The decision to increase public funding underscores the escalating financial commitments associated with the scheme, raising questions about its overall economic viability and value for taxpayer money. The additional funds are intended to address the increasing expenses anticipated during the construction phase. This development follows previous approvals for the tunnel, highlighting the long-term and evolving nature of the project's financial planning. The project's scale and the continuous need for increased funding have drawn scrutiny from various stakeholders, including environmental groups and opposition parties, who have previously voiced concerns about the project's environmental impact and its potential to exacerbate traffic congestion in surrounding areas. The government maintains that the crossing is essential for improving national infrastructure, boosting economic growth, and alleviating pressure on existing routes, such as the Dartford Crossing. However, the escalating budget suggests that the realization of these benefits may come at a significantly higher price than initially forecast, prompting ongoing debate about the project's future and its ultimate cost-effectiveness.

Original source — read the full reporting at the publisher:

Read on The Guardian World