Sustainable Freight: A Viable Alternative to the Lower Thames Crossing

The Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), once viewed as an essential solution to easing congestion at the Dartford Crossing, is increasingly seen as financially and environmentally untenable. While it may reduce traffic at Dartford by a modest 20%, its low cost-benefit ratio of just 22p per pound spent and projected environmental costs make it a hard sell in a climate-conscious world. Yet, as the conversation evolves, questions about sustainable alternatives to road infrastructure become more pressing.

One of the key arguments against the LTC is the fact that much of the North Bank of the Thames—stretching from Tilbury to Canvey Island—is designed for handling cargo, including containers and Roll-on/Roll-off (RORO) traffic. Despite Thurrock’s recent investments in rail freight facilities, significant volumes of goods are still transported by road, particularly through the Port of Dover. This creates unnecessary road congestion, especially around Dartford, and worsens air pollution in residential areas. So why, with increasing investments in freight infrastructure, do we continue to rely so heavily on road transport when viable rail alternatives exist?

A major part of the solution lies in expanding rail freight networks. The UK government has recently announced improvements to rail freight routes from Channel ports, including the Eurotunnel, to key destinations in the north and west of London. These routes help bypass congested roads in the southeast and reduce carbon emissions.

Looking to Europe provides a clearer view of the potential for rail freight. The VIIA Britanica rail service offers a prime example of how freight can be shifted from road to rail with great efficiency. Running between Le Boulou near the French-Spanish border and Calais, VIIA transports semi-trailers across France in just 22 hours, removing the need for 1,200 km of road travel​ (Global Railway Review)​ (VIIA). This service eliminates approximately 40,000 trailers per year from the road network, preventing the emission of 50,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, while maintaining a faster, more efficient delivery schedule than road transport could achieve.

If such rail corridors were replicated or expanded in the UK, particularly around ports like Dover and Tilbury, the need for road-based projects like the LTC would diminish further. The question then becomes: Why continue to invest in massive road infrastructure when rail freight can deliver more sustainable, long-term benefits?

One of the arguments for continuing investment in road infrastructure is the eventual electrification of road transport, but this solution is still far off. While electric trucks are beginning to enter the market, their range, payload capacity, and infrastructure remain limiting factors for widespread adoption. Moreover, even if roads were fully electrified, they would still be plagued by the same levels of congestion. Simply changing the fuel source does not reduce the volume of traffic.

The maritime and aviation sectors face similar challenges. Though electric cargo ships and planes are in development, they are not yet commercially viable at the scale needed to make a significant impact. In the interim, fuel innovations like hydrogen and biofuels are being explored, but these will take time to roll out and will likely be most beneficial in reducing emissions, not necessarily congestion.

Manston Airport, recently approved for reopening as a dedicated freight hub, offers another dimension to the UK’s logistics network. While air freight is essential for time-sensitive goods, it is not a solution for bulk transportation. Air cargo also has a much higher carbon footprint per tonne-kilometre compared to both road and rail freight, making it a less sustainable option overall. Although it can relieve some road congestion by reducing the need for trucks to carry high-value, time-sensitive goods, air freight does not solve the core issues of environmental sustainability or the scale of goods being moved.

One of the most important considerations when discussing freight transport is that fully electrified road, sea, and air transport is still decades away. In the meantime, sustainable alternatives must be prioritized, especially those that already exist, such as rail freight. Electrifying trucks or ships won’t reduce congestion or make the LTC more viable—it will only shift the emissions problem to different fuels.

At the same time, the LTC’s benefits are highly questionable, given that it would reduce Dartford Crossing traffic by only 20%. This marginal improvement comes at a massive financial and environmental cost. By focusing on expanding rail freight networks, we could eliminate far more road congestion while significantly reducing carbon emissions. The success of European rail freight corridors, like the VIIA Britanica, proves that this is a sustainable, scalable solution.

The declining viability of the Lower Thames Crossing is a symptom of a broader problem: an over-reliance on road transport at the expense of more sustainable options. The UK government’s investment in rail freight routes from the Channel ports, combined with Thurrock’s new rail facilities, should be seen as the future of UK freight logistics. Projects like the VIIA Britanica in Europe show the efficiency and environmental benefits of shifting freight from road to rail.

As we await the technological advances necessary for fully electrified road and sea transport, our focus must shift to what can be achieved now. Rail freight offers a solution that is both environmentally sustainable and capable of reducing road congestion far more effectively than the LTC could ever hope to achieve. Rather than investing billions in another road project with limited long-term impact, the UK should prioritize rail freight infrastructure to meet both its logistical and environmental goals.