Yeah, London needs more pedestrian/cycle options to cross the Thames - it’s a huge barrier in some areas.
For example, a tunnel (or bridge!) between Canary Wharf and the Rotherhithe peninsula, replacing the existing passenger ferry, would have huge economic benefits by encouraging development of a relatively under-developed area.
The Greenwich foot tunnel is a great asset, and despite not being very cycle-friendly is very popular with cyclists too.
To cross the river in East London you have 2 options: the Greenwich foot tunnel, or the Woolwich one.
Indeed they're great assets but it's incredibly awful when the lifts are broken - and it happens frequently.
Either of them are a huge diversion depending on where you're going as well. If there was a cycle-friendly crossing around where Blackwall tunnel is, I reckon my rides to The Reach would be cut by nearly half.
It's fairly busy but mostly with river ferries, barges, recreational boats, etc which aren't too tall and can fit under most bridges. Taking the Tower Bridge example, vessels up to 9 metres tall can fit under it. If you're taller than that, the bridge must be raised on request[1]. I'd imagine that would be the minimum requirement for any bridge built east of Tower Bridge. Currently the only bridge over the Thames east of Tower Bridge is the Dartford Crossing, which has a 61 meter high deck.
[1] By law, river traffic takes priority over road traffic, but it's raised pretty infrequently now days.
For example, a tunnel (or bridge!) between Canary Wharf and the Rotherhithe peninsula, replacing the existing passenger ferry, would have huge economic benefits by encouraging development of a relatively under-developed area.
The Greenwich foot tunnel is a great asset, and despite not being very cycle-friendly is very popular with cyclists too.