Have your say: Lower Thames Crossing Route Consultation 2016 (1 Viewer)

[GJH]

I've just received the following e-mail with the above heading:

Dear Dart Charge Account Holder,

We are contacting you because you use the Dartford Crossing. We have now started public consultation on the proposed new route options for a new Lower Thames Crossing to connect Kent and Essex.

If you are interested you can:

• have your say in the public consultation (closes Thursday 24 March 2016)
• visit www.lower-thames-crossing.co.uk for further information about our proposals
• keep up-to-date and subscribe to our Lower Thames Crossing email alerts service
• follow us on Twitter @LowerThames

If you have any further queries please contact our helpline on 0330 303 0059 between 9am - 5pm Monday - Saturday

Kind regards

Martin Potts

Consultation Manager
Highways England

Presumably it will go all Dart Charge Account Holders but I'm aware from previous threads that several Funsters use the crossing but have no accounts. Just posting this in case anyone who doesn't receive it wants to comment.

 

[PeteH]

Used it regularly when I had Deliveries at Blue-water and Lakeside. Have never used it since, due to the fact that we have family Nr Guildford. So we visit, and then head for the Channel ports M25 South. (or straight down the M3 to Portsmouth). I would guess though that ANY improvement to the congestion we used to experience, especially Northbound, "Rush Hour" (why the hell do they call it "Rush"? It`s mostly a slow crawl!) has got to be an improvement. But like the HST is it REALLY necessary or just some "Ministerial" dream and an excuse to get on another "Gravy Train?". For Camergoons Fat cat buddies?.

Pete

 

[hilldweller]

Just posting this in case anyone who doesn't receive it wants to comment.

My goodness, it will make the route to Bruges so quick we can do it for a day trip.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Zains Pops]

Don't hold your breath, how many years or decades before anyone starts to dig a hole and start construction.
The speed at which we 'do' infrastructure in this country is a disgrace.
At least it means that nonsense such as HST 2,3rd Heathrow runway and Hinkley Point will never be built.

 

[gus-lopez]

. But like the HST is it REALLY necessary or just some "Ministerial" dream a

Pete

Yes it is . even with barriers gone now,going northbound you usually are stopped again at the tunnels .The queuing is about a mile less though without barriers. lol
The route they are proposing ,out of 3 identified, is miles away to the east & involves complete new connecting motorways to the M20/A2. 2027 appears to be possible date .

 

[Tea Bag]

Yes it is . even with barriers gone now,going northbound you usually are stopped again at the tunnels .The queuing is about a mile less though without barriers. lol
The route they are proposing ,out of 3 identified, is miles away to the east & involves complete new connecting motorways to the M20/A2. 2027 appears to be possible date .

Hi Gus.
2027..? I could be using it,and in a converted PVC... So,if i am spared i may be carted through in a ...."Community Bus" LOL
Tea Bag aka O'er 'till

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

Yeh!, Well, I can see the benefit to some extent. But I looked at it this way. HST.is going to "cut" 20 min from London to Birmingham?. 20 min, off a journey of What? just about 2 hours?. At a cost of? Billion?. I am afraid I cannot see any logic in that?. Also unless I am mistaken the new terminus will be a 20 min Taxi Ride from central Birmingham?. In which case the overall saving is? ZERO. which in my book is money WASTED.

At which point the Cynic in me, would believe that the "Vested Interests" or Government Buddies, are the intended recipients of our Billion in Taxes?.

So when I look at an expensive crossing of the Thames. I wonder if the Cost benefit is anything like what the "prospectus" would have us believe

Pete

 

[Gromett]

Yeh!, Well, I can see the benefit to some extent. But I looked at it this way. HST.is going to "cut" 20 min from London to Birmingham?. 20 min, off a journey of What? just about 2 hours?. At a cost of? Billion?. I am afraid I cannot see any logic in that?. Also unless I am mistaken the new terminus will be a 20 min Taxi Ride from central Birmingham?. In which case the overall saving is? ZERO. which in my book is money WASTED.

At which point the Cynic in me, would believe that the "Vested Interests" or Government Buddies, are the intended recipients of our Billion in Taxes?.

So when I look at an expensive crossing of the Thames. I wonder if the Cost benefit is anything like what the "prospectus" would have us believe

Pete

I agree with you, however it is not the speed that is the important thing it is capacity. With the trains moving quicker you can get more carriages going through. The current system is apparently at or above capacity at rush hour.

 

[PeteH]

I agree with you, however it is not the speed that is the important thing it is capacity. With the trains moving quicker you can get more carriages going through. The current system is apparently at or above capacity at rush hour.

Yes but surely, the better solution to that would be to reduce the passenger numbers at peak time?, spread the load across the day?. (OVER) FULL "Transport" spikes are a very inefficient use of ANY transport System?

More home working?. More flexibility of hours?. After all if a spread of working hours to 24/7 is good for the NHS. What is wrong with extending that philosophy to general workplaces too? (Westminster parliament. local authority?). As example, I used to like doing "Night Trunk" work, the roads where clear (Almost) and delays where mostly those caused by overnight roadworks put in place so the "Commuters" where not "inconvenienced".

Pete

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Yes but surely, the better solution to that would be to reduce the passenger numbers at peak time?, spread the load across the day?. (OVER) FULL "Transport" spikes are a very inefficient use of ANY transport System?

More home working?. More flexibility of hours?. After all if a spread of working hours to 24/7 is good for the NHS. What is wrong with extending that philosophy to general workplaces too? (Westminster parliament. local authority?). As example, I used to like doing "Night Trunk" work, the roads where clear (Almost) and delays where mostly those caused by overnight roadworks put in place so the "Commuters" where not "inconvenienced".

Pete

Good idea in principle but it depends on both employers and employees agreeing and to practicality. Many people don't mind others working evenings and weekends so long as they don't have to.

Many jobs can't be done at home and even those which can need the proper accommodation, furniture and insurance arrangements.

One of our sons regularly works nights installing data kit in retail stores because it can't be done when customers are present so extending hours is impractical in such cases.

Parliament already has Broken Link Removed other than 9 to 5 every day.

Flexi-time for office jobs in local authorities in this area started back in the 1980s. Depending on the authority the start time was 7:30am or 8am and finish time was up to 6pm or 6:30pm (I think). Facilities like libraries, sports centres, swimming pools and register offices already had longer hours.

 

[Motörhead Fun]

Yeh!, Well, I can see the benefit to some extent. But I looked at it this way. HST.is going to "cut" 20 min from London to Birmingham?. 20 min, off a journey of What? just about 2 hours?. At a cost of? Billion?. I am afraid I cannot see any logic in that?. Also unless I am mistaken the new terminus will be a 20 min Taxi Ride from central Birmingham?. In which case the overall saving is? ZERO. which in my book is money WASTED.

At which point the Cynic in me, would believe that the "Vested Interests" or Government Buddies, are the intended recipients of our Billion in Taxes?.

So when I look at an expensive crossing of the Thames. I wonder if the Cost benefit is anything like what the "prospectus" would have us believe

Pete

The existing rail infrastructure is approximately 150 years old and is at the end of its life. The continual 'patching up' of bridges / earthworks / tunnels to keep trains running cannot carry on forever. The only answer to fulfil requirements for the next 100 to 200 years is to build new lines. The rest of western Europe has realised this.

 

[buttons]

That C option is long overdue, the Achilles heel of the M25 is this section north and south of the dartford crossing. Getting all the channel port traffic away from the M25 before the Dartford crossing will free it up for M25 through traffic. I like the idea. I also think that it is just a matter of time before the 3rd runway at Heathrow and the HS2 get a start date.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

The existing rail infrastructure is approximately 150 years old and is at the end of its life. The continual 'patching up' of bridges / earthworks / tunnels to keep trains running cannot carry on forever. The only answer to fulfil requirements for the next 100 to 200 years is to build new lines. The rest of western Europe has realised this.

And could be (partly) why we are subsidising the EU to the tune of 50Million per day?

Pete

 

[gus-lopez]

That C option is long overdue, the Achilles heel of the M25 is this section north and south of the dartford crossing. Getting all the channel port traffic away from the M25 before the Dartford crossing will free it up for M25 through traffic. I like the idea. I also think that it is just a matter of time before the 3rd runway at Heathrow and the HS2 get a start date.
View attachment 93692

1. Yes, exactly. For the local people a crossing that runs at maximum capacity most of the time is bad enough but which then has no fall back for the "increased" traffic entering/exiting 2 of the biggest shopping centres in the UK,neatly positioned at either side of the crossing ends , which at Christmas, easter, school holidays ,weekends bring gridlock to the whole area.

 

[PeteH]

Many people don't mind others working evenings and weekends so long as they don't have to

So Maybe, that is what has to be changed?. Not covering More of the countryside in concrete and Tarmac? at great expense.

Only this Morning we hear that some Special Needs housing is on the back burner because the "government" needs to cut?. Where is this countries priorities? We need protected housing for vulnerable people. (or maybe not? after all then they might just die and save money that way). Do we REALLY need shaving 20 min off a journey for even more cash?. Sorry but that to me is typical "Me first, greedy thinking"

Pete

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

And could be (partly) why we are subsidising the EU to the tune of 50Million per day?

Pete

But the Germans pay in 135 million/day ,French over a 100 & the Italians near 80 & they still invest in decent hs trains. Not that I¡m saying that the proposed HS2 is worth it.
Maybe there are EU grants involved which they'd all apply for. Never understod why the UK, even though it would have to throw in some 50% itself due to the 'rebate', doesn't apply for far more.

 

[buttons]

So Maybe, that is what has to be changed?. Not covering More of the countryside in concrete and Tarmac? at great expense.

Only this Morning we hear that some Special Needs housing is on the back burner because the "government" needs to cut?. Where is this countries priorities? We need protected housing for vulnerable people. (or maybe not? after all then they might just die and save money that way). Do we REALLY need shaving 20 min off a journey for even more cash?. Sorry but that to me is typical "Me first, greedy thinking"

Pete

Just a guess Peter but there are probably more people living in this congested area than the whole of Your own county. These masses need infrastructure to keep the cogs turning. Add to this the millions who pass through the area heading west, south and north then you must agree that the money will be well spent. These two shopping centers are only there because there is a demand for them. No point in building a mega shopping development in the hills and dales...

 

[GJH]

So Maybe, that is what has to be changed?. Not covering More of the countryside in concrete and Tarmac? at great expense.

Only this Morning we hear that some Special Needs housing is on the back burner because the "government" needs to cut?. Where is this countries priorities? We need protected housing for vulnerable people. (or maybe not? after all then they might just die and save money that way). Do we REALLY need shaving 20 min off a journey for even more cash?. Sorry but that to me is typical "Me first, greedy thinking"

Pete

If you can change the attitude of the "Me first" brigade good luck to you. I think they outnumber the rest of us far too much

I read that sheltered housing story on BBC New earlier with a large measure of scepticism. The NHF Report quoted claims "the higher rents and service charges often covered by housing benefit." but that is not true. People who have sufficient income/capital pay the costs of care themselves and others pay the costs out of Attendance Allowance, not Housing Benefit (stated with personal experience of the cases of family members).

Some charities will undoubtedly be affected but that is (as discussed in threads a couple of weeks ago) because they have set up services which rely on inequitable and unsustainable taxpayer funding rather than concentrating on what they can fund themselves after paying high salaries to their chief execs &c.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Wino]

Sounds like a good idea to me the M25 is always a pain there would be less pollution near London and it could help companies re-locate in the Midlands rather than south east. There also needs to be spending in order to try and move economic activity of all sorts out of the London area to improve quality of life for those trapped in high cost housing and allow them to move to civilisation. I would favour option c but with a motorway link straight to the M11 and Stansted then better motorway links to the A1 and A14

 

[Puddleduck]

Response sent.

Thank you for alerting us to this Graham.

 

[PeteH]

It is patently obvious. That attitude (to these proposals) depends upon your personal priorities. I am beyond the age where the fastest route anywhere, is of too much personal concern. And would prefer to see money spent helping those British who for some reason not of their making are likely to suffer. Yes, we are all too aware that there are those who "milk" the system. But the majority concerned, are those who fell on hard times often AFTER, "contributing" to some extent to the maintenance of this country, Ex forces are a prime example. The gross levels of inflation in the housing sector is a contributing (if not the major reason) why so much of the alleged "social" housing stock is depleted. And as far as it goes most of those targeted by the current proposals DO NOT fall into the category of "People who have sufficient income/capital pay the costs of care themselves and others pay the costs out of Attendance Allowance, not Housing Benefit". IF you can assist yourself it is not an issue it`s rather likely to be those who have always been on the low income scale, often because of disability, who will suffer disproportionately. It is worth remembering that because of advances in medical science many "Disabled" who would not have survived a generation ago are ALSO living much longer too. Don`t they too now deserve care?. Most are currently being Harassed by ATOS and the like!!!.

I appreciate that in the "Greed is good" era I am banging my Head against a brick wall. But at least it helps relieve Frustration!!.

Pete

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

It is patently obvious. That attitude (to these proposals) depends upon your personal priorities. I am beyond the age where the fastest route anywhere, is of too much personal concern. And would prefer to see money spent helping those British who for some reason not of their making are likely to suffer. Yes, we are all too aware that there are those who "milk" the system. But the majority concerned, are those who fell on hard times often AFTER, "contributing" to some extent to the maintenance of this country, Ex forces are a prime example. The gross levels of inflation in the housing sector is a contributing (if not the major reason) why so much of the alleged "social" housing stock is depleted. And as far as it goes most of those targeted by the current proposals DO NOT fall into the category of "People who have sufficient income/capital pay the costs of care themselves and others pay the costs out of Attendance Allowance, not Housing Benefit". IF you can assist yourself it is not an issue it`s rather likely to be those who have always been on the low income scale, often because of disability, who will suffer disproportionately. It is worth remembering that because of advances in medical science many "Disabled" who would not have survived a generation ago are ALSO living much longer too. Don`t they too now deserve care?. Most are currently being Harassed by ATOS and the like!!!.

I appreciate that in the "Greed is good" era I am banging my Head against a brick wall. But at least it helps relieve Frustration!!.

Pete

Fortunately the money will still be available for your causes as this scheme, unlike the HS2 will be self funding due to being a toll like the other crossing.


Here is the 'consultation booklet ' for anyone who is interested.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspac...ower-thames-crossing-consultation-booklet.pdf

 

[GJH]

That attitude (to these proposals) depends upon your personal priorities.

Just like any survey - or election - then

 

[wingman]

My Local Authority has circulated the consultation document. It's Option 3 for me too. BUT, a brand new housing development in the Essex village of Orset would have to be demolished! The proposals didn't even show up on their 'search'. Not sure about the other side of the Thames in Kent. There was a furore a few years back when a crossing was proposed further up towards London. Apparently, there was ancient woodland (??? Oxleas Wood) on the south side and Newts in the way, so don't hold your breath. There will be a NIMBY or pressure group formed well before anyone gets out a theodolite.

2027 (IF that is the date) is only just over 10 years away folks. Time flies huh?

I can't comment on the HS1/2. Seems a lot of destruction to lovely countryside for an extra 20 mins?

Heathrow? I like Boris' idea of an island airport, or better still, use Manston. It's got a massive runway (Concorde once landed there) and most of the noise would be out to sea. Needs a railway connection to London though. Whoops, here we go again - HS 4?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Of course we could all face the truth, admit that the south east of the country is full and allow no further development there. Plenty of places for new developments elsewhere in the country

 

[PeteH]

Just like any survey - or election - then

In a Word, Yes.

To be fair I am not against it per se. but I do question it`s value for money?

Pete

 

[GWAYGWAY]

Living in Dover , the thing that worries us here is that the options ALL, lead to the traffic coming down the A2, and it is hell here sometimes and if the majority of HGV traffic changed from the A20 to the A2 It would be absolutely terrible, We cannot use the Whifield roundabout now at peak flow time but double or treble the flow??????. There has been NO government interest at all in upgrading the A2 to Dover and there is no future proposals on the table. It is a narrow single carriageway for miles out of the town, and destined to remain so for years.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PeteH]

Living in Dover , the thing that worries us here is that the options ALL, lead to the traffic coming down the A2, and it is hell here sometimes and if the majority of HGV traffic changed from the A20 to the A2 It would be absolutely terrible, We cannot use the Whifield roundabout now at peak flow time but double or treble the flow??????. There has been NO government interest at all in upgrading the A2 to Dover and there is no future proposals on the table. It is a narrow single carriageway for miles out of the town, and destined to remain so for years.

What you are saying is that, as usual, it will just move the congestion elsewhere?.

Which suggests that a Root and Branch Rethink about how we conduct life and business is well overdue?

Pete

 

[The Wino]

Living in Dover , the thing that worries us here is that the options ALL, lead to the traffic coming down the A2, and it is hell here sometimes and if the majority of HGV traffic changed from the A20 to the A2 It would be absolutely terrible, We cannot use the Whifield roundabout now at peak flow time but double or treble the flow??????. There has been NO government interest at all in upgrading the A2 to Dover and there is no future proposals on the table. It is a narrow single carriageway for miles out of the town, and destined to remain so for years.

I bet if it were announced they were closing the docks and building new ones elsewhere the town would be up in arms. Being in a busy port town will never be great for traffic etc but there are pleanty of places that have lost their industry that would happily trade places!

 

[buttons]

I bet if it were announced they were closing the docks and building new ones elsewhere the town would be up in arms. Being in a busy port town will never be great for traffic etc but there are pleanty of places that have lost their industry that would happily trade places!

Why would they announce that..?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}