I wonder if I was right to include the following paragraph in my consultation response:

(By the way, the answer to the question "Do you agree or disagree with..." should not be "yes/no", it should be "agree/disagree". But let's not let the fact that you can't compose a simple questionnaire colour our views as to whether you're competent to manage the country's transport network)

[pedant]The tolls were removed when the bridge was paid for. The charges now relate to a road user charging scheme unrelated to maintenance funds for the crossings that was introduced under separate orders. [/pedant]
The effect on the public is the same but it allows the politicians to dance on the head of a pin and say the original undertaking was adhered to.

Users of the Dartford crossing should think themselves lucky: the Humber Bridge toll for cars is proposed to go up to £3 soon.

Won't that just mean everyone goes the long way round? I don't know the road that well but I remember something on CBRD about that.

It's 20 miles extra Hull-Scunthorpe avoiding the bridge, 40 Hull-Grimsby and 60 Hessle-Barton-upon-Humber. I don't think they're going to run short of customers.

Heh heh heh

I thought that not only had the capital sum been paid, including interest, but the crossing had also recouped sufficient in investment to fund ongoing maintenance up to the end of the design life of the tunnels and bridge.

Yes it has

But this and previous governments do not / did not want to lose what is a significant revenue stream.

Hence the legislation was amended a few years ago as the origional act of Parlement made it quite clear tolls would cease when the construction costs of the bridge had been paid off. IIRC the statements made at the time suggested that revenue from the tolls would be used for various public transport improvements in north Kent / south Essex and would therefore remain with the DfT rather than going to the treasuary. Whether this is still the case I don't know but what is certain is that the Government is in no mood to replicate the Scotish administration

The friday before last, this situation once again occured, queuing back to J28 as it often does on a friday afternoon. However the charges still applied...

It seems that, because traffic was doing just over 10mph, the situation did not meet the HA's criteria for suspending the charges! Gasp!

Also I understand the barriers will still go up and down, despite the situations when/where crossing fees will be suspended.

Of course.

The alternative is that some idiots will try to do 70 or more through the gates.

In the usual DfT way a significant initial expenditure on this basis was on a costly scheme that has turned out to be of little benefit to anybody, but presumably ticked all the right politically correct boxes.

This structure
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.456594, ... 2,,0,16.19
provides a buses only road, built under the bridge approach and over the tunnel approach, using a substantial bridge section just by the tolls. On completion there is hardly any bus service that uses it (the "Fastrack" appears the only one), and those that do are almost empty, which is not surprising as it is a nowhere-to-nowhere service. Never mind, it adequately squandered a proportion of the toll takings for a year or two, and that is all that is important.

The paint on the road says "BUS ONLY", so only the one is allowed on at a time?

The Fastrack bus system is I understand actually pretty successful - e.g. see this and this - it currently consists of two routes (A & B), with a third in the pipeline.

I've not come across the notion that the Dartford Crossing charges were directly contributing towards it - apart from anything else, governments are rather wary about the concept of hypothecation in general in terms of spending (considering it to be the thin end of the wedge).

Yes but in this case the DfT were at pains to point out that the Dartford charges would not become just another stelth tax with all monies raised disapearing into the black hole that is the treasuary. Obviously from the motorists point of view it would have been desirable for the monies to be invested in schemes that benifit them, however this would have incured the roth of enviromentalists, etc. Hence the chosen solution of spending it on public transport - it keeps the green loby happy while ensuring the Treasuary doesn't get their hands on it.

Unfortunately these are classic Weasel Reports. The bulk of the "Fastrack" is just on existing streets, where it has replaced previous bus services, and this is where almost all of its usage comes from. The section of busway so expensively built across the Dartford tolls from nowhere to nowhere is the empty bit. Actually the same is true of the section to Ebbsfleet train station, which whenever I have seen a bus leaving there has no passengers in it at all - I've taken to looking for this when walking from the car park to the Channel Tunnel train station.

When you read about Fastrack it's amazing how many different government Quangos were involved in it. What was that about a camel being a racehorse designed by a committee ?

Funnily enough when I was working near Dijon, there were a few times where the barriers were up whilst works were going on by the tolls, and the limit was 70 (kph), with no charges levied. Maybe that's the French for you?!

I haven't used the QE2 for ages, but thought it was now 50 with average SPECS?

Yes it was 50mph the last time I went over it last year. Also when I went over it at 2am in the morning a couple of years ago on the way back from a party in Colchester (went round the bottom as the shorter route round the top was closed due to roads works a j18) when it was free and the barriers still went up and down. Seemed a waste of electricity and could of left them up. i wonder how much money would be saved if the things were left up and switched off.

With regards the 12 miles queues travelling less then 10mph before the tolls are free there is a lot of crictism in this weeks Local Transport Today, which claims it is just a gimmick which looks good for the media (mail etc) but in fact will not help congestion at all. A quote from the RMC saying after taking over an hour to do 12 miles at 10 mph does not mean a free crossing, many driver will think the whole proposal is a joke.

I know they have to draw the line somewhere, but 10mph is far too low. 25-30mph maybe? At least that is a 'reasonable' speed and now a crawl that barely merits second gear.

Had to go through the works this evening clockwise from J29-30. Was quite amused to see one of the temporary signs erected (and meant to resemble the original signs), mentioning 'Last Exit Before Services'!

Just had an info for government email this afternoon with the following statement

"Charges at the Dartford-Thurrock River CrossingDelivered by: Mike Penning MP
Publisher: Department for Transport
Delivered date: 24 November 2011
Type: Written statement
Mode/topic: Roads, Road transport


The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning): On the 30th June The Department for Transport launched a consultation on proposals to change the charging regime at the Dartford – Thurrock River Crossing. The consultation closed on the 23rd September.

The consultation made reference to increasing the charges during November 2011 and again in April 2012.

I am pleased with the number of responses received and the level of engagement from local communities. In recognition of the number of representations made and to allow the Department time to carefully consider the responses further, I can advise that there will be no increase in either November 2011 or April 2012.

A final decision on the timing of future rises and a full response to the consultation will, subject to Cabinet Committee clearance, be announced early next year.

"

So looks like the consultation didn't go to well then

I wonder who the consultants were who managed the consultation. Because, believe you me, if a "consultation" exercise doesn't give the answer that was being looked for in the first place, the consultants who ran it will never get any more work from that section again.