New Lower Thames Crossing

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: B3272/A325/A331

New Consultaion

Post by Micro The Maniac » Thu Jun 24, 2021 07:50

Email received this morning:
We are holding a new public consultation from 14 July to 8 September 2021

Click here if you are having trouble viewing this message.

We are holding a new public consultation from 14 July to 8 September 2021

Today we’ve announced details of a new round of public consultation, as we prepare to submit our application for a Development Consent later this year.

Community impacts consultation
To get permission to build and operate the new crossing, we must follow a specific planning process and seek a Development Consent Order (DCO).

In October 2020 we submitted an application for a DCO but following feedback and discussions with the Planning Inspectorate we withdrew it to provide more information.

We have been working to address the Inspectorate’s feedback and, as part of this process, are holding a further round of public consultation to seek your views on:
• Our plans to build and operate the Lower Thames Crossing and how we will mitigate its impact
• Changes to the project since the design refinement consultation in 2020
• How responses received at each of our previous consultations have informed the development of the project

This consultation is an important opportunity for you to have your say before we finalise our proposals and prepare to submit our application later this year

How to find out more
The eight-week consultation will run from Wednesday 14 July to 23:59 on Wednesday 8 September 2021.

Due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, we are providing a range of ways to access information including:
• A dedicated consultation website
• A series of webinars
• A telephone call back service so you can speak to a member of the team
• Plans to hold a series of in-person events at locations along the proposed route.
• A range of documents will be also published alongside new visualisations and video flythroughs giving an overview of the route before, during and after it is built.

What happens next?
We will email you again when the consultation opens with more detail on how you can access the resources above, find out more and have your say.

When the consultation closes, we will take some time to consider your feedback. We plan to submit a new application for a Development Consent Order later this year. This will start the 18 month consent process. If given the green light, construction is expected to start in 2024 and take around six years, leading to a revised road opening date between 2029 and 2030.

Read more about the Development Consent Order process.

You can find out more about the Lower Thames Crossing on:

LinkedIn: @LowerThames
Facebook: @LowerThames
Twitter: @LowerThames
YouTube: Lower Thames Crossing

With kind regards
Matt Palmer
Executive Director, Lower Thames Crossing
Phone: 0300 123 5000 (local rate call)
Email: info@lowerthamescrossing.co.uk
Website: lowerthamescrossing.co.uk
Another chance to suggest this needs to be a motorway, not APDC with a TRO?

User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: New Consultaion

Post by Vierwielen » Sun Jun 27, 2021 20:55

Micro The Maniac wrote:
Thu Jun 24, 2021 07:50
Email received this morning:
We are holding a new public consultation from 14 July to 8 September 2021

Click here if you are having trouble viewing this message.

We are holding a new public consultation from 14 July to 8 September 2021

Today we’ve announced details of a new round of public consultation, as we prepare to submit our application for a Development Consent later this year.

Community impacts consultation
To get permission to build and operate the new crossing, we must follow a specific planning process and seek a Development Consent Order (DCO).

In October 2020 we submitted an application for a DCO but following feedback and discussions with the Planning Inspectorate we withdrew it to provide more information.

We have been working to address the Inspectorate’s feedback and, as part of this process, are holding a further round of public consultation to seek your views on:
• Our plans to build and operate the Lower Thames Crossing and how we will mitigate its impact
• Changes to the project since the design refinement consultation in 2020
• How responses received at each of our previous consultations have informed the development of the project

This consultation is an important opportunity for you to have your say before we finalise our proposals and prepare to submit our application later this year

How to find out more
The eight-week consultation will run from Wednesday 14 July to 23:59 on Wednesday 8 September 2021.

Due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, we are providing a range of ways to access information including:
• A dedicated consultation website
• A series of webinars
• A telephone call back service so you can speak to a member of the team
• Plans to hold a series of in-person events at locations along the proposed route.
• A range of documents will be also published alongside new visualisations and video flythroughs giving an overview of the route before, during and after it is built.

What happens next?
We will email you again when the consultation opens with more detail on how you can access the resources above, find out more and have your say.

When the consultation closes, we will take some time to consider your feedback. We plan to submit a new application for a Development Consent Order later this year. This will start the 18 month consent process. If given the green light, construction is expected to start in 2024 and take around six years, leading to a revised road opening date between 2029 and 2030.

Read more about the Development Consent Order process.

You can find out more about the Lower Thames Crossing on:

LinkedIn: @LowerThames
Facebook: @LowerThames
Twitter: @LowerThames
YouTube: Lower Thames Crossing

With kind regards
Matt Palmer
Executive Director, Lower Thames Crossing
Phone: 0300 123 5000 (local rate call)
Email: info@lowerthamescrossing.co.uk
Website: lowerthamescrossing.co.uk
Another chance to suggest this needs to be a motorway, not APDC with a TRO?
The tunnel itself is likely to be a de facto motorway (assuming that it has the same restrictions as the Hindhead Tunnel) - no pedstrian, cyclists, motor cycles under 50 cc, animal-drawn vehicles or horses. Learner drivers are permitted through the Hindhead Tunnel, but I cannot see any other real difference between the A3 through the tunnel and an motorway.

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6281
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal » Wed Jul 14, 2021 11:00

Community impacts consultation is open. From what I can see there's little change to the basic layout.

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... tion-2021/

User avatar
ChrisH
Member
Posts: 3860
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by ChrisH » Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:50

From the "You said, we did..." document, p266:
You made suggestions for the classification of the project. Suggestions include that it should be a motorway, that it should have an entirely new designation, and that certain types of users, such as motorcyclists, should be allowed to use it
Whilst the project would have restrictions on HGVs using lane three, there would be no other restrictions on HGV movements along the route. While the new route would be designated as an A road, there will be prohibitions on pedestrians, low-powered motorcycles, learner drivers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles. As the Lower Thames Crossing has been designed with a 70mph speed limit to provide fast and reliable journeys, it would not be safe for slower users to share the road. Standard motorcycles would be allowed to use the road.
The route would be designed in accordance with Highways England design standards, including design features to encourage safe lane changes and adequate capacity for predicted traffic levels. It would include a maximum 70mph speed limit, which could be adjusted depending on conditions. There are no plans to increase the speed limit above what is the standard for this type of road because that would compromise safety. We would install clear traffic signs to make sure the route performs safely and gives motorists plenty of notice of the road layout and
destinations. Signage would include variable speed limits to manage traffic flow and maintain safety, along with real-time journey information on the approaches to the route. Signage would also include details of any incidents and journey times for the Dartford Crossing and Lower Thames Crossing, so motorists could make informed decisions about their route.
Looks like we have to try again on the M22 classification...

User avatar
SBRoxMan
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2021 15:20

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by SBRoxMan » Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:55

ChrisH wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:50
From the "You said, we did..." document, p266:
You made suggestions for the classification of the project. Suggestions include that it should be a motorway, that it should have an entirely new designation, and that certain types of users, such as motorcyclists, should be allowed to use it
Whilst the project would have restrictions on HGVs using lane three, there would be no other restrictions on HGV movements along the route. While the new route would be designated as an A road, there will be prohibitions on pedestrians, low-powered motorcycles, learner drivers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles. As the Lower Thames Crossing has been designed with a 70mph speed limit to provide fast and reliable journeys, it would not be safe for slower users to share the road. Standard motorcycles would be allowed to use the road.
The route would be designed in accordance with Highways England design standards, including design features to encourage safe lane changes and adequate capacity for predicted traffic levels. It would include a maximum 70mph speed limit, which could be adjusted depending on conditions. There are no plans to increase the speed limit above what is the standard for this type of road because that would compromise safety. We would install clear traffic signs to make sure the route performs safely and gives motorists plenty of notice of the road layout and
destinations. Signage would include variable speed limits to manage traffic flow and maintain safety, along with real-time journey information on the approaches to the route. Signage would also include details of any incidents and journey times for the Dartford Crossing and Lower Thames Crossing, so motorists could make informed decisions about their route.
Looks like we have to try again on the M22 classification...
Making it an A road makes no sense to me. By designating it that way, it's just going to be another green road on the map. If it's blue, it'll more likely do what it's supposed to do. Haven't we learnt from the mistake of downgrading the M64 project to the A50?

WHBM
Member
Posts: 8258
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by WHBM » Wed Jul 14, 2021 13:03

As the Lower Thames Crossing has been designed with a 70mph speed limit to provide fast and reliable journeys, it would not be safe for slower users to share the road.
Bit of a concern about future speed limits elsewhere if this is HE's attitude to the large amount of rural all-purpose dual carriageways they manage.
design features to encourage safe lane changes and adequate capacity for predicted traffic levels ... Signage would include variable speed limits to manage traffic flow
Seems inconsistent, why are variable speed limits needed to manage the flow if capacity is adequate for predicted traffic levels.
restrictions on HGVs using lane three ... prohibitions on pedestrians, low-powered motorcycles, learner drivers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles ... designed with a 70mph speed limit
One really wonders why there needs to be a whole slew of restrictions instead of just classifying it as Motorway. Is there some HE/DfT policy that they don't do Motorways any more ? Are there some additional costs of classifying it as a Motorway that are avoided by not doing so ?

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: B3272/A325/A331

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Micro The Maniac » Wed Jul 14, 2021 13:57

ChrisH wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:50
Whilst the project would have restrictions on HGVs using lane three, there would be no other restrictions on HGV movements along the route. While the new route would be designated as an A road, there will be prohibitions on pedestrians, low-powered motorcycles, learner drivers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles.
Why are learner drivers excluded from a APDC... they're allowed on motorways now...

User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 9960
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by c2R » Wed Jul 14, 2021 14:33

Micro The Maniac wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 13:57
ChrisH wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:50
Whilst the project would have restrictions on HGVs using lane three, there would be no other restrictions on HGV movements along the route. While the new route would be designated as an A road, there will be prohibitions on pedestrians, low-powered motorcycles, learner drivers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles.
Why are learner drivers excluded from a APDC... they're allowed on motorways now...
Because the legislation says so - it's the motorways traffic legislation that is reviewed, not the special roads legislation.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/222/made
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31249
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Wed Jul 14, 2021 15:11

WHBM wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 13:03
As the Lower Thames Crossing has been designed with a 70mph speed limit to provide fast and reliable journeys, it would not be safe for slower users to share the road.
Bit of a concern about future speed limits elsewhere if this is HE's attitude to the large amount of rural all-purpose dual carriageways they manage.
design features to encourage safe lane changes and adequate capacity for predicted traffic levels ... Signage would include variable speed limits to manage traffic flow
Seems inconsistent, why are variable speed limits needed to manage the flow if capacity is adequate for predicted traffic levels.
restrictions on HGVs using lane three ... prohibitions on pedestrians, low-powered motorcycles, learner drivers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles ... designed with a 70mph speed limit
One really wonders why there needs to be a whole slew of restrictions instead of just classifying it as Motorway. Is there some HE/DfT policy that they don't do Motorways any more ? Are there some additional costs of classifying it as a Motorway that are avoided by not doing so ?
Either:

1. HE's project managers understand the legislative requirements for motorways any more despite having built one in North Yorkshire very recently. It's apparently easier for them to pursue an A road designation and apply TROs through the Development Consent Order than to do a proper job in the first place.

2. They know with the smart motorway backlash that opening a new motorway with no hard shoulder is business death, and PR is of more concern to the very top of HE than actually engineering a safe road network.

Either way it doesn't reflect well.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by thatapanydude » Wed Jul 14, 2021 15:24

Bryn666 wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 15:11
They know with the smart motorway backlash that opening a new motorway with no hard shoulder is business death, and PR is of more concern to the very top of HE than actually engineering a safe road network.

I second this that opening a brand new motorway with no hard shoulders is not good PR. Given that the restrictions will be in place what compelling reasons are for it to be a motorway. I would argue instead that the A2 with HS ought to be a motorway.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1

User avatar
EpicChef
Assistant Site Manager
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by EpicChef » Wed Jul 14, 2021 20:00

thatapanydude wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 15:24
Bryn666 wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 15:11
They know with the smart motorway backlash that opening a new motorway with no hard shoulder is business death, and PR is of more concern to the very top of HE than actually engineering a safe road network.

I second this that opening a brand new motorway with no hard shoulders is not good PR. Given that the restrictions will be in place what compelling reasons are for it to be a motorway. I would argue instead that the A2 with HS ought to be a motorway.
They just need to suck it up, and take the A14 and this new project and put in some stopped vehicle detection.
People aren't dumb. One death on the A14 and the residents will want the same treatment as managed motorways, because they are smart people with common sense that want a rational and safe strategic road network.
Smart motorways are like asbestos: they're the best option until suddenly they're not.

Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: B3272/A325/A331

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Micro The Maniac » Wed Jul 14, 2021 20:09

Bryn666 wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 15:11
2. They know with the smart motorway backlash that opening a new motorway with no hard shoulder is business death, and PR is of more concern to the very top of HE than actually engineering a safe road network.
Isn't it utterly perverse that opening a new motorway with no hard shoulder is "business death" but opening EXACTLY the same road but with green signs is OK.

That is the case with the A14, and appears to be the case here.

Utterly crazy.

User avatar
Bryn666
Member
Posts: 31249
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 » Wed Jul 14, 2021 20:11

Micro The Maniac wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 20:09
Bryn666 wrote:
Wed Jul 14, 2021 15:11
2. They know with the smart motorway backlash that opening a new motorway with no hard shoulder is business death, and PR is of more concern to the very top of HE than actually engineering a safe road network.
Isn't it utterly perverse that opening a new motorway with no hard shoulder is "business death" but opening EXACTLY the same road but with green signs is OK.

That is the case with the A14, and appears to be the case here.

Utterly crazy.
I long since gave up trying to find logic in any of it.
Bryn
Traffic/Road Safety Dogsbody and General Grumpy Now-a-Thirtysomething Man
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6281
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal » Wed Jul 21, 2021 14:30

I had a look at the updated traffic projections in the Operations Report, specifically "Traffic volumes as percentage of road capacity", which I think is a good measure, basically because what matters is whether capacity can handle volumes rather than the absolute size of increases and decreases. Here are the "without" and "with" maps for the AM peak (trends are similar for interpeak and PM peak, though congestion is generally lower at those times).

2029 AM without - Copy.JPG
2029 AM with - Copy.JPG

The LTC itself is fine in 2029 (as you'd certainly hope!). There are also big decreases west of the LTC, on the A2, M25, A282 and A13.

The most significant increases seem to be on the M25 north of where the LTC merges in and on the A13 east of the LTC. The M2 east of the LTC is also affected though it still only goes into "yellow" volume to capacity (75-85%) as initial capacity (D4M) is high relative to volume.

This all makes total sense - basically the roads bypassed reduce in volume while the roads that the LTC feeds directly into increase. The A229 at Blue Bell Hill is the usual focus of concern, but while there is some small effect there, the LTC is too remote to make much difference.

So the priority seems to be M25 widening north of the LTC and A13 widening east of it as far as the D4 at Pitsea. Indeed it looks like the current D3 widening up to Stanford (which is included in the model) should have been D4...

There's also a Wider Network Impacts report, which includes some "initial areas considered for intervention" - mostly small scale junction improvements, though with some hint of widening the M25 and A13 in future RIS, as well as a "Network-wide review across the South East, assessing trunking or detrunking options", which I'd not heard of before. (The A13/A1014 trunking were already known.)

Wider Network Impacts interventions - Copy.JPG

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... update.pdf#
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.co ... 20Plan.pdf

User avatar
RichardA35
Site Manager
Posts: 4652
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by RichardA35 » Wed Jul 21, 2021 16:26

jackal wrote:
Wed Jul 21, 2021 14:30
...So the priority seems to be M25 widening north of the LTC and A13 widening east of it as far as the D4 at Pitsea. Indeed it looks like the current D3 widening up to Stanford (which is included in the model) should have been D4...
I'll be blowed if I'm getting those gas mains moved again. Serious land take issues with D4, D3 barely fits.
jackal wrote:
Wed Jul 21, 2021 14:30
There's also a Wider Network Impacts report, which includes some "initial areas considered for intervention" - mostly small scale junction improvements, though with some hint of widening the M25 and A13 in future RIS, as well as a "Network-wide review across the South East, assessing trunking or detrunking options", which I'd not heard of before. (The A13/A1014 trunking were already known.)
The A1014 junction was sized for the port development with little if any spare for any local developments as that would be someone else's problem. Similarly at Orsett Cock the new interchange was designed to creep past opening year at minimum cost and it will be someone else's problem to make it work after that if they want to plug more traffic into it.

Herned
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Herned » Wed Jul 21, 2021 19:02

jackal wrote:
Wed Jul 21, 2021 14:30
This all makes total sense - basically the roads bypassed reduce in volume while the roads that the LTC feeds directly into increase. The A229 at Blue Bell Hill is the usual focus of concern, but while there is some small effect there, the LTC is too remote to make much difference.
I'm a bit surprised they don't expect more of an effect on the A229. At the moment there is nothing in it distance-wise between staying on the M20 or switching to the A2, but with the LTC it is 7ish miles shorter, or 10 minutes in an HGV which I would have thought significant enough to make most drivers switch routes

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6281
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal » Wed Jul 21, 2021 20:55

Herned wrote:
Wed Jul 21, 2021 19:02
jackal wrote:
Wed Jul 21, 2021 14:30
This all makes total sense - basically the roads bypassed reduce in volume while the roads that the LTC feeds directly into increase. The A229 at Blue Bell Hill is the usual focus of concern, but while there is some small effect there, the LTC is too remote to make much difference.
I'm a bit surprised they don't expect more of an effect on the A229. At the moment there is nothing in it distance-wise between staying on the M20 or switching to the A2, but with the LTC it is 7ish miles shorter, or 10 minutes in an HGV which I would have thought significant enough to make most drivers switch routes
If you look at the LTC southbound, for instance, virtually all of the traffic will join from the M25 or A13 - the only other input I think is the weird imbalanced A1089 U-turn. So it's pretty obvious that there will be big increases on the M25 or A13.

But on the Kent side traffic spreads out on the M2, A2 Londonbound, A2 Rochester, A289, A228, and various local junctions before it ever gets near the A229.

The LTC is basically a funnel with the narrow end in Essex and the wide end in Kent.

Herned
Member
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Herned » Wed Jul 21, 2021 23:08

Fair enough then. One other place it may impact is the A12/A130 junction, as that route will become a lot more attractive - Does the modelling go that far out?

Post Reply