New Lower Thames Crossing

[Jeni]

They should have built the northern end with an escape route onto the A460, which from there you would have been able to get back onto the M6 easily.

What about people who missed that turning too?

[A9NWIL]

They should have built the northern end with an escape route onto the A460, which from there you would have been able to get back onto the M6 easily.

What about people who missed that turning too?

My point is you would get a second chance, as you do when going northbound on the M42 section.

[A9NWIL]

They should have built the northern end with an escape route onto the A460, which from there you would have been able to get back onto the M6 easily.

Expensive and bad for business. Why give unobservant (or dumb) people an escape route when you can make them pay !!

Maybe but that really isnt fair, they also made the M6Toll the mainline at great expense too, so you have no choice but to TOTSO if you want to stay on the regular M6! They should have at the least had it widen out to 6 lanes and spilt 3 lanes each, with the left three being the Toll road and the right hand three being the normal M6.

[c2R]

But that would be a lot of additional cost including possibly bridges and more land take, to serve no real purpose - a complete waste of time and money to serve an occasional really dim person.

[Berk]

They should have built the northern end with an escape route onto the A460, which from there you would have been able to get back onto the M6 easily.

Expensive and bad for business. Why give unobservant (or dumb) people an escape route when you can make them pay !!

Maybe but that really isnt fair, they also made the M6Toll the mainline at great expense too, so you have no choice but to TOTSO if you want to stay on the regular M6! They should have at the least had it widen out to 6 lanes and spilt 3 lanes each, with the left three being the Toll road and the right hand three being the normal M6.

Its been like that for 15 years, and everything was picked up back then. If they haven’t seen good to fix it by now, I doubt they ever will.

If anything does need fixing, that is. The M6T to M54 link is more pressing...

[Chris5156]

Apologies, administrative is what I meant rather than legal. I am presuming this misinterpretation has happened many times before?

Don’t worry, I wasn’t having a go at you personally - but it does come up fairly often, I think because people like the idea that there’s a secret “real” number for a motorway that nobody knows about! The reality is (as usual) a lot more mundane than that.

[Jayck]

Why not just call it the M2?

Would make sense. Seeing as it has never officially been defined.

I don't like that idea. I always think of the A2/M2 as one road, it's the same carriageway and quality from the M25 Eastbound and I wouldn't be surprised if the Section of the A2 between the M25 and M2 gets Motorway status in which case the LTC would need a separate number. Also, call me a purist but I have a dislike for Motorway numbers which don't follow the main carriageway (I'm looking at you M621, M62, and M11-A14(M)), it just doesn't make logical sense to me.

[Clygro]

Maybe something like M21,M22,M24,etc aka plenty of M2x or M2xx numbers work

[Micro The Maniac]

Maybe something like M21,M22,M24,etc aka plenty of M2x or M2xx numbers work

As a more slightly (ahem) radical suggestion, the LTC should take the M25 designation, and include a north/south link from Thong to the end of the M26 (the whole of the existing M26 renumbered as M25) thus completing the ring!

The existing M25 (from Chevening to the LTC merge, over the A282) could be A282(M) or M26? Or intriguingly, A25(M) ?

[roadtester]

I used the Dartford Crossing both ways last week, and it had me thinking that the new crossing can't come soon enough.

I love the current bridge and tunnels from a sabristic point of view with their history of adaptation and so on, but they're not really good enough for London's motorway ring, are they?

The bridge has steep approaches and a 50 limit while the tunnels are height and speed restricted and having four lanes split to 2+2 always seems to cause delays despite the removal of physical tolling infrastructure. And there are still other headaches - e.g. convoying tankers.

Really, the crossings should be more like the second Severn Bridge, i.e. you just sweep through them at 70 mph, without compromises.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously for traffic between the channel ports and points north of London, the answer is the new crossing, and that will take quite a bit of pressure off the existing crossings, making them a bit more bearable. But in the long run, I suspect further fixes will be needed.

[jackal]

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously for traffic between the channel ports and points north of London, the answer is the new crossing, and that will take quite a bit of pressure off the existing crossings, making them a bit more bearable. But in the long run, I suspect further fixes will be needed.

I've always thought they will need to improve the existing crossing. The projections show that after the LTC opens, congestion at Dartford will still be around 2015 levels. As you say, it is fundamentally not fit for purpose, especially northbound.

We actually have a pretty good idea of what they might eventually come up with as route 1 from the non-statutory consultation was an online improvement. It was a really tidy solution IMO.

There was to be a new four lane bridge west of the tunnels for northbound traffic. The eastern tunnel would be converted to southbound running, allowing D4+D2 over the crossing. The tunnels would essentially provide two express lanes in each direction with no access to J31 or J1a, with the main capacity on the bridges. The approaches would also be widened to 10-16 lanes and there would be new freeflow links at the A13 interchange.

See detailed plans here, pp. 13-15 (large file).

[roadtester]

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously for traffic between the channel ports and points north of London, the answer is the new crossing, and that will take quite a bit of pressure off the existing crossings, making them a bit more bearable. But in the long run, I suspect further fixes will be needed.

I've always thought they will need to improve the Dartford Crossing itself. The projections show that after the LTC opens, congestion at Dartford will still be around 2015 levels. As you say, the Dartford Crossing is fundamentally not fit for purpose, especially northbound.

We actually have a pretty good idea of what they might eventually come up with as route 1 from the non-statutory consultation was an online improvement. It was a really tidy solution IMO.

There was to be a new four lane bridge west of the tunnels for northbound traffic. The eastern tunnel would be converted to southbound running, allowing D4+D2 over the crossing. The tunnels would essentially provide two express lanes in each direction with no access to J31 or J1a, with the main capacity on the bridges. The approaches would also be widened to 10-16 lanes and there would be new freeflow links at the A13 interchange.

See detailed plans here, pp. 13-15 (large file).

Thanks - I don't think I'd looked at that in detail before. It looks like a well thought-out plan to increase the capacity by quite a lot and streamline the whole thing, without discarding any of the existing investment.

[Bryn666]

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously for traffic between the channel ports and points north of London, the answer is the new crossing, and that will take quite a bit of pressure off the existing crossings, making them a bit more bearable. But in the long run, I suspect further fixes will be needed.

I've always thought they will need to improve the Dartford Crossing itself. The projections show that after the LTC opens, congestion at Dartford will still be around 2015 levels. As you say, the Dartford Crossing is fundamentally not fit for purpose, especially northbound.

We actually have a pretty good idea of what they might eventually come up with as route 1 from the non-statutory consultation was an online improvement. It was a really tidy solution IMO.

There was to be a new four lane bridge west of the tunnels for northbound traffic. The eastern tunnel would be converted to southbound running, allowing D4+D2 over the crossing. The tunnels would essentially provide two express lanes in each direction with no access to J31 or J1a, with the main capacity on the bridges. The approaches would also be widened to 10-16 lanes and there would be new freeflow links at the A13 interchange.

See detailed plans here, pp. 13-15 (large file).

Thanks - I don't think I'd looked at that in detail before. It looks like a well thought-out plan to increase the capacity by quite a lot and streamline the whole thing, without discarding any of the existing investment.

I've seen worse ideas, truth be told.

[Phil]

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously for traffic between the channel ports and points north of London, the answer is the new crossing, and that will take quite a bit of pressure off the existing crossings, making them a bit more bearable. But in the long run, I suspect further fixes will be needed.

I've always thought they will need to improve the Dartford Crossing itself. The projections show that after the LTC opens, congestion at Dartford will still be around 2015 levels. As you say, the Dartford Crossing is fundamentally not fit for purpose, especially northbound.

We actually have a pretty good idea of what they might eventually come up with as route 1 from the non-statutory consultation was an online improvement. It was a really tidy solution IMO.

There was to be a new four lane bridge west of the tunnels for northbound traffic. The eastern tunnel would be converted to southbound running, allowing D4+D2 over the crossing. The tunnels would essentially provide two express lanes in each direction with no access to J31 or J1a, with the main capacity on the bridges. The approaches would also be widened to 10-16 lanes and there would be new freeflow links at the A13 interchange.

See detailed plans here, pp. 13-15 (large file).

Thanks - I don't think I'd looked at that in detail before. It looks like a well thought-out plan to increase the capacity by quite a lot and streamline the whole thing, without discarding any of the existing investment.

However it perpetuates the classic British 'putting all your eggs in one basket' mentality*

It only takes one significant incident and the whole thing gets shut causing chaos.

With the new crossing being completely separate if an incident affects Dartford then motorists don't have to be sent into London or go all the way round via Heathrow - they can hop downstream via high quality roads to by-pass the incident.

Similarly if the new crossing gets shut for any reason Dartford is still there to act as a back up.

* Which is one of the reasons I dislike the current Smart motorway fetish rather than investing in upgrading parallel or avoiding routes.

[RichardA35]

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously for traffic between the channel ports and points north of London, the answer is the new crossing, and that will take quite a bit of pressure off the existing crossings, making them a bit more bearable. But in the long run, I suspect further fixes will be needed.

I've always thought they will need to improve the existing crossing. The projections show that after the LTC opens, congestion at Dartford will still be around 2015 levels. As you say, it is fundamentally not fit for purpose, especially northbound.

We actually have a pretty good idea of what they might eventually come up with as route 1 from the non-statutory consultation was an online improvement. It was a really tidy solution IMO.

There was to be a new four lane bridge west of the tunnels for northbound traffic. The eastern tunnel would be converted to southbound running, allowing D4+D2 over the crossing. The tunnels would essentially provide two express lanes in each direction with no access to J31 or J1a, with the main capacity on the bridges. The approaches would also be widened to 10-16 lanes and there would be new freeflow links at the A13 interchange.

See detailed plans here, pp. 13-15 (large file).

I'd be interested in some other opinions on what I've thought to be some "mission creep" in the development of the LTC. We went from an initial "we need to relieve Dartford Crossings" D2M with significant relief of the crossings to the latest "Tilbury 2 access road and local area development corridor" D3M and along the way the relief of Dartford has reduced so that as stated above a separate Dartford relief scheme will likely be needed.

[roadtester]

However it perpetuates the classic British 'putting all your eggs in one basket' mentality*

It only takes one significant incident and the whole thing gets shut causing chaos.

On the other hand, having two bridges, two tunnels and eight lanes to play with does give a certain amount of redundancy and flexibility.

[Phil]

However it perpetuates the classic British 'putting all your eggs in one basket' mentality*

It only takes one significant incident and the whole thing gets shut causing chaos.

On the other hand, having two bridges, two tunnels and eight lanes to play with does give a certain amount of redundancy and flexibility.

I was thinking more about the approach roads - particularly the south side which was planned to be a single 5 lane carriageway in each direction......

The other aspect to consider is high winds - in such a situation with both bridges shut you go down from 6 to 2 lanes! However the lower Thames crossing being a tunnel means it will be able to stay open in all weathers - including when the QE2 bridge at Dartford gets shut.

[Clygro]

Maybe something like M21,M22,M24,etc aka plenty of M2x or M2xx numbers work

As a more slightly (ahem) radical suggestion, the LTC should take the M25 designation, and include a north/south link from Thong to the end of the M26 (the whole of the existing M26 renumbered as M25) thus completing the ring!

The existing M25 (from Chevening to the LTC merge, over the A282) could be A282(M) or M26? Or intriguingly, A25(M) ?

I think A21(M) could work, and this is not a bad idea. A few changes would be necessary (such as widening the M26)

[A9NWIL]

I'm not sure what the solution is. Obviously for traffic between the channel ports and points north of London, the answer is the new crossing, and that will take quite a bit of pressure off the existing crossings, making them a bit more bearable. But in the long run, I suspect further fixes will be needed.

I've always thought they will need to improve the existing crossing. The projections show that after the LTC opens, congestion at Dartford will still be around 2015 levels. As you say, it is fundamentally not fit for purpose, especially northbound.

We actually have a pretty good idea of what they might eventually come up with as route 1 from the non-statutory consultation was an online improvement. It was a really tidy solution IMO.

There was to be a new four lane bridge west of the tunnels for northbound traffic. The eastern tunnel would be converted to southbound running, allowing D4+D2 over the crossing. The tunnels would essentially provide two express lanes in each direction with no access to J31 or J1a, with the main capacity on the bridges. The approaches would also be widened to 10-16 lanes and there would be new freeflow links at the A13 interchange.

See detailed plans here, pp. 13-15 (large file).

I would personally switch the bridges and the tunnels around, by that I mean the bridges become the mainline and take M25 as their designation with no access to the two junctions either side.
The tunnels would remain as the A282 and take the local traffic.
The M25 bridges would connect to the A2 and the A13 as the immediate junctions either side.
Building a bridge above the tunnels would be a good idea and would be able to be built while the current arrangement is still running.

[jackal]

The southbound tunnel has the northbound tunnel one side and the bridge the other, so is impractical as an access point for local traffic. Likewise for the northbound tunnel if a new bridge were built west of it (which is really the only place the bridge could go - bridge foundations and tunnels don't really mix).