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
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16976
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris5156 »

jackal wrote:That seems quite similar to CV2...
Now I read that again, yes it does! I wonder how close I am?
Truvelo wrote:It would be possible to retain the southbound A229 freeflow in Chris' design without needing any additional bridges.
Yes, it would, which would be an advantage. You could also include an exit from the northbound A229 to the new bridge, so that traffic staying on the A229 north towards Chatham would only use one roundabout and not two - I didn't add that to the drawing because it was difficult to show the detail.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

My best guess for CV2:
M2 A229 CV2 - Copy.png
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Scratchwood »

http://www.gravesendreporter.co.uk/news ... -1-5054793

Interestingly, in Dartford it seems that Labour may have lost votes as during the election campaign they suggested that the scheme might be reexamined which went down like a lead balloon...
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

I can't say this was a selling point for Labour, and I live nowhere near Dartford. It's all very well blathering on about investing in infrastructure, but if your first action in government would be to put exhaustively examined and consulted options on hold for re-examination, you're doing more harm than good. This country has no shortage of Feasibility Studies, Technical Appraisal Reports, Scheme Assessment Reports, and Public Consultation Reports; it's actually building stuff that we're less good at.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

From an interview with HE's CEO:
He added that for RIS 2 Highways England is looking at bringing in more private finance into its programme.
‘We are looking at a special procurement vehicle for the Lower Thames Crossing rather than fit it into the framework. The tunnel will be built with public funds but we are considering whether the roads would be built using private finance.’
http://highwaysmagazine.co.uk/jim-osull ... e-up-call/
User avatar
Brenley Corner
Member
Posts: 3860
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 19:28
Location: nr. Canterbury, Kent

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Brenley Corner »

A design update apparently....three lanes from A13 to A2 including the tunnels, a couple of junction omitted, and a redesigned junction with the M25 in Essex.

LINK to local news article

Tony
Brenley Corner: congesting traffic since 1963; discussing roads since 2002
User avatar
MotorwayPlannerM21
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 19:08
Location: vaguely near London
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by MotorwayPlannerM21 »

Brenley Corner wrote:A design update apparently....three lanes from A13 to A2 including the tunnels, a couple of junction omitted, and a redesigned junction with the M25 in Essex.

LINK to local news article

Tony
I think it's a good idea to remove local junctions, but option C is clearly superior than plugging it into the A2. It defeats the point of a more easterly crossing if access to it is so close to Dartford, in my opinion.
3 lanes is a very welcome update though
"All roads lead to Rome"
What about the M25?

The A205 - The road to... oh wait I should've turned right back there!
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Here's the revised route:
LTC revised - Copy.PNG
Details from HE (my comments in bold):

M25 – New junction design to cross under the M25 to reduce the visual impact.

Widening of a section of the M25 to improve traffic flow.
Logical but omission of this essential element in the consultation made option 3 artificially cheap.

Ockendon – Realignment to avoid going across the landfill.

A13 and A128 – Redesign of the junction with the A13 to reduce congestion. This would allow us to remove the A128 junction from the proposed design. Seems to refer to putting the LTC-A13E movements at the main interchange rather than via Brentwood Road and Orsett Cock. Good!

New junction near Tilbury – A new junction near east Tilbury and link road to Tilbury to improve traffic flow and provide an alternative route for HGVs.Fairly logical, though again it seems a very stripped down version of option 3 was presented at consultation to increase its value for money.

A226 junction – Removal of this junction to reduce the traffic impact on local roads.

A2 – New junction design and widening of A2 to M2, junction 1 to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.
Presumably a cheapo widening to D5 using the HS. The junction had been planned as a 30mph trumpet so hopefully we're now looking at 50mph semi-directional T or similar.

Future proofing – Three lanes rather than two for at least some of the route.
Excellent.

Tunnel portals – Continuing our assessment about the length of the tunnel and where to locate the entrances.

http://roads.highways.gov.uk/lower-tham ... n-my-area/
Last edited by jackal on Thu Nov 02, 2017 13:26, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
ChrisH
Member
Posts: 3978
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by ChrisH »

jackal wrote:Here's the revised route:

A2 – New junction design and widening of A2 to M2, junction 1 to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.
Presumably a cheapo widening to D5 using the HS. The junction had been planned as a 30mph trumpet so hopefully we're now looking at 50mph semi-directional T or similar.
If you look at the revised red-line drawings, they do indicate a quite large area adjacent to the A2 has been reserved for the junction.

I agree that overall these changes are pretty good. But the overall route does seem to be very wiggly now - hopefully it should still provide good journey time savings.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35936
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

The 30mph trumpet wouldn't bother me as that is still better than a two bridge roundabout!

Ideally semi-direct connectors would be used but given how rigid the DMRB is watch there be some proviso that stops a logical junction design :roll:
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

A bit of sleuthing suggests that there may be extra land take to the east but not the west.
WSL - Copy.PNG
WSL boundary - Copy.PNG
I wonder if they'll keep the tight loop but provide a proper semi-directional slip for A2wb>LTC. I've seen this layout in the US, though I can't think where exactly.
WSL revised - Copy.png
A9NWIL
Member
Posts: 3319
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by A9NWIL »

jackal wrote:Here's the revised route:

LTC revised - Copy.PNG
Details from HE (my comments in bold):

M25 – New junction design to cross under the M25 to reduce the visual impact.

Widening of a section of the M25 to improve traffic flow.
Logical but omission of this essential element in the consultation made option 3 artificially cheap.

Ockendon – Realignment to avoid going across the landfill.

A13 and A128 – Redesign of the junction with the A13 to reduce congestion. This would allow us to remove the A128 junction from the proposed design. Seems to refer to putting the LTC-A13E movements at the main interchange rather than via Brentwood Road and Orsett Cock. Good!

New junction near Tilbury – A new junction near east Tilbury and link road to Tilbury to improve traffic flow and provide an alternative route for HGVs.Fairly logical, though again it seems a very stripped down version of option 3 was presented at consultation to increase its value for money.

A226 junction – Removal of this junction to reduce the traffic impact on local roads.

A2 – New junction design and widening of A2 to M2, junction 1 to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow.
Presumably a cheapo widening to D5 using the HS. The junction had been planned as a 30mph trumpet so hopefully we're now looking at 50mph semi-directional T or similar.

Future proofing – Three lanes rather than two for at least some of the route.
Excellent.

Tunnel portals – Continuing our assessment about the length of the tunnel and where to locate the entrances.

http://roads.highways.gov.uk/lower-tham ... n-my-area/
Great, now we just need a link with the M26 (which will need widening to four lanes each way) and M20, reroute the M25 along that and the new link. The remaining bits of M25 that are either side of the Dartford crossing would need sorting out, the northern bit could become a spur as it would be very short, but the southern bit would need a new number, so how about using M26?
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
User avatar
frediculous_biggs
President
Posts: 2564
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:25
Location: Sandy

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by frediculous_biggs »

These changes all seem very sensible to me, but I still struggle to see where the traffic will go when it reaches the M2 - a connection to the M20, and hence Dover & Channel Tunnel, is needed with this project.
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!
User avatar
MotorwayPlannerM21
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 19:08
Location: vaguely near London
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by MotorwayPlannerM21 »

frediculous_biggs wrote:These changes all seem very sensible to me, but I still struggle to see where the traffic will go when it reaches the M2 - a connection to the M20, and hence Dover & Channel Tunnel, is needed with this project.
I very much agree.
I also think that this would be better served by the LTC meeting the M2 at J1.
"All roads lead to Rome"
What about the M25?

The A205 - The road to... oh wait I should've turned right back there!
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35936
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

Presumably improvements to the A229 will be a separate scheme given it appears to have been discounted from the initial LTC plans.

I still think that unless this is a blue line it will still end up with people staying on the M25. However the deletion of local junctions will at least make it harder for the developers to come and plonk an entire town onto a dumbbell interchange.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Yes, they've lost two local interchanges, but they've gained one at Tilbury right next to the crossing itself. Very likely to be built as a dumbbell with the eastern side 'empty'. Could be another Bluewater/Lakeside in the making...

Relatedly, the redline drawing shows a bit dangling off to the east just north of the crossing (near where it says 'River Thames'). The connecting strip is very narrow and it isn't quite aligned with the Tilbury link road to the west so it may just be for a works compound.

http://assets.highways.gov.uk/roads/roa ... undary.pdf
User avatar
6637
Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:14
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by 6637 »

lotrjw wrote:Future proofing – Three lanes rather than two for at least some of the route.
Excellent.
I can't believe they were previously planning to make this link only D2. Given the location, even D3M throughout seems like it might not be enough.

Not to mention that given the abundance of open space near this link road, it's inevitable that sooner or later someone will suggest building a new London airport east of Tilbury or Gravesend...
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

There was a "Robots, Routes, and Revenue" event today giving more details on the scheme design and planning. It apparently included a flythrough of the updated route but it doesn't seem to be online yet. There are a few more details here:
It was also announced that another roundabout would be put in place to connect the A13 and the A1013, which run adjacent to each other.

Matt Jackson, from the Thames Crossing Action Group, voiced his concerns over the proposed new roundabout, believing that it will not alleviate congestion in the area.

During the meeting, Mr Jackson said: "I have some severe concerns with them joining that road.

"That is not 'getting Thurrock moving' and we need to keep an eye on that."

Addressing this concern, Peter Smith, Chair of the Lower Thames Crossing Task Force, said: "The crossover traffic will probably be the stig of the problem with this proposed road.

"So, in answer to your question, yes, we will be on it like a car bonnet."

A spokesman for Highways England said during the meeting: "We know that air quality is poorer when cars are stationary.

"So we need to make sure that all of that traffic moves sensibly."

Highways England hope to begin the consultation process by the end of summer next year.

They hope to start working on the road by 2021, and they expect to finish work on the crossing by 2027.
http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/1 ... n_meeting/
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7600
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

The recently published Environmental Impact Assessment - Scoping Report includes drawings for the revised junctions.

The good: The A2 junction has been redesigned as a high speed semi-directional T. No complaints whatsoever.
Updated A2 junction - Copy.jpg
The bad: The new junction at the north end of the tunnel is a two-bridge roundabout, even though it only has three arms. I suspect the empty side is earmarked for development. No image required, you know what a two-bridge roundabout looks like.

The ugly: The A13 junction did look like this:
LTC A13 interchange - Copy.jpg
It has been redesigned as... this thing:
Updated A13 junction - Copy.jpg
Comparing the new design to the old one you can see the following:

+ A13 east<>LTC south movements are now freeflow, with the left turn braided to remove weaving with the onslip from Orsett Cock roundabout.
- Instead of being freeflow, all the A1089 movements go through a roundabout, which also has the A1013 going through it, lengthening journey times on both roads, and in particular from London to the docks.
- It looks like you can't do the reverse movement, or A1089<>A13 east, at all! What were they thinking?
- Even worse, the A13wb>LTCnb movement has also been lost, defeating a major purpose of the entire scheme - relief of M25 J30 and the M25 and A13 adjacent to it.
- In general, it looks like the plan is to stuff missing movements through the new roundabout and Orsett Cock, new congestion blackspots in the making.

No. Just no.
User avatar
MotorwayPlannerM21
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 19:08
Location: vaguely near London
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by MotorwayPlannerM21 »

I think a more easterly route would be better, running from M2 J1 to the M11, either between J7 and J8, or J8 and J9, utilising part of the A130 as part of the route. It would avoid the more built up areas that the current route would run near.
Not that I think it would be wise to start the whole thing again.
"All roads lead to Rome"
What about the M25?

The A205 - The road to... oh wait I should've turned right back there!
Post Reply