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
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Scratchwood »

Phil wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 16:26
roadtester wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:38
jackal wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:18
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.
Agreed

It's awful in Dartford when the A282 is blocked (often for an accident) as the traffic just goes through the town instead with nowhere to go. I'm not sure a TWELVE lane crossing of the river in one place makes any sense, as it still will be vulnerable to accidents/incidents on the approach roads

It's massively different on the Essex side, but on the Kent side any widening on the approach road would be very disruptive as it goes past a residential area. The air quality is bad enough there as it is too.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Scratchwood wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:47
Phil wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 16:26
roadtester wrote: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:38

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.
Agreed

It's awful in Dartford when the A282 is blocked (often for an accident) as the traffic just goes through the town instead with nowhere to go. I'm not sure a TWELVE lane crossing of the river in one place makes any sense, as it still will be vulnerable to accidents/incidents on the approach roads

It's massively different on the Essex side, but on the Kent side any widening on the approach road would be very disruptive as it goes past a residential area. The air quality is bad enough there as it is too.
But surely most of the A282 incidents are due to either a tunnel blockage or bridge closure. Both would be eliminated or dramatically reduced in severity by the 2016 4+2 arrangement. In particular restricting the tunnels to (effectively) lanes 5 and 6 so HGVs never going near them would prevent many incidents from ever happening.

The approaches to an upgraded Dartford crossing would be rather better than most as there would be multiple carriageways going back a junction in each direction, allowing considerable redundancy. Of course a blockage further along the M25 is possible but that's true of any motorway anywhere.

That's not to say that the LTC isn't necessary. But it does not remove the need for, and benefits of, a future Dartford improvement similar to the 2016 design.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

Apart from the environmental impact of a much bigger Dartford Crossing would not be all that palatable to residents who will be exposed to additional traffic noise and pollution.

How many trips across the Thames at this point are actually local, so if additional capacity for bikes, walking, and public transport was provided that it would free up the existing for strategic national traffic? I'd be very keen to know. It's all very well saying "the previous bike bus didn't work", that was because it was infrequent and inconvenient. Compare the Tyne cycle and foot tunnels which are well liked and well used.

The answer to Dartford is not simply "MOAR ROADS".
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
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW »

jackal wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 16:45
But surely most of the A282 incidents are due to either a tunnel blockage or bridge closure. Both would be eliminated or dramatically reduced in severity by the 2016 4+2 arrangement. In particular restricting the tunnels to (effectively) lanes 5 and 6 so HGVs never going near them would prevent many incidents from ever happening.

The approaches to an upgraded Dartford crossing would be rather better than most as there would be multiple carriageways going back a junction in each direction, allowing considerable redundancy. Of course a blockage further along the M25 is possible but that's true of any motorway anywhere.

That's not to say that the LTC isn't necessary. But it does not remove the need for, and benefits of, a future Dartford improvement similar to the 2016 design.
There does not seem to be the space to widen the A282 through southern Dartford unless you engage in wholesale demolition and air quality and traffic noise is already bad enough

In any case its far better to have a new separate crossing simply for resiliency. Any incident that closes the Dartford Crossing causes traffic chaos for the whole area and puts extra traffic on the M25. Sending traffic for the Channel crossing and Kent along a route that avoids the A282 completely seems like a wise move to me. All it takes is an HGV carrying a hazardous load to be involved in an incident and its gridlock time.

There is an an old proverb about all your eggs in one basket that applies here.
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 515
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Scratchwood »

Bryn666 wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 16:51 Apart from the environmental impact of a much bigger Dartford Crossing would not be all that palatable to residents who will be exposed to additional traffic noise and pollution.

How many trips across the Thames at this point are actually local, so if additional capacity for bikes, walking, and public transport was provided that it would free up the existing for strategic national traffic? I'd be very keen to know. It's all very well saying "the previous bike bus didn't work", that was because it was infrequent and inconvenient. Compare the Tyne cycle and foot tunnels which are well liked and well used.

The answer to Dartford is not simply "MOAR ROADS".
The number of local trips will be minimal when compared to the Tyne crossings as the Tyne is so much narrower, and there's relatively little on the north side. With say the Mersey crossings, both sides are heavily populated.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

KeithW wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 19:22
jackal wrote: Wed Apr 17, 2019 16:45
But surely most of the A282 incidents are due to either a tunnel blockage or bridge closure. Both would be eliminated or dramatically reduced in severity by the 2016 4+2 arrangement. In particular restricting the tunnels to (effectively) lanes 5 and 6 so HGVs never going near them would prevent many incidents from ever happening.

The approaches to an upgraded Dartford crossing would be rather better than most as there would be multiple carriageways going back a junction in each direction, allowing considerable redundancy. Of course a blockage further along the M25 is possible but that's true of any motorway anywhere.

That's not to say that the LTC isn't necessary. But it does not remove the need for, and benefits of, a future Dartford improvement similar to the 2016 design.
There does not seem to be the space to widen the A282 through southern Dartford unless you engage in wholesale demolition and air quality and traffic noise is already bad enough

In any case its far better to have a new separate crossing simply for resiliency. Any incident that closes the Dartford Crossing causes traffic chaos for the whole area and puts extra traffic on the M25. Sending traffic for the Channel crossing and Kent along a route that avoids the A282 completely seems like a wise move to me. All it takes is an HGV carrying a hazardous load to be involved in an incident and its gridlock time.

There is an an old proverb about all your eggs in one basket that applies here.
Demolitions would be minimal. See the plans linked on the previous page.

And it's not all your eggs in one basket if it's a new, separate carriageway.

To repeat, I am very much in favour of the new crossing. We just need to be realistic about what it will and won't achieve for Dartford.

Likewise (to respond to an earlier comment) for NMUs and public transport. It'd be two miles just to do the crossing and approach ramps, and it wouldn't be pleasant to traverse or cheap to provide. Given HGV volumes and average journey lengths I doubt you could realistically get more than 1% of traffic off the crossing with better walking and cycling facilities. And the best thing you could do for buses is increase crossing capacity.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

HE reckon that the LTC will reduce traffic at Dartford by 22%.

So why would an extra bridge be necessary unless you intend to induce local vehicle growth?

It also suggests that rather more than 1% of journeys would be made by other modes if the provision was there.

Putting more lanes in Dartford is a political non starter which is why the LTC has grown to be the motorway project it now is. The answer for the A282 is traffic reduction.
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
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31476
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by roadtester »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 06:46 HE reckon that the LTC will reduce traffic at Dartford by 22%.

So why would an extra bridge be necessary unless you intend to induce local vehicle growth?

It also suggests that rather more than 1% of journeys would be made by other modes if the provision was there.

Putting more lanes in Dartford is a political non starter which is why the LTC has grown to be the motorway project it now is. The answer for the A282 is traffic reduction.
Because the current crossing isn't up to standard for the ring motorway for the biggest city in Europe and is a constant source of delay even since the removal of tolling infrastructure.

It's been bodged from the beginning and never been done properly. Probably, a modern six or eight lane crossing should have been designed in as part of the M25 from the beginning, rather than co-opting the tunnel, which could then have been left as a completely separate route for local crossers.

I'm not sure taking 22 per cent away fundamentally alters the problems - even assuming that's a net reduction over today's levels if there is further growth between now and the opening of the LTC.

In terms of capacity, I don't think the problem is the number of lanes in each direction - there are four already, after all. It's to do with the inherent crapness of, in particular, the tunnels, which weren't built with anything like today's layout/conditions/vehicles/flows in mind.

I'm not sure an upgrade really feeds local traffic growth, given the crossing will presumably still be tolled and a hassle to use - if less of a hassle than now.
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW »

jackal wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 00:09

There does not seem to be the space to widen the A282 through southern Dartford unless you engage in wholesale demolition and air quality and traffic noise is already bad enough

In any case its far better to have a new separate crossing simply for resiliency. Any incident that closes the Dartford Crossing causes traffic chaos for the whole area and puts extra traffic on the M25. Sending traffic for the Channel crossing and Kent along a route that avoids the A282 completely seems like a wise move to me. All it takes is an HGV carrying a hazardous load to be involved in an incident and its gridlock time.


Demolitions would be minimal. See the plans linked on the previous page.

And it's not all your eggs in one basket if it's a new, separate carriageway.

To repeat, I am very much in favour of the new crossing. We just need to be realistic about what it will and won't achieve for Dartford.

Likewise (to respond to an earlier comment) for NMUs and public transport. It'd be two miles just to do the crossing and approach ramps, and it wouldn't be pleasant to traverse or cheap to provide. Given HGV volumes and average journey lengths I doubt you could realistically get more than 1% of traffic off the crossing with better walking and cycling facilities. And the best thing you could do for buses is increase crossing capacity.
The NMU traffic is indeed minimal but the reality remains that you have to widen the A228 between the southern end of the bridge and Junction 1b, that really is a choke point. I looked at the plans for the extra lane and they are taking about running 500 m of the road between retaining walls. If you dont carry out some demolition conditions for the people there will be intolerable. They will have a concrete canyon full of traffic running past their houses. I doubt one extra lane in each direction could cope with the traffic created by another bridge. Its nose to tail there often enough with the existing traffic even with the toll plaza gone. A serious incident such as a tanker on fire or even leaking there and it will all halt. Separate bridges and tunnels don't help if you have only one approach road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.44542 ... 6656?hl=en

In my opinion the last thing we want is more traffic funnelling into the Dartford area.
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31476
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by roadtester »

KeithW wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 09:00 I doubt one extra lane in each direction could cope with the traffic created by another bridge. Its nose to tail there often enough with the existing traffic even with the toll plaza gone. A serious incident such as a tanker on fire or even leaking there and it will all halt. Separate bridges and tunnels don't help if you have only one approach road.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.44542 ... 6656?hl=en

In my opinion the last thing we want is more traffic funnelling into the Dartford area.
I don't think we have much choice - that traffic is probably coming anyway - it's the M25 after all!

I think the reason for the nose to tail traffic is the higgledy-piggledy layout of the southern approach to the tunnels even with the removal of the toll booths, the speed limit in the tunnels, and the confusion of people shuffling around trying to decide which tunnel to use, as HGV drivers try to work out which tunnel they get through without getting stuck.

If most northbound traffic were swooping along at an uninterrupted 70 mph onto a modern bridge, the whole thing would be transformed, perhaps without the need for any widening on the southern approaches.
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Yes, you will always have 'nose to tail' conditions on the approach to a bottleneck, like the tunnels. For instance there is often congestion on dualled sections of the A303 on the approach to single carriageway. It's simple commonsense that the problem isn't actually the DC but rather the SC bottleneck. Likewise with the approach to the tunnels.

I expect the 22% is largely general traffic growth in the area - that would be 2% per year, roughly. But even if there is some 'induced' demand (people now consider taking jobs on the 'other side' of the river, there is more crossriver trade, etc.) are these social and economic benefits really such a bad thing?
User avatar
roadtester
Member
Posts: 31476
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
Location: Cambridgeshire

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by roadtester »

Yes - that's the point I was trying to make, albeit not very succinctly; I think the pinch point is the neck of the tunnels, not the already comparatively wide approach beforehand. That gets full because of the backing up from the real bottleneck, I think.
Electrophorus Electricus

Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:35 Yes, you will always have 'nose to tail' conditions on the approach to a bottleneck, like the tunnels. For instance there is often congestion on dualled sections of the A303 on the approach to single carriageway. It's simple commonsense that the problem isn't actually the DC but rather the SC bottleneck. Likewise with the approach to the tunnels.

I expect the 22% is largely general traffic growth in the area - that would be 2% per year, roughly. But even if there is some 'induced' demand (people now consider taking jobs on the 'other side' of the river, there is more crossriver trade, etc.) are these social and economic benefits really such a bad thing?
That depends if you put economic growth above all else, like climate change, fossil fuel use, etc.

I'm starting to sound like Helvellyn, but there is more to transport planning than BCRs.
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: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:33
jackal wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:35 Yes, you will always have 'nose to tail' conditions on the approach to a bottleneck, like the tunnels. For instance there is often congestion on dualled sections of the A303 on the approach to single carriageway. It's simple commonsense that the problem isn't actually the DC but rather the SC bottleneck. Likewise with the approach to the tunnels.

I expect the 22% is largely general traffic growth in the area - that would be 2% per year, roughly. But even if there is some 'induced' demand (people now consider taking jobs on the 'other side' of the river, there is more crossriver trade, etc.) are these social and economic benefits really such a bad thing?
That depends if you put economic growth above all else, like climate change, fossil fuel use, etc.

I'm starting to sound like Helvellyn, but there is more to transport planning than BCRs.
Not above climate change, but commensurable with it. That's what a BCR does with monetised environmental costs. Presumably you accept that significant economic benefits are sometimes worth some degree of environmental cost. If not then you're getting into 'gluing yourself to the DLR' territory, on the basis that even public transport has significant carbon emissions and is therefore the enemy.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

Significant benefits can be brought through providing non-motorised transport alternatives, as well as through trains/trams/people movers/other fancy stuff.

Any improvement at Dartford will be swamped by local movements and cause no help to the wider M25, that's why the LTC is being built. The same concerns are why all the road bridges/tunnels west of Dartford are trapped in development hell.
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
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW »

roadtester wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 12:08 Yes - that's the point I was trying to make, albeit not very succinctly; I think the pinch point is the neck of the tunnels, not the already comparatively wide approach beforehand. That gets full because of the backing up from the real bottleneck, I think.
Junction 1a is a choke point all on its own, when I have come through northbound I find traffic flows better after it. The whole area northbound is a messy mixture of major strategic road, industrial estate, car dealerships, retail outlets and residential areas masquerading as a strategic transport nexus.

Approaching 1a lane 1 peels off to the left onto the A206 meaning there is a drop from D4 to D3 then it actually becomes 2 D2 roads separated by a concrete barrier. Get all that nonsense out of the way and close the VOSA station, DHL distribution centre and retail parks which is also at that point and the traffic will flow a lot better. This junction makes Girton look like a masterpiece.

I am less than convinced that simply throwing more complexity at it by adding a bridge will help.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 14:30 Significant benefits can be brought through providing non-motorised transport alternatives, as well as through trains/trams/people movers/other fancy stuff.

Any improvement at Dartford will be swamped by local movements and cause no help to the wider M25, that's why the LTC is being built. The same concerns are why all the road bridges/tunnels west of Dartford are trapped in development hell.
The reality is that the Tyne vehicle tunnel has an AADT of about 30,000 while the pedestrian/cycle tunnel is used by about 20,000 people per month which gives an AADT of around 700. I hardly think that reducing vehicle movements by 700 a day would relieve pressure the Dartford Crossing which has an AADT of 120,000. In fact there is a degree of concern that the 6 YEAR refurbishment of the Tyne pedestrian/cycle tunnel has cost over £15 million pounds and is finally likely to open a year later than planned.

Cyclists can already turn up and catch a free ride over the Dartford crossing so extending this to handle foot passengers could work but given the nature of the areas I doubt it would reach anything like the volumes the Tyne Tunnel Pedestrian/Cycle tunnel handled. If that potential was there TfL would be running a bus or alternatively a ferry as between Gravesend and Tilbury - which is actually run by Thurrock council. Either way its a matter for the local transport authority not Highways England.

Do you realise how many bridges and tunnels lie west of the Dartford crossing along the tidal section of the Thames ? The reason they are in development hell is because its London. Last time I checked there were 32 bridges, 2 road tunnels, 1 pedestrian tunnel, 1 pedestrian bridge and a number of rail/tube tunnels. One of the latter was actually built as a pedestrian tunnel by the Brunels and was used more by prostitutes and their clients than by travellers and was sold to the East London Railway Company.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

KeithW wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 17:02
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Apr 18, 2019 14:30 Significant benefits can be brought through providing non-motorised transport alternatives, as well as through trains/trams/people movers/other fancy stuff.

Any improvement at Dartford will be swamped by local movements and cause no help to the wider M25, that's why the LTC is being built. The same concerns are why all the road bridges/tunnels west of Dartford are trapped in development hell.
The reality is that the Tyne vehicle tunnel has an AADT of about 30,000 while the pedestrian/cycle tunnel is used by about 20,000 people per month which gives an AADT of around 700. I hardly think that reducing vehicle movements by 700 a day would relieve pressure the Dartford Crossing which has an AADT of 120,000. In fact there is a degree of concern that the 6 YEAR refurbishment of the Tyne pedestrian/cycle tunnel has cost over £15 million pounds and is finally likely to open a year later than planned.

Cyclists can already turn up and catch a free ride over the Dartford crossing so extending this to handle foot passengers could work but given the nature of the areas I doubt it would reach anything like the volumes the Tyne Tunnel Pedestrian/Cycle tunnel handled. If that potential was there TfL would be running a bus or alternatively a ferry as between Gravesend and Tilbury - which is actually run by Thurrock council. Either way its a matter for the local transport authority not Highways England.

Do you realise how many bridges and tunnels lie west of the Dartford crossing along the tidal section of the Thames ? The reason they are in development hell is because its London. Last time I checked there were 32 bridges, 2 road tunnels, 1 pedestrian tunnel, 1 pedestrian bridge and a number of rail/tube tunnels. One of the latter was actually built as a pedestrian tunnel by the Brunels and was used more by prostitutes and their clients than by travellers and was sold to the East London Railway Company.
The ones I was referring to are the proposed and thus not yet built crossings between Tower Bridge and Dartford. Thames Gateway? Sunk. Belvedere? Who's that then. Silvertown Tunnel? About to face massive legal challenges. The locals don't want the traffic.
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
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by ManomayLR »

zapalniczka wrote: Tue May 21, 2013 12:55 thought I'd add this from the above link so people don't need to trawl through the documentation too much ;)
I think C-variant will be best as it provides an M20-M2 link which will help tourist traffic bypass Stack.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
User avatar
frediculous_biggs
SABRE Developer
Posts: 2518
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:25
Location: Sandy

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by frediculous_biggs »

There's two foot tunnels beneath the Thames - one at Greenwich and one at Woolwich by the ferry.

A rail link between Dartford and Thurrock area would massively improve transport links in the area and remove a number of those short local journeys. There is essentially no (I believe only one bus route and the ferry) public transport between Dartford/Gravesend and Thurrock. Any journeys require going into London and back out again.
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!
Post Reply