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
Chris Bertram
Member
Posts: 15721
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 12:30
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris Bertram »

Scratchwood wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 14:42
A303Chris wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37 This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
Quite suspicious when Jacobs' main area of expertise is cream crackers and club biscuits :D
Was Chris Grayling in charge of the decision-making? He was the one who gave a shipping contract to a firm with no ships.
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.

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
jackal
Member
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

The remaining two big contracts, for roads north and south of the Thames, are out for tender. This gives the following contracts:

£2bn Tunnel
£1.3bn Roads North of the Thames
£600m Kent Roads
£162m Integration Partner

The total is a shade over £4bn, a far cry from the £6.8bn given for the scheme. There are a few substantial items such as land and scheme development not included in the above. Even so it should be a couple of billion cheaper than advertised. As with the Black Cat scheme this may be accounted for by the higher figure including maintenance costs over several decades, which will be substantial in this case.

£600m for the Kent roads seems quite reasonable as there's a lot going on there, e.g.:

M2 A2 2020 - Copy.jpg
Herned
Member
Posts: 1357
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 09:15

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Herned »

jackal wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 07:55 The remaining two big contracts, for roads north and south of the Thames, are out for tender. This gives the following contracts:

£2bn Tunnel
£1.3bn Roads North of the Thames
£600m Kent Roads
£162m Integration Partner

The total is a shade over £4bn, a far cry from the £6.8bn given for the scheme. There are a few substantial items such as land and scheme development not included in the above. Even so it should be a couple of billion cheaper than advertised. As with the Black Cat scheme this may be accounted for by the higher figure including maintenance costs over several decades, which will be substantial in this case.

£600m for the Kent roads seems quite reasonable as there's a lot going on there, e.g.:
I agree, that doesn't sound particularly crazy given the scope and the traffic management issues involved

Does the update about Stonehenge tunnel potentially needing more refuges also apply here?
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Herned wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 09:23
jackal wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 07:55 The remaining two big contracts, for roads north and south of the Thames, are out for tender. This gives the following contracts:

£2bn Tunnel
£1.3bn Roads North of the Thames
£600m Kent Roads
£162m Integration Partner

The total is a shade over £4bn, a far cry from the £6.8bn given for the scheme. There are a few substantial items such as land and scheme development not included in the above. Even so it should be a couple of billion cheaper than advertised. As with the Black Cat scheme this may be accounted for by the higher figure including maintenance costs over several decades, which will be substantial in this case.

£600m for the Kent roads seems quite reasonable as there's a lot going on there, e.g.:
I agree, that doesn't sound particularly crazy given the scope and the traffic management issues involved

Does the update about Stonehenge tunnel potentially needing more refuges also apply here?
I've seen no mention of it. I suspect the Stonehenge costings are just an exercise to show that hard shoulders or regular refuges are prohibitively expensive, though I guess we'll see.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 07:55 The remaining two big contracts, for roads north and south of the Thames, are out for tender. This gives the following contracts:

£2bn Tunnel
£1.3bn Roads North of the Thames
£600m Kent Roads
£162m Integration Partner

The total is a shade over £4bn, a far cry from the £6.8bn given for the scheme. There are a few substantial items such as land and scheme development not included in the above. Even so it should be a couple of billion cheaper than advertised. As with the Black Cat scheme this may be accounted for by the higher figure including maintenance costs over several decades, which will be substantial in this case.

£600m for the Kent roads seems quite reasonable as there's a lot going on there, e.g.:


M2 A2 2020 - Copy.jpg
Makes you wonder how many of those local slip roads are really needed (e.g. not there because of political whinging but because there's an actual network need) - there appears to be a lot of complexity thrown in for the sake of complexity, and still an over-reliance on misshaped roundabouts for said local connections.

There appeared to be a lot of vegetation clearance around this area when I had to go to Dover a fortnight ago so presumably there's movement on it.

This is still probably the single most needed road scheme in England to my mind - especially given the need to keep the channel ports accessible and avoid any problems the B word may throw up in the future.
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: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:57
jackal wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 07:55 £600m for the Kent roads seems quite reasonable as there's a lot going on there, e.g.:


M2 A2 2020 - Copy.jpg
Makes you wonder how many of those local slip roads are really needed (e.g. not there because of political whinging but because there's an actual network need) - there appears to be a lot of complexity thrown in for the sake of complexity, and still an over-reliance on misshaped roundabouts for said local connections.
The massive local eastbound slip which goes over three roads and under one, raising the whole junction by a level, is "needed" because there's no link between the eastbound outercarriageway and M2 mainline at the east end of the scheme:

M2 A2 east 2020 - Copy.JPG

In the previous (2019) version the link was there (east end of image) so there was no need for the massive slip. Local traffic heading for M2 eastbound could simply access it via local roads and the Shorne onslip (west end of image):

M2 A2 east 2019 - Copy.JPG

I'm not sure if the more complicated design is because they got cold feet about the (horror!) offside exit for the M2 or to reduce pressure on the local roundabouts. Either way it's dramatically added to scheme costs for the benefit of local movements.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35714
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Bryn666 »

Bet it's that offside exit. Of course, they weren't bothered by an offside exit when they built the T5 spur...

This is what rigid adherence to a set of unfit for purpose standards brings, you add £50m to a project because of it.
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
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Micro The Maniac »

I suspect I've said this before, but I don't get the problem with offside exits - especially if it's a lane drop, in which case it isn't even an exit but a diverge.

IMVHO, this is especially true where the resultant kludge is a TOTSO... eg the M42/M40 southbound junction would be a lot simpler/clearer if it was marked as a simple diverge and not an exit... similarly M25/J5 (both ways). With clear lane signage, it shouldn't matter...
Fluid Dynamics
Member
Posts: 983
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2002 19:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Fluid Dynamics »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:54 I suspect I've said this before, but I don't get the problem with offside exits - especially if it's a lane drop, in which case it isn't even an exit but a diverge.

IMVHO, this is especially true where the resultant kludge is a TOTSO... eg the M42/M40 southbound junction would be a lot simpler/clearer if it was marked as a simple diverge and not an exit... similarly M25/J5 (both ways). With clear lane signage, it shouldn't matter...
The clockwise M25 J 5 coming south from J4 is signed as a diverge on the advance signage? I agree it’s not anti clockwise.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris5156 »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 14:44Bet it's that offside exit. Of course, they weren't bothered by an offside exit when they built the T5 spur...
(...which isn't actually necessary and could easily just be marked out to have the two lanes on the exit slip diverging, one to J14 and one to T5. That is even what the gantries on approach show. It's such a stupid design.)
User avatar
Big Nick
Member
Posts: 4348
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 08:27
Location: Epping, Essex

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Big Nick »

A shortlist has been announced for the building contract. https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/ ... ng-tunnels

Have they got planning approval yet?
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7539
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal »

Big Nick wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 13:53 Have they got planning approval yet?
They haven't even resubmitted the application yet.
User avatar
BugsBunny
Member
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 23:49
Location: Islington
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by BugsBunny »

not sure if it's even on topic, despite being related to the NLTC, but if the new road will indeed be an A road, it raises a question to me, & that is, is the M2 really all that necessary anymore? (the classification, that is). i'm no expert but, especially with the new crossing, I think to reroute the A2 along what is currently the M2 would make so much more sense. that means one straight long section of road without random motorway restrictions halfway. then the current A2 that punches through the Medway towns I would then make part of the A226, extending that route to Brenley Corner. no expert though, so open to any opinions on why it wouldn't work.
I was 12 when I made this account in 2013, therefor I am not liable for any strange or awkward comments made then :)
darkcape
Member
Posts: 2094
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 14:54

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by darkcape »

A303Chris wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 09:37 This is unbelievable, Highways England have awarded Jacobs a £162.5m Integration Partner contract. Jacobs will act as a catalyst for collaboration between Highways England and the Lower Thames Crossing’s three main works contracts.

Surely HE have the resources in house to do this.
This is very common on HE schemes. The name of the contract changes depending on what integregation-synonym is flavour of the month, but basically they're HE's site presence. One HE scheme I was on with a value of £100m, I never saw anyone who was directly employed by HE on site. It was all Jacobs who were their site representatives, and fairly light-touch at that too.

But HE don't have the resource or expertise to do those roles, & seem unwilling to change that. I'd be interested to know what level of risk Jacobs are contractually liable for as I suspect it's very little.
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
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW »

BugsBunny wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 03:30 not sure if it's even on topic, despite being related to the NLTC, but if the new road will indeed be an A road, it raises a question to me, & that is, is the M2 really all that necessary anymore? (the classification, that is). i'm no expert but, especially with the new crossing, I think to reroute the A2 along what is currently the M2 would make so much more sense. that means one straight long section of road without random motorway restrictions halfway. then the current A2 that punches through the Medway towns I would then make part of the A226, extending that route to Brenley Corner. no expert though, so open to any opinions on why it wouldn't work.
The short answer is yes. The reality is that the major flow at the end of the M2 is along the A299 Thanet Way to Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs. The M2 is not a route you want to open up to agricultural machinery, mopeds , cyclists etc. The A2 runs parallel to the M2 all the way from the Medway Towns to Brenley Corner and continues on to Dover, The M2 ends at Brenley Corner.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Micro The Maniac »

KeithW wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 08:17 The M2 is not a route you want to open up to agricultural machinery, mopeds , cyclists etc.
This is where our LAR rules get silly... frankly, there is no reason (especially on an D3M+) that agricultural machinery is prohibited from using Lane 1 (perhaps with an escort?). Yes it is slow moving, but there are overtaking lanes.

Mopeds and cyclists (and horse riders and pedestrians) could easily be accommodated by including a "proper" quality segregated, off carriageway NMU-lane - this does not require a full LAR
Telstarbox
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2018 19:45

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Telstarbox »

That would be chaotic on the 2-lane section past Sittingbourne and Faversham which has a lot of HGVs.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11155
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by c2R »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 09:16
KeithW wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 08:17 The M2 is not a route you want to open up to agricultural machinery, mopeds , cyclists etc.
This is where our LAR rules get silly... frankly, there is no reason (especially on an D3M+) that agricultural machinery is prohibited from using Lane 1 (perhaps with an escort?). Yes it is slow moving, but there are overtaking lanes.
I diagree entirely - why should slow moving vehicles be on a road designed to transport goods and freight at speed? Clearly exceptional conveys can be driven with escorts, e.g. if you need to move a massive piece of machinery and there's no other way of doing it, but even that use causes congestion and issues with road safety - most D3Ms are at capacity for much of the day, and adding slow moving vehicles into the mix simply increases congestion as HGVs pull out to overtake, and other vehicles slow and bunch up. Not to mention the differences in closing speed between an HGV doing 56mph limited and a tractor doing 25...
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
BugsBunny
Member
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 23:49
Location: Islington
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by BugsBunny »

Telstarbox wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 13:13 That would be chaotic on the 2-lane section past Sittingbourne and Faversham which has a lot of HGVs.
This section is really crying out for a widening, all the way from J4 to J7, just 3 lanes will do. I know there’s some plans to majorly redo J5 with the A249 so whether this will make this more likely is yet to be seen. Still, the fact is that it’s pretty ridiculous that the main stretch of the M2 after J4 is the original 1960s D2M. Also, taking into account the comments before about why declassification to A2 wouldn’t work, I understand that, but then why does it work that the A2 be classified as such all the way until the A289, especially being D4M. I still say either make it M2 from Black Prince Interchange or scrap it entirely. That’s just my technical non-professional view however.
I was 12 when I made this account in 2013, therefor I am not liable for any strange or awkward comments made then :)
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 09:16
KeithW wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 08:17 The M2 is not a route you want to open up to agricultural machinery, mopeds , cyclists etc.
This is where our LAR rules get silly... frankly, there is no reason (especially on an D3M+) that agricultural machinery is prohibited from using Lane 1 (perhaps with an escort?). Yes it is slow moving, but there are overtaking lanes.

Mopeds and cyclists (and horse riders and pedestrians) could easily be accommodated by including a "proper" quality segregated, off carriageway NMU-lane - this does not require a full LAR

All of which is effectively deciding we dont want to have motorways and will accept the fact that All Purpose roads are more dangerous and people will die as a result. We KNOW that mixing traffic doing 20 mph and 70 mph is dangerous, doing so on roads carrying 100,000 vehicles a day will increase the risk massively. If you plough into the back of a slow piece of agricultural machinery doing 70 mph air bags and crumple zones will probably not save you.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/speed/speed_is_a_central_issue_in_road_safety/speed_and_accident_risk_en wrote: Larger speed differences: more accidents
If on a particular road, the speed variance is high, this will result in less predictability, more encounters, more overtaking manoeuvres, etc. Therefore, when speed differences increase, the accident risk increases as well. Hence, a countermeasure that results in lower average speed, but in larger speed differences may not have the expected positive effect on road safety. But no reliable quantified relationship has been established for this linkage.
What is being said here is that if you decide to mix the traffic to avoid a large rise in deaths and injuries you need to reduce speed limits but that may not adequately reduce the risk. By the way we have a name for your - "proper" quality segregated, off carriageway NMU-lane - Its a local access road. The Americans call them frontage roads.

Here is a nice example alongside the A1(M), in this case its the southbound carriageway of the old A1. They not only provide a safe route for NMU users but allow for access to businesses, farms and residences along the way. Mixing local and through traffic is a bad idea, one of the main reasons for upgrading the A14 between Cambridge and Brampton Hut was to reduce the toxic mix of the two. This was truly awful between the Girton Interchange and Huntingdon. This is why we now have the A1307 as a local access road. In the case of the A428 the LAR is the old St Neots Road, for the A1(M) at Ferrybridge its the A162 which used to be the A1.

If you want to see what happens when you pile all the traffic onto an el cheapo AP road try driving along the A34 from the M40 to the M4, its not very nice at all. In the worst sections they had to slap a 50 mph limit on to reduce the carnage.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.75129 ... 6656?hl=en
Post Reply