New Lower Thames Crossing
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
No, they are just the area between the carriageways where they split into the tunnel.
-
- Member
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 14:49
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
HE have withdrawn the DCO last night on the advise of the Planning Inspectorate. They hope to reapply early next year. Hoping to get construction going in 2022 is a abit far fetched given the opposition to the project.
- roadtester
- Member
- Posts: 31539
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:05
- Location: Cambridgeshire
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
More information here, for anyone who is interested:Jon Waters wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:22 HE have withdrawn the DCO last night on the advise of the Planning Inspectorate. They hope to reapply early next year. Hoping to get construction going in 2022 is a abit far fetched given the opposition to the project.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend/ ... ed-237837/
Electrophorus Electricus
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Check out #davidsdailycar on Mastodon
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
How much opposition has there been? I haven't seen it mentioned in the national media, which is a bit odd considering the cost and size of the schemeJon Waters wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:22 HE have withdrawn the DCO last night on the advise of the Planning Inspectorate. They hope to reapply early next year. Hoping to get construction going in 2022 is a abit far fetched given the opposition to the project.
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
The local councils had "doubts over the adequacy of the local consultations conducted by Highways England". I knew about it and I live 20 miles away. I saw the protest signs that went up years ago. I even signed up to the consultation emails. My Dad lives not far from the proposed route and his street know all about it.
So what exactly was wrong with the consultation? Was it because much of it had to be done online as public meetings were stopped due to Covid?
So what exactly was wrong with the consultation? Was it because much of it had to be done online as public meetings were stopped due to Covid?
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
Yes, I think it's been the most substantial consultation ever held in the UK. Some of the local councils oppose the scheme, and as adequacy of consultation is one of the main grounds on which a scheme can be rejected, that's what they're clinging to, though it's not their actual grounds for opposition.
Last edited by jackal on Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:17, edited 1 time in total.
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
What is their actual objection, "increased traffic"? It strikes me as hard to qualify this as an actual threat to the local road network given the LTC very specifically avoids having junctions with it, so the only journeys it could possibly induce are from much further afield - e.g. strategic freight movements.jackal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:09 Yes, I think it's been the most substantial consultation ever held in the UK. Some of the local councils oppose the scheme, and as adequacy of consultation is one of the main grounds on which a scheme can be rejected, that's what they're clinging to, though it's not their actual grounds for opposition.
It would be interesting to see if the LTC, even despite tolls, weans Channel ports traffic off the SW side of the M25. Now the A14's two worst bits have been resolved, it must be starting to look more attractive to come from the north west via M6/A14/M11 again than M42/M40?
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
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
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
Well to be fair there are valid environmental concerns with any scheme of this size. One does rather suspect that there's more than a little NIMBYism in there though.
A little more detail about the Planning Inspectorate's concerns has come out:
https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Lowe ... ilure/8702
https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0FINAL.pdf
From the above it is a little hard to work out if it's simply a matter of the way the application was presented (apparently it initially didn't include the consultation responses) or if there are substantive problems.
A little more detail about the Planning Inspectorate's concerns has come out:
https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Lowe ... ilure/8702
https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0FINAL.pdf
From the above it is a little hard to work out if it's simply a matter of the way the application was presented (apparently it initially didn't include the consultation responses) or if there are substantive problems.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
Perhaps the Inspector is puzzled why a strategic motorway-to-motorway link is being green-lined, not blue-lined
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
I'd suspect the biggest environment related challenge is ensuring the tunnels aren't likely to be flooded if there's another North Sea storm surge of 1953 proportions - but frankly the entire Thames Gateway is at risk of that so it's not a unique problem to this scheme.jackal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:24 Well to be fair there are valid environmental concerns with any scheme of this size. One does rather suspect that there's more than a little NIMBYism in there though.
A little more detail about the Planning Inspectorate's concerns has come out:
https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Lowe ... ilure/8702
https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0FINAL.pdf
From the above it is a little hard to work out if it's simply a matter of the way the application was presented (apparently it initially didn't include the consultation responses) or if there are substantive problems.
The 'environment' at the Tilbury side is already ruined beyond repair thanks to the presence of a container port, quarry, sewage works etc, although on the south side there are wetlands to consider. Compared with Stonehenge this is a complete wasteland.
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
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
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
We can only hope! It's a completely bonkers decision to not have this as a motorway.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:27 Perhaps the Inspector is puzzled why a strategic motorway-to-motorway link is being green-lined, not blue-lined
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
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
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
I suspect at least part of it is that the public will prefer what they see as a good dual carriageway than an inferior motorway (ie without hard shoulders).Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:27 Perhaps the Inspector is puzzled why a strategic motorway-to-motorway link is being green-lined, not blue-lined
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
The public don't care about hard shoulders, this is a media whip-up.booshank wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 14:02I suspect at least part of it is that the public will prefer what they see as a good dual carriageway than an inferior motorway (ie without hard shoulders).Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:27 Perhaps the Inspector is puzzled why a strategic motorway-to-motorway link is being green-lined, not blue-lined
The A56 past Haslingden has been referred to as "the motorway" ever since it was opened in 1981 and extended in 1985. It has at-grade junctions and roundabout and people still call it a motorway. People will call the LTC a motorway as well.
Given the design standards for a 120km/h dual carriageway and motorway cross-section are virtually identical barring hard shoulders the reason is HE won't spend the money on building a motorway.
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
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
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
There is also some bleakly sterile farmland, as depicted nicely on GSV here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.455699, ... 376!8i2688Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:32I'd suspect the biggest environment related challenge is ensuring the tunnels aren't likely to be flooded if there's another North Sea storm surge of 1953 proportions - but frankly the entire Thames Gateway is at risk of that so it's not a unique problem to this scheme.jackal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:24 Well to be fair there are valid environmental concerns with any scheme of this size. One does rather suspect that there's more than a little NIMBYism in there though.
A little more detail about the Planning Inspectorate's concerns has come out:
https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Lowe ... ilure/8702
https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0FINAL.pdf
From the above it is a little hard to work out if it's simply a matter of the way the application was presented (apparently it initially didn't include the consultation responses) or if there are substantive problems.
The 'environment' at the Tilbury side is already ruined beyond repair thanks to the presence of a container port, quarry, sewage works etc, although on the south side there are wetlands to consider. Compared with Stonehenge this is a complete wasteland.
This could actually be somewhere that considerably benefits from the wildflower verge plantings etc. that the road would bring....
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
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
I bloody hope so!Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:27 Perhaps the Inspector is puzzled why a strategic motorway-to-motorway link is being green-lined, not blue-lined
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
Time to fix the fact that the A14 is only 2 lanes from the M6 to the A1 then and the M11 northern section. If it was a D3/D3M route throughout to the M25 then it would be extremely useful. Ideally the A14 new bit should have been D4 as there will undoubtedly be an increase of traffic along these routes now.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:13What is their actual objection, "increased traffic"? It strikes me as hard to qualify this as an actual threat to the local road network given the LTC very specifically avoids having junctions with it, so the only journeys it could possibly induce are from much further afield - e.g. strategic freight movements.jackal wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:09 Yes, I think it's been the most substantial consultation ever held in the UK. Some of the local councils oppose the scheme, and as adequacy of consultation is one of the main grounds on which a scheme can be rejected, that's what they're clinging to, though it's not their actual grounds for opposition.
It would be interesting to see if the LTC, even despite tolls, weans Channel ports traffic off the SW side of the M25. Now the A14's two worst bits have been resolved, it must be starting to look more attractive to come from the north west via M6/A14/M11 again than M42/M40?
Formerly known as 'lortjw'
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
So we're seeing the rise of smart pseudo-motorways now. Can be expected from a government that can't even get something as simple as contact tracing right.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
- Vierwielen
- Member
- Posts: 5715
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
- Location: Hampshire
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
One way would be to introduce E-route markers: the relevant part of the E15 is Edinburgh-Newcastle-London-Folkstone-Dover...Calais though something coud be done about removing Folkstone from the route definition.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:13 It would be interesting to see if the LTC, even despite tolls, weans Channel ports traffic off the SW side of the M25. Now the A14's two worst bits have been resolved, it must be starting to look more attractive to come from the north west via M6/A14/M11 again than M42/M40?
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
Not sure of the value, given it is impossible to drive into the UK without using a train or ferry, whereas when travelling across a giant landmass like the mainland of the continent, it makes much more sense to have a consistent route to follow.Vierwielen wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 21:16One way would be to introduce E-route markers: the relevant part of the E15 is Edinburgh-Newcastle-London-Folkstone-Dover...Calais though something coud be done about removing Folkstone from the route definition.Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:13 It would be interesting to see if the LTC, even despite tolls, weans Channel ports traffic off the SW side of the M25. Now the A14's two worst bits have been resolved, it must be starting to look more attractive to come from the north west via M6/A14/M11 again than M42/M40?
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
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
Re: New Lower Thames Crossing
Hypothetically of course here, indulge me, but could they after the consultation period decide to change there mind and make it a Motorway by just calling it one, or would that require a restarting of the whole process?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:32We can only hope! It's a completely bonkers decision to not have this as a motorway.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Mon Nov 23, 2020 13:27 Perhaps the Inspector is puzzled why a strategic motorway-to-motorway link is being green-lined, not blue-lined