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
lotrjw
Member
Posts: 3204
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by lotrjw » Fri Dec 18, 2020 19:30

Bryn666 wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 15:51
Telstarbox wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 13:44
In 20 years all cars will be driverless anyway, and they won't care what the road number is. It may as well be 15.FH.76.WR.

;)
It keeps getting trotted out but we live in a country that can't even keep track of someone with a virus, I'd love to see how the shambolic maintenance of roads with signs and lines missing everywhere is going to play with technology that is reliant on everything being in perfect order.
Exactly, Ive seen videos of Teslas on autopilot and they arent good when there is the issues you describe.

Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: M1-Exit E9 Melbourne Australia

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Peter Freeman » Fri Dec 18, 2020 21:40

Gav wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 13:23
motorway or not it will still be an important road.

doesnt really matter on the numbering, if it had been motorway what number would have been assigned to it ?
The actual number doesn't matter because in practise the numbers are meaningless, but it must have one.

This very important road should be a motorway, for the sake of any old-fashioned person who likes to pre-plan a journey from a map, either paper or on-screen, that has coloured lines on it.

In these post-smart times, the essential feature (in addition to multiple lanes and grade separation) to qualify as a motorway is either a hard shoulder or some technology.
Last edited by Peter Freeman on Fri Dec 18, 2020 23:52, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 3861
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Vierwielen » Fri Dec 18, 2020 21:46

Telstarbox wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 13:44
In 20 years all cars will be driverless anyway, and they won't care what the road number is. It may as well be 15.FH.76.WR.

;)
Subject of course to something in today's Times - if a car that is travelling under "fully automatic", causes an accident the manufacturer risks being blamed. Might slow down the conversion to driverless cars. Also, what would Jeremy Clarkson do?

lotrjw
Member
Posts: 3204
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 02:36

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by lotrjw » Fri Dec 18, 2020 22:03

Vierwielen wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 21:46
Telstarbox wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 13:44
In 20 years all cars will be driverless anyway, and they won't care what the road number is. It may as well be 15.FH.76.WR.

;)
Subject of course to something in today's Times - if a car that is travelling under "fully automatic", causes an accident the manufacturer risks being blamed. Might slow down the conversion to driverless cars. Also, what would Jeremy Clarkson do?
retire he isnt young now and has loads of money

User avatar
Chris5156
Member
Posts: 14399
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Chris5156 » Mon Dec 21, 2020 09:29

Peter Freeman wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 21:40
This very important road should be a motorway, for the sake of any old-fashioned person who likes to pre-plan a journey from a map, either paper or on-screen, that has coloured lines on it.
There's a host of sensible reasons it should be a motorway.

We decided that roads purpose-built for the use of motor traffic are dangerous places for pedestrians, animals, cyclists, slow-moving agricultural vehicles, etc etc etc, and that the safest way to operate them is to reserve those roads for fast-moving motor traffic only. That is sensible, logical and in line with best practice the world over.

We decided that the rules barring those vulnerable road users from purpose-built roads for fast motor traffic should be standardised, so that it was as easy as possible to understand who was allowed on the road, and so that there was no confusion from one place to the next.

We decided that the single, clear set of rules should be communicated as simply and clearly as possible to all road users, through the use of special signs by the roadside, which were a different colour to all other signs, and by categorising the roads separately from all others, so that on maps, in speech, in writing, and everywhere else, it was obvious that the road in question was one where the rules applied.

All of that is done so that the rules are as widely understood and as well observed as possible, and so that by having the rules observed, our fastest and busiest roads could become our safest roads too. Again - that approach is sensible, logical, and in line with best practice the world over. It is understood and it works.

To then insist on building roads purpose-built for the use of motor traffic, but to apply to some of them an inconsistent set of rules, unique to each stretch of road, which are not codified in the Highway Code or anywhere else, which are only conveyed to road users by bespoke and unfamiliar signs by the roadside, and which are categorised in exactly the same way as roads open to all traffic so that they are indistinguishable from all others on maps, route planning software, in speech, in writing, and all the rest - that is madness. It makes no sense.

In other words, the Lower Thames Crossing is a purpose-built road that will be solely for the use of motor traffic moving at high speed. Why on earth wouldn't you treat it like one?

User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 9544
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by c2R » Mon Dec 21, 2020 09:52

once upon a time, I wrote: * Light goods vehicles are restricted to a slower speed on non-motorways when compared to special roads. This causes goods to move less efficiently, and creates an additional speed differential
* HGVs may use the outer lane on non-motorways - which may lead to them overtaking three abreast - again, this creates a speed differential and could cause additional driver frustration, with the HGV in the outer lane being restricted to 90kmh under current legislation, while at the same time cars are permitted to travel at 112kmh
* Learner drivers will be permitted to travel on the new route without professional instructor accompaniment, while at the same time they will be able to drive on the new road without a dual control car. Clearly, the amendments to allow them on motorways did so with the safety of other road users in mind in such high traffic busy situations
* Road signage on "A" roads uses different fonts and spacing to motorways. Motorway signage uses the Motorway Permanent font to allow directions and numbers to be read clearly at motorway speeds, whereas the equivalent green signage is more cluttered and less suitable for such purposes
* It is my understanding that special roads provide exemption from the application of local charging schemes based on vehicle emissions under the road traffic act (Note that in Scotland this has been made explicit in the Transport Scotland Act 2019). It is proper that such a strategic route is protected from attempts by local councils to create low emission zones - any such charging on strategic routes must come from national government as part of a unified charging scheme, if there is appetite to enact them and not as separate local schemes
* It is not permitted to bury utilities in the road for special roads - while there is no suggestion that there are presently utilities in place in the road, what are you planning to put into place to avoid any utilities companies applying to do so in future
* Different protections are in place alongside motorways to prevent future low-standard applications for additional site accesses that may attempt to gain planning along on the route.
*In route planning and navigation terms, here's technically no difference on a map or satellite navigation between these new roads and the very substandard A505 between Royston and Baldock, both being marked as primary Class I dual carriageway roads. A motorway designation would facilitate better routing of traffic, after all, to all intents and purposes this road is a de-facto motorway, and traffic should be encouraged to use it rather than less suitable alternative routes; while non motorised and vulnerable users should have clear indication when route planning that the road is unsuitable for their user.
*A blue line on the map is also important in showing that the region is open for business and investment.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is availabile in the Digest forum.

User avatar
EpicChef
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by EpicChef » Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:38

Is there ANYTHING we can do or campaign for to get M’way designation where it is deserved?
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
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 9544
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by c2R » Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:43

EpicChef wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:38
Is there ANYTHING we can do or campaign for to get M’way designation where it is deserved?
I comment the above on most expressway consultations and also have written to my MP about it - however, as yet it doesn't make any real difference.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is availabile in the Digest forum.

User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 6072
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by jackal » Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:12

"How we’re preparing to resubmit our application"

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... plication/

User avatar
EpicChef
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by EpicChef » Tue Dec 22, 2020 14:35

jackal wrote:
Tue Dec 22, 2020 11:12
"How we’re preparing to resubmit our application"

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... plication/
How very ambiguous and useless.
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!

JF2309
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:43

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by JF2309 » Tue Dec 22, 2020 17:50

I don’t know what you were expecting it to say? Its a submission of an already once withdrawn application albeit amended for which we know the reasons why.

User avatar
JohnA14J50
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 13:10
Location: Stowmarket

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by JohnA14J50 » Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:54

No excuse at all for this not being designated as a Motorway. It's a major piece of infrastructure that will be busy from day 1.

Time maybe too to complete the M25 circle - what non-Motorway traffic uses that?
The sun will shine on you again and the clouds will go away.
- Sir Captain Tom Moore. Hero of England.

User avatar
RichardA35
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 4496
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by RichardA35 » Mon Dec 28, 2020 20:41

JohnA14J50 wrote:
Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:54
No excuse at all for this not being designated as a Motorway. It's a major piece of infrastructure that will be busy from day 1.

Time maybe too to complete the M25 circle - what non-Motorway traffic uses that?
Obviously none on the M25 itself, but on the A282, tractors are often observed as are cyclists within the approach roads' boundaries.

KeithW
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW » Tue Dec 29, 2020 09:33

RichardA35 wrote:
Mon Dec 28, 2020 20:41
Obviously none on the M25 itself, but on the A282, tractors are often observed as are cyclists within the approach roads' boundaries.
In fact cyclists arriving at the Dartford Crossing can at no charge request a pick up vehicle to take them through the tunnel or over the bridge. The flip side of the coin is that you can ban cyclists and pedestrians using All Purpose Road crossings using TRO's a long as there is a suitable alternative route. The A19 Tees Viaduct is a good example of this. In the case of the LTC there is a pedestrian/cycle ferry between Gravesend and Tilbury so banning cyclists and pedestrians is quite possible without it being a motorway.

User avatar
JohnA14J50
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 13:10
Location: Stowmarket

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by JohnA14J50 » Tue Dec 29, 2020 09:56

KeithW wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 09:33
In the case of the LTC there is a pedestrian/cycle ferry between Gravesend and Tilbury so banning cyclists and pedestrians is quite possible without it being a motorway.
Just because that is possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. Major roads ought to be Motorways.
The sun will shine on you again and the clouds will go away.
- Sir Captain Tom Moore. Hero of England.

KeithW
Member
Posts: 10297
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by KeithW » Tue Dec 29, 2020 14:19

JohnA14J50 wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 09:56
KeithW wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 09:33
In the case of the LTC there is a pedestrian/cycle ferry between Gravesend and Tilbury so banning cyclists and pedestrians is quite possible without it being a motorway.
Just because that is possible doesn't mean it's a good idea. Major roads ought to be Motorways.
Nice sentiment but one that does not reflect reality as many major roads are all purpose and cannot be made into motorways without considerable expenditure on local access roads. I live within a few miles of 3 strategic roads maintained by Highways England which are NOT motorways, the A19, A174 and A66.

See
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erview.pdf

User avatar
JohnA14J50
Banned
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 13:10
Location: Stowmarket

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by JohnA14J50 » Tue Dec 29, 2020 15:27

KeithW wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 14:19
Nice sentiment but one that does not reflect reality as many major roads are all purpose and cannot be made into motorways without considerable expenditure on local access roads. I live within a few miles of 3 strategic roads maintained by Highways England which are NOT motorways, the A19, A174 and A66.

See
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erview.pdf
But here we're talking about brand spanking new infrastructure. There's no reason not to build to Motorway standard.
The sun will shine on you again and the clouds will go away.
- Sir Captain Tom Moore. Hero of England.

User avatar
Patrick Harper
Member
Posts: 2933
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 14:41
Location: Wiltshire
Contact:

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Patrick Harper » Tue Dec 29, 2020 16:25

The problem is that motorway restrictions have always been optional for any road, and there's plenty of money to be saved during planning and construction by avoiding the obligation to design for such restrictions. Deciding on a possible threshold for said restrictions is the sort of discussion that, I predict, if it starts in this thread will eventually be separated into a new thread. Anyone who wants to see my first attempt will know where to look.
YouTubeYouTube (music)Vimeo | Formerly: Paspie (2010–2015) • Paianni (2015–2018) • Skye (2018–2020)

Phil
Member
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Phil » Thu Dec 31, 2020 20:17

Chris5156 wrote:
Mon Dec 21, 2020 09:29

In other words, the Lower Thames Crossing is a purpose-built road that will be solely for the use of motor traffic moving at high speed. Why on earth wouldn't you treat it like one?
Because a 'motorway' is seen as a harder sell to the public. They are also generally much cheaper as there is no need to provide hard shoulders or 'Smart Motorway' technology, plus you can get away with things like non GSJed footpaths or minor road bridges.

Ever since the Twyford Down saga there has been a desire to 'greenwash' to use a modern term road projects and focus on everything other than the roads intended purpose. If its a new build by HE and part of the strategic highway network and requires a GSJed dual carriageway then it should be a motorway, no ifs, no buts. If it is an upgraded all purpose road then alternative provision should be made such that it can be turned into a motorway.

Phil
Member
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 18:03
Location: Burgess Hill,W Sussex, UK

Re: New Lower Thames Crossing

Post by Phil » Thu Dec 31, 2020 20:22

JohnA14J50 wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 15:27
KeithW wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 14:19
Nice sentiment but one that does not reflect reality as many major roads are all purpose and cannot be made into motorways without considerable expenditure on local access roads. I live within a few miles of 3 strategic roads maintained by Highways England which are NOT motorways, the A19, A174 and A66.

See
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... erview.pdf
But here we're talking about brand spanking new infrastructure. There's no reason not to build to Motorway standard.
You are rather forgetting that many of the candidates were Deliberately build as new build all purpose when any sane person would have realised that they are a key part of the strategic road network! (e.g. the A42 and large chunks of the A14). Had these been built as special roads from the start then there would be no need to provide local access roads.

That legacy has, as you point out, caused considerable problems for later upgrades - which is why things like the lower Thames Crossing NEEDS to be built as a special road from the outset, not as an all purpose one with restrictions!

Post Reply