New Lower Thames Crossing

[WHBM]

AIUI one purpose of the new crossing is to help provide resilience

Resilience is provided by something with additional capacity to be used if required. A project like this which is minimal-sized to save costs (and save Nimby-whinging) just does not achieve that at all. In fact it can be worse, because if the Dartford is closed, or even restricted, for any reason, this will just get jammed up as well.

A similar comparison is current public transport access to Canary Wharf from Central London, principally by the Jubilee Line underground but also by the DLR, which you may feel provides an alternative route of resilience. But if the Jubilee is out of action, not only could the DLR be swamped, but it is actually then closed as well, to "avoid dangerous overcrowding" at places along the way.

[frediculous_biggs]

I'm intrigued as to what destinations will be signed from the M25 down the LTC. I would imagine Tilbury, Gravesend, but anything further? (nowhere in Medway ever seems to get signposted) - perhaps Canterbury or even Thamesport. Dover can't be there as HGVs will still need to use the M20 in the event of Operation Stack, unless the signposted route will be down the LTC -> M2 -> A229 - but that will generate traffic at a junctions that is already full most of the day (even ignoring the gradient). I wonder if it will be the only motorway not to pass or end at a primary destination? (unless it becomes one, of course)

Two thoughts/questions.

AIUI one purpose of the new crossing is to help provide resilience but if all or part of the Dartford Crossing was out of action, how realistic would the this route really be as an alternative in terms of its location, capacity and ways in which it integrates with the existing network?

Not very, I would think. The Dartford Crossing is 4 lanes each way with this one being 2 lanes. It also mainly appears to be of use for local traffic (which is no problem for me). It's interesting to note that of the organisations on the panel, the Port of Dover was one (as was Paramount London), but not Eurotunnel. It would certainly provide resilience and benefit for local people (driving past the Bluewater junction is awful at Christmas time or on a Saturday afternoon). It shouldn't be seen as a backup for the Dartford Crossing, rather a way of removing a lot of traffic from it.

There will be a lot of HGV freight heading to the ports, with only two lanes it'll be rolling roadblocks for the 14 miles, just like parts of the A14 & A42. Also looking at the A229 junctions I feel they still will need upgrading, some form of freeflow slips from NB A229 to NB M2 etc, I've never driven it but the existing setup seems convoluted and confusing (though better than at-grade roundabouts)

If the new crossing is more mostly local traffic (which there is a lot of), then there shouldn't be a huge amount of HGVs using it. It will be interesting to see if this tunnel allows tankers to travel through without having to wait. If so, it will be the default route for them rather than Dartford.

I'm a bit disappointed to see the proposed junction with the M2 doesnt allow for any connections between the A289 and LTC. This means people from the Medway Towns will be expected to take the M2 rather than the Medway Tunnel.

It does mention that one reason for the A226 junction was to provide this movement.

[Scratchwood]

One of the key reasons why this route is needed, is to provide some sort of alternative to the Dartford Crossings.

Currently, whenever there is a problem going north through the tunnel, Dartford complete jams up as traffic diverts off the A282 at J1b or J1a to try and access the Blackwall tunnel. While the new crossing will be very congested if this happens, it's a far better situation than all traffic diverting towards central London

[Runwell]

Similar issues from the Northern approach as well today, even if two lanes of the bridge remain open after an oil spill. Traffic stuck at Lakeside for up to 7 hours in places - Still ongoing. Journeys taking hours on the A13, and even at 10:30, all roads around Lakeside, Grays, Purfleet and Dagenham complete car parks.

This new crossing cannot come soon enough for local traffic.

[Vierwielen]

Similar issues from the Northern approach as well today, even if two lanes of the bridge remain open after an oil spill. Traffic stuck at Lakeside for up to 7 hours in places - Still ongoing. Journeys taking hours on the A13, and even at 10:30, all roads around Lakeside, Grays, Purfleet and Dagenham complete car parks.

This new crossing cannot come soon enough for local traffic.

Things were not helped by signs like this sign on the A3which recommends using the Dartford crossing to get to the M11. (Of course it is swings and roundabouts from the A3, but this is a good case for variable signs).

[c2R]

Similar issues from the Northern approach as well today, even if two lanes of the bridge remain open after an oil spill. Traffic stuck at Lakeside for up to 7 hours in places - Still ongoing. Journeys taking hours on the A13, and even at 10:30, all roads around Lakeside, Grays, Purfleet and Dagenham complete car parks.

This new crossing cannot come soon enough for local traffic.

Things were not helped by signs like this sign on the A3which recommends using the Dartford crossing to get to the M11. (Of course it is swings and roundabouts from the A3, but this is a good case for variable signs).

I agree that variable signs on the M25 would be useful, although matrix signs on approach routes are usually good at reporting long delays from x-x+1 etc so that you're forewarned about the options in advance...
I'd generally go via Dartford from A3 to M11, even though it's tolled as it's usually a nicer journey with less traffic... it is very marginal though as from the M3 I'd usually go via Heathrow....

Interesting that Heathrow and Gatwick fly in opposite directions - I'd not ever noticed that before! Also that the M1 doesn't feature in the list of destinations...

[A320Driver]

Off-topic but the right hand two lanes shouldn't have a Chopsticks symbol, should it?

[Glom]

So have we picked a number yet?

I don't mean has the government picked a number, I mean have we on this forum picked one. That's the most important thing.

[roadtester]

So have we picked a number yet?

I don't mean has the government picked a number, I mean have we on this forum picked one. That's the most important thing.

Good point.

I know this is all wrong on a number of counts but what about M2?

[Glom]

So have we picked a number yet?

I don't mean has the government picked a number, I mean have we on this forum picked one. That's the most important thing.

Good point.

I know this is all wrong on a number of counts but what about M2?

I was thinking the same thing. It would make the present M2 less of a A2(M), which is what it really is.

[Bryn666]

We all know it will open as the A2502 or something rubbish

[Chris5156]

M2 isn't a bad idea, but it would give you a choice between A2 and M2 heading westbound at Rochester that might be confusing.

I expect it will be an A-road (because we don't build motorways any more). There's plenty of vacant three-digit numbers in the 2-zone to accompany the A282 - maybe A270 if you want a round number? Or in the unlikely event that zonal rules are applied there are a few three-digit numbers there too. A150 would be memorable and distinctive.

[Broadsword]

The cross-section diagrams all seem to be for dual two-lane carriageway with hard strips, so I fear M2 must be ruled out as a number. It does seem rather under-powered for a road that I would expect to take an enormous amount of traffic.

Since the consultation seems to be guiding towards a direct link between the M2 and M25 as a motorway-to-motorway link, building this as all-purpose seems very short-sighted.

[roadtester]

Again ignoring the unlikely to be a motorway aspect, M28 might be an option. It would cut down the M2/A2 confusion and with 8 as a second digit it would have some sort of logical nod towards A282, already familiar as a Thames crossing.

[ais523]

Well, the Thames is the boundary between all-purpose zones 1 and 2, isn't it?

Logically an all-purpose road crossing the boundary, east of zone 3, should be in zone 1. The other roads that do this are the A100, A101, A102, A1020, and A282 (the A3 and the roads to its west don't count because they're west of the zone origin). From this it's pretty clear that the number should be zone 1 for consistency (and that the Dartford Crossing's number is bizarre and out of place; can we change it to M25(A) like so many people on SABRE seem to want?).

EDIT: Looks like I misread the map; the ferry is actually the A117. So much for that pattern.

To me, given the existing numbers on Thames crossing roads, by far the most logical number would be A103; sadly it's already in use, but its current occupant is unlikely to miss it. Failing that, A1030 would also fit the pattern pretty well and is currently unused.

I don't think the new road is likely to be a motorway; it's more likely to be of A14 standard (are there any plans to build hard shoulders?). If it is, it crosses motorway zones 1 and 2 and thus technically needs a motorway zone 1 number (the situation is pretty much the same as with all-purpose roads, as the same-numbered zones are in the same places along the Thames). M12 is free (all the previous attempts to use the number fell through), and makes some amount of sense for a motorway that connects zones 1 and 2. If you want a zone 2 number on the basis that it connects the M25 and M2 and those both start with a 2, there are a few reasonable options: M2 (possibly confusing), M28 or M282 (analogous to the A282), or M252 (by analogy with the M621).

[frediculous_biggs]

I have a feeling it will be a motorway. when talking about the southern end, there are several references to "motorway-to-motorway connections", plus for Route 4, there's a local access road built alongside the A127 - I presume to take non-motorway traffic.

As it's in Zone 1 for motorways, I would suggest M12, although I think M22 sounds much nicer.
If it's an A-road, then who knows. A122 is free and would fit, I suppose.

[ais523]

When we get talk of "motorway-to-motorway connections", it makes me think of the A42. Clearly these motorways need connecting; what's the lowest standard of road we can do the job with?

[Chris Bertram]

To me, given the existing numbers on Thames crossing roads, by far the most logical number would be A103; sadly it's already in use, but its current occupant is unlikely to miss it. Failing that, A1030 would also fit the pattern pretty well and is currently unused.

Isn't A108 still vacant?

[Iain]

As it's in Zone 1 for motorways, I would suggest M12, although I think M22 sounds much nicer.
If it's an A-road, then who knows. A122 is free and would fit, I suppose.

If it's a motorway (and it definitely should be) then I agree with M22, or M252 might be good or M15.

If it's an all purpose road then it's a harder decision. Maybe it should hijack A1089.

[roadtester]

M16?