New Lower Thames Crossing

[RichardA35]

http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/

Have you seen this fully costed plan for a full HS network

Fully costed? They didn't spend any money on web design so I'm doubtful they have done any geological surveys for their route

Try this

http://www.highspeeduk.co.uk/

Looked through this with an open mind but got the impression this was retired rail engineers doodling on maps. When I saw that they were proposing to reuse the Woodhead route, their goose was cooked for me.

[Ritchie333]

Looked through this with an open mind but got the impression this was retired rail engineers doodling on maps. When I saw that they were proposing to reuse the Woodhead route, their goose was cooked for me.

I got as far as "We’ve written to Prime Minister Boris Johnson" and thought "out of date" and closed the tab. I'm reminded of this (and that's a scheme that had serious political interest at one time).

I'm all for improving the rail network, but I think small incremental improvements is the way to go, and I can accept that no matter how much I'd like the Marshlink line to be dualled and electrified, it is a long way down the pecking order.

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

I'd like to apologise for my prior comments in this thread. It's clear to me now that what I was posting was, quite frankly, uninformed and not well structured.

It cannot be denied that the LTC will provide better access to Southend (which is poor) and the rest of the country from North Kent and vice versa, and provide additional capacity as well.

However, my main gripe with the scheme and the RIS is that it seems to focus to deliver positive impacts within the short-term as opposed to the long-term, as other members like Bryn have pointed out. There's been comparisons with how the Netherlands approaches road schemes as well, which, for the most part, seems far more reasonable to me.

Another thing is that, despite the congestion and problems with induced/latent demand, public and NMU transportation and the economy, I don't see why it's worth pouring so much money into the LTC when the money could be used to improve infrastructure in other areas of the country first where access to the SRN is poor, East Anglia and Northern England being an example, where overloaded S2 trunk roads have been left unimproved during modern times, e.g. the A47 and A66.

I'll need to spend some more time formulating my thoughts, but in the meantime, I think that the LTC will bring a mixed bag of impacts to the table, but hopefully they will be largely positive.

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

As part of a project that will span a few days, I've started to map the LTC in detail on OSM, starting with Gravesend.
OpenStreetMap link
Please note that the links will not render due to the tagging use. You may use map data or the query feature, however, the former can cause intense lag.

[jackal]

Thurrock Council weren't too happy with the A13 and Orsett Cock junction design:

9.6.6 In addition, the increase in traffic on the LRN as a result of LTC will result in an increase in
collisions on local roads and NH forecasts an increase in road collisions as a consequence of LTC
in its appraisal of the overall project. It is the Council’s opinion that the layout of the
LTC/A13/A1089 Orsett Cock interchange is a convoluted and confusing interchange with many
short merge, diverge and weaving points, for which a disproportionate increase in collisions would
be realised. That would not be reflected by the standard appraisal of impacts and does not
adequately represent the impacts on the LRN or towards the national aspiration for Vision Zero to
eliminate killed and serious injury collisions on UK’s roads.
9.6.7 NH is not clear within its submission as to the layout of the interface between the proposed new
LTC infrastructure and the current Orsett Cock junction. Plans submitted by NH in the DCO do not
fully align with the current revised junction at Orsett Cock; and, the descriptions of the Authorised
Works in dDCO (AS-038) do not align with the General Arrangement drawings.

Some of the concerns are explained in this figure from a Thurrock submission:

See also the joint position statement:
https://infrastructure.planninginspecto ... 0held).pdf

They raise significant concerns about congestion at Orsett Cock, largely coming from the U-turn to access the A1089 and A1013 from the LTC, which we've criticized before. But the most striking issue (point 2 in the figure) is that, according to Thurrock, there is a 90m weaving length in the general arrangement plans approaching Orsett Cock eastbound, but NH have extended it in their traffic model to 200m to reduce congestion and improve safety - but haven't changed what they actually plan to build! It does suggest NH might not be averse to shenanigans to make their models 'work'. Thurrock say there has been an "intransigent and lackadaisical approach to microsimulation modelling of this key junction to date". Think what they do the 90% of the time when there aren't other engineers checking their work...

[Peter Freeman]

The council are a bit late submitting this aren't they?

They appear to have found plenty to criticise, some of which we, on Sabre, also noticed. For example, the U-turn via the roundabout, for which, IIRC, we found a fairly low-cost alternative. I can't motivate myself to go into it all over again!

I consider LTC to be essential, though it is expensive. It could be reduced in cost by some major simplifications, and the tangle around A13, A1089 and Orsett Cock would be the best target. It's my least favourite part of the plans. Perhaps just omit it, and pass straight through?

[jackal]

The council are a bit late submitting this aren't they?

They appear to have found plenty to criticise, some of which we, on Sabre, also noticed. For example, the U-turn via the roundabout, for which, IIRC, we found a fairly low-cost alternative. I can't motivate myself to go into it all over again!

I consider LTC to be essential, though it is expensive. It could be reduced in cost by some major simplifications, and the tangle around A13, A1089 and Orsett Cock would be the best target. It's my least favourite part of the plans. Perhaps just omit it, and pass straight through?

Tbf they've been going at it for a year or so. I just saw some of the documents and thought they were interesting. I see they have signed a section 106 now, so maybe things are resolved. The more recent documents suggested they were happy with a commitment from NH to monitor Orsett Cock for 5 years post-opening and fix it if it doesn't work.

[Bryn666]

It does suggest NH might not be averse to shenanigans to make their models 'work'. Thurrock say there has been an "intransigent and lackadaisical approach to microsimulation modelling of this key junction to date". Think what they do the 90% of the time when there aren't other engineers checking their work...

Naughtiness with modelling from certain big name design consultants is one of those open secrets that everybody knows happens but the people who can make sure it doesn't have too much business to lose if they stamp on it so they rely on weak politicians giving the nod to flawed assumptions and outright lies in many cases. If your company plan is ensuring car dependency continues because your road building business can't keep up with the times and changing attitudes then you're not going to promote models that say "actually you don't need this god awful design here after all".

https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com ... t-and.html gives some good insight into the basic local authority shenanigans you'll often come up against - it's not difficult to extrapolate this to a higher level.

It isn't unique to the UK either: https://www.sightline.org/2013/12/23/tr ... t-follies/