Cycling UK Forum

Highways England are consulting over so called 'Option C' a crossing from Kent into Essex.

My view which is disputed by the Highway Engineers involved is that the needs of cyclists and pedestrians have not been considered. There is a fighting chance that if you express a view they may add some facilities for cyclists. So there is a chance to raise your concerns


http://www.lower-thames-crossing.co.uk

It does sound like a possible crossing from Essex to Kent without having to fight the London traffic - but not by cycling through a high-speed tunnel of course. The London conurbation is something of an obstacle to crossing anywhere east of Heathrow if you're starting outside London.

If it's like the tunnels under the Rhine at Rotterdam where the cyclists use the service tunnel then it's fine.
Otherwise there's still the Tilbury ferry, if it's kept open.

Of course, the service tunnel. Good plan. Could make a massive difference to getting around London.

deckertim wrote:... My view which is disputed by the Highway Engineers involved is that the needs of cyclists and pedestrians have not been considered. ...

I'm sure that the Highwaymen have considered the needs of cyclists and pedestrians. After considering them they have decided not to make any provision for either group to use the tunnel. The scheme is a stealth motorway, pedestrians and cyclists will not be welcome.

deckertim wrote:... There is a fighting chance that if you express a view they may add some facilities for cyclists. So there is a chance to raise your concerns. ...

There is no chance whatsoever of cyclists and pedestrians using the new crossing. This is another example of the DfT trying to build their way out of congestion, a plan that fails every time. There will be increased motor traffic on roads in the area. Some interesting analysis from Medway Council.

2.19. ... This would have a major impact on the strategic road network by effectively cutting off Medway and also by posing an unacceptable risk of overloading the surrounding routes from the M2, M20, A226, A289, A228, A249. This would also increase the risk of congestion to unacceptable levels through Strood, Chatham and Rochester town centres; all of which are already close to exceeding capacity.

2.20. Attention is particularly drawn to the levels of traffic anticipated by Highways England on the A226 and the A228 as 10,000 more traffic movements may be
added to the existing 11.6k approx. (A226) and 19.4k approx. (A228). ...

Tigerbiten wrote:If it's like the tunnels under the Rhine at Rotterdam where the cyclists use the service tunnel then it's fine.
Otherwise there's still the Tilbury ferry, if it's kept open.

This is Highways England. There is no service tunnel at the current Dartford crossing. There is no service tunnel at the Medway tunnel. There is no sign of any service tunnel in any plans I've seen for the proposed crossing.

Unfortunately I do not know the implications of the scheme for the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry.

There is no good news for cycling in this scheme.

Re Tilbury/Gravesend ferry - I think there is an ancient royal charter which places a legal obligation on one of the councils to keep it in operation.
As for the new road link it seems that the effect will be to separate the North/South traffic flow and then recombine it.
This is I presume to free the Dartford crossing bottleneck - IMO removing all the restrictions to traffic flow and making it free of charge (as was originally intended once it was paid for) might help.
Lots of flannel about economic benefits - the Dartford crossing doesn't seem to have helped Dartford High Street much.

deckertim wrote:Highways England are consulting over so called 'Option C' a crossing from Kent into Essex.
My view which is disputed by the Highway Engineers involved is that the needs of cyclists and pedestrians have not been considered. There is a fighting chance that if you express a view they may add some facilities for cyclists. So there is a chance to raise your concerns
http://www.lower-thames-crossing.co.uk

This is Highways Englands' Strategic Business Plan
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Final.pdf
As you can see on page 5, they have 8 performance metrics, and number 6 is "Helping cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users"
Moving to page 9, they aim to achieve a "More Accessible and Integrated Network that gives people the freedom to choose their mode of transport and enable safe movement across and alongside the network."

Given that the consultation document does not mention how this project contributes to that performance metric, I think you have a case that in fact they have failed on this occasion. Quote these things back at them, they can't ignore them.

Move to page 14 of the SBP and we see the KPI: (Key performance indicator)

"Cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
KPI: The number of new or upgraded crossings."

This would be a very major and important new crossing, so could contribute majorly to their KPI.

On Page 22 they mention Forward Thinking and Innovation. Preparing Britain to be more like the Netherlands would be Forward Thinking, whereas ignoring cyclists is hiding in a hole Not Invented Here thinking. The major water crossings either side of Amsterdam have facility for cyclists, eg the A10 easternmost crossing of the Buiten-IJ (I know that looks odd but ij is one letter in Dutch) has cycle crossing facility.

So, hopefully some ammunition there for you to make a very effective response to their consultation that they won't be able to ignore.

iviehoff wrote:Move to page 14 of the SBP and we see the KPI: (Key performance indicator)

"Cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
KPI: The number of new or upgraded crossings."

This would be a very major and important new crossing, so could contribute majorly to their KPI.

Except that whilst the project is for a new river crossing that isn't what crossing means in terms of that KPI. For the KPI crossing means grade separated facilities (or even at grade on slip roads) to help cyclists / pedestrians cross over the strategic road network.



The new scheme will indeed contribute to their KPI as it does give opportunities to construct new crossings where the crossing approach roads sever footpaths, bridleways and roads.

What we need is a national cycling body, that represents the needs of cyclist to lobby on our behalf:)

We've got one .

Response to 2013 consultation.

There's another one too .

gaz wrote:

iviehoff wrote:Move to page 14 of the SBP and we see the KPI: (Key performance indicator)

"Cyclists, walkers and other vulnerable users
KPI: The number of new or upgraded crossings."

This would be a very major and important new crossing, so could contribute majorly to their KPI.

Except that whilst the project is for a new river crossing that isn't what crossing means in terms of that KPI. For the KPI crossing means grade separated facilities (or even at grade on slip roads) to help cyclists / pedestrians cross over the strategic road network.

OK, forget that one then.

deckertim wrote:What we need is a national cycling body, that represents the needs of cyclist to lobby on our behalf:)

Whilst national organisations do carry a larger weight in responding to consultations, individual responses can also carry weight if cogent and to the point. Getting lots of people to respond with well written responses makes a large point.

ANTONISH wrote:This is I presume to free the Dartford crossing bottleneck - IMO removing all the restrictions to traffic flow and making it free of charge (as was originally intended once it was paid for) might help.
Lots of flannel about economic benefits - the Dartford crossing doesn't seem to have helped Dartford High Street much.

There are no restrictions regarding payment anymore, it's done on number plate cameras. The northbound restrictions are in place due to the need to manage certain classes of vehicles (I.e. abnormal size and those carrying dangerous stuff) through the tunnels, they're also there to prevent queuing in the tunnels in case of congestion from the north which is quite common at the moment due to the j30/a13 works, there's no easy way to get around the need to have some sort of management northbound.

At any rate the Dartford crossing bottleneck was only slightly lower capacity than several parts of the surrounding network, completely free up Dartford and you'll just move the problem up or down the road a bit.

Stevek76 wrote:

ANTONISH wrote:This is I presume to free the Dartford crossing bottleneck - IMO removing all the restrictions to traffic flow and making it free of charge (as was originally intended once it was paid for) might help.
Lots of flannel about economic benefits - the Dartford crossing doesn't seem to have helped Dartford High Street much.

There are no restrictions regarding payment anymore, it's done on number plate cameras. The northbound restrictions are in place due to the need to manage certain classes of vehicles (I.e. abnormal size and those carrying dangerous stuff) through the tunnels, they're also there to prevent queuing in the tunnels in case of congestion from the north which is quite common at the moment due to the j30/a13 works, there's no easy way to get around the need to have some sort of management northbound..

Yes - I opened an online account for my occasional trips into Essex - there is still a delay because the number plate recognition has to operate the barrier. So as you say it is not a free flowing system. But I don't, as a car driver, see it as being much quicker than previously.
I agree that the bottleneck will only move to another location. That is why I'm not impressed with the idea of a new crossing - the traffic will eventually be dumped on the same overcrowded roads e.g A2, M25
I note that there is vociferous opposition from the multi car households in the path of this development.