Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Kent kicks off third Dartford crossing debate

Kent County Council this week became the first interested party set out its preferences for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing.

dartford_crossing

Dartford: New crossing option

Its main preference is that the third crossing is not alongside the existing two crossings at Dartford.

The Department for Transport (DfT) is expected to launch a public consultation on three corridors for the crossing in May.

Consultant Aecom is studying bridge and tunnel options for the DfT at the three locations.

They are at Dartford adjacent to the existing bridge; west of Tilbury to the Swanscombe Peninsula; and east of Tilbury to east of Gravesend. The DfT will then reduce the shortlist to put forward a preferred bridge or tunnel option for each location.

But speaking to NCE this week, Kent County Council director of planning and environment Paul Crick said the local authority was already clear about what it did not want.

“Our main preference is against option A, another crossing at Dartford, because this will do nothing for network resilience at a location already vulnerable to major incidents and it offers nowhere near the same opportunities for economic growth,” he said.

“The other two corridors offer far better strategic routes for Kent’s ports,” he said.

A new major road crossing of the Thames linking Dover to the Midlands and the North is a central part of Kent’s transport and economic development plans. The county has already undertaken its own studies including financial modelling of possible routes and assessment of the three corridors being considered by DfT.

Around 90% of the UK’s roll-on roll-off freight traffic goes through Dover. According to Crick, a new Lower Thames Crossing at a significant distance from Dartford presents the best option because it would cut out the pinch point of the existing bridge and tunnel at Dartford and a large section of the M25 for traffic heading for Kent’s ports.

“We saw over the recent Christmas holiday period what can happen when all traffic is fed through one critical route,” he said.

“Closure of just one of the Dartford tunnels resulted in traffic taking up to four hours to get through. The options being considered are corridors, not exact routes for a new motorway link, but it is preferable to miss out as much of the M25 as possible in linking Dover to the M11, the Midlands and the North,” said Crick.

Official position

Officially, Kent County Council has not yet ruled out any particular route option, or expressed support for any particular option.

Cabinet member Bryan Sweetland said to suggest otherwise was “completely misleading”. He has confirmed that Kent:

  • Is not beholden to any particular route option for an additional Thames crossing and the final decision on the definitive route rests with the Government. However, we will be working with the Department for Transport and Essex County Council to ensure that whatever route option is eventually chosen, it will act as a catalyst for economic growth, bringing new jobs to the Thames Gateway. Importantly though, any new route option must cause the least amount of environmental damage to our precious Kent countryside.
  • Expects the DfT to start a public consultation during the summer months (2013)
  • Will respond  as a consultee after a full debate at the council
  • Supports the need for a additional Thames Crossing
  • Will debate the issue fully during the consultation period

Readers' comments (3)

  • The main problem with Dartford is the tollgates. It is outrageous that they are allowed to cause this congestion. There are only three lanes each way on the M25 but 4 through the tunnel and across the bridge.

    The problems are far worse than anything I've seen at tolls anywhere else in the world and they are only now starting to consider fitting numberplate recognition to replace the tollgates. Technology which has existed for the London Congestion charge and toll roads in Australia for years.

    My girlfriend has the right idea. She suggests that if the queue is more than 15mins they should required to open the gates and let everyone go free. They'd have sorted it out years ago.

    Archie

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is so obvious to anyone who regularly uses the crossing that the toll gates are the major obstruction to the free flow of traffic. The congestion caused is demonstrated by the ridiculously long queues they create (unbelievable at peak times). How this is justified on grounds of congestion pricing when considering the emission gases created by the multitude of idling vehicles is beyond comprehension.

    Before committing to a review of the demand for a third crossing surely the removal of the current obstruction of the toll booths should be trialled to discover the true capacity of the bridge and tunnels.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "It's"?

    Come on NCE!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well spotted. Changed in a rush - never a good idea.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.