Is the 9bn Lower Thames Road crossing approval bad news for rail?

[Bishopstone]

After the original Dartford Tunnel opened, a bus service dubbed Thames Weald Tunnel Express operated, from Romford to Sevenoaks. At various times there were different termini both north and south of the river, but the gist of the service remained the same. I think it lingered on until the late 1980s, using van-derived buses which gives some indication as to the level of custom.

Still, times have changed, the population has increased and travel to work patterns have developed. A cross-river express bus service along the lines of TfL’s Superloop concept should certainly be on the agenda.

 

[dastocks]

Whilst it may relieve congestion at the Dartford Crossings, what will happen when there's an issue with the ferries/the Chunnel and there's not been the congestion at the Thames to limit traffic flows?

I really can't see that making any difference: there may be cases where people cancel a trip because of an issue with getting across the channel, but they're unlikely to cancel because they may be delayed getting across the Thames.

Likewise is there normally capacity on the M2/M20 for much more traffic? If not then that's going to need more capacity added to it.

I think all you can say is that demand will shift when the new crossing is available and capacity is released on the existing crossing e.g:

• Channel Tunnel traffic shifting from the M20 to the A2/M2.
• Traffic between Essex/East Anglia and Surrey/Berkshire (and beyond) may shift to travel via Dartford rather than Heathrow.

etc.
There may also be options to shift demand between the two crossings via the charges, and it might make sense to combine the two crossings into a single operating franchise/concession.

 

[Mikey C]

After the original Dartford Tunnel opened, a bus service dubbed Thames Weald Tunnel Express operated, from Romford to Sevenoaks. At various times there were different termini both north and south of the river, but the gist of the service remained the same. I think it lingered on until the late 1980s, using van-derived buses which gives some indication as to the level of custom.

Still, times have changed, the population has increased and travel to work patterns have developed. A cross-river express bus service along the lines of TfL’s Superloop concept should certainly be on the agenda.

It's the unreliability of the Dartford Crossing which kills such cross river bus services. When there's a chance you could sit in a 30 minute jam, or a 1 hour jam, how can you market that as an appealing and reliable service for passengers?

 

[brad465]

It's the unreliability of the Dartford Crossing which kills such cross river bus services. When there's a chance you could sit in a 30 minute jam, or a 1 hour jam, how can you market that as an appealing and reliable service for passengers?

I was at Sixth Form at Dartford Grammar, and someone in my year living in Grays got the Lakeside-Bluewater bus every day to get to school for 2 years. She should have got top marks on everything just for putting up with that every day.

Perhaps if the LTC and/or Dartford Crossing gained a bus lane/special bus escort that expedited these services, they'd be more feasible. But a lane would have to be really well used in terms of passenger numbers to be worth not being for all vehicles.

 

[Bishopstone]

It's the unreliability of the Dartford Crossing which kills such cross river bus services. When there's a chance you could sit in a 30 minute jam, or a 1 hour jam, how can you market that as an appealing and reliable service for passengers?

Agree, and I think this adds to the case for the LTC, on the basis 20% (or whatever) of the traffic currently using Dartford will gravitate to the new crossing, making cross-river journey times - car or bus - more predictable.

 

[Brent Goose]

It will be tolled. People are more accepting of tolls when they can see improvement being made for their money, whereas for the last 10-20 years, the Dartford toll has effectively been a congestion charge.

The road signs have the same red ‘C’ as the congestion charge

 

[weeklycommuter]

How much would the toll for each crossing need to be to deliver a return on investment sufficient for this to be fully funded privately? The toll would be subject to VAT for a privately funded crossing. I assume the same toll will be applied to the Dartford Crossing to stop vehicles using that instead.

 

[deltic]

The road signs have the same red ‘C’ as the congestion charge

It is a congestion charge and not a toll, a toll has a particular legal meaning.

How much would the toll for each crossing need to be to deliver a return on investment sufficient for this to be fully funded privately? The toll would be subject to VAT for a privately funded crossing. I assume the same toll will be applied to the Dartford Crossing to stop vehicles using that instead.

The charges that apply at Dartford and LTC will be the same, both will effectively be congestion charges to manage traffic flows and not a toll. The tunnel will be charged and will be paid for publically. The roads serving the tunnel will not be charged but will be paid for by the private sector. The revenue raised by the charges at Dartford and LTC will effectively be used to pay the charge to the private sector provider.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Bad retrograde step from a clueless government. Building a new crossing won't deal with congestion at the Dartford crossing it will make it worse over time. It will encourage more passengers and goods to travel by ICE vehicle. This is a government without a ruling philosophy and simply listens to the biggest lobbyists - currently the big housebuilders, fossil fuel and road transport industries.

And so much for levelling up the north - more shiny things for the south along with Heathrow runway three.

 

[The Planner]

How much would the toll for each crossing need to be to deliver a return on investment sufficient for this to be fully funded privately? The toll would be subject to VAT for a privately funded crossing. I assume the same toll will be applied to the Dartford Crossing to stop vehicles using that instead.

Depends on the expected usage. Dartford has 150,000 vehicles per day. If you just assumed they were cars paying the one off charge of £2.50 then that is £375,000 a day or near enough £137 mlllion a year. 66 years at that rate.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Bad retrograde step from a clueless government. Building a new crossing won't deal with congestion at the Dartford crossing it will make it worse over time. It will encourage more passengers and goods to travel by ICE vehicle. This is a government without a ruling philosophy and simply listens to the biggest lobbyists - currently the big housebuilders, fossil fuel and road transport industries.
And so much for levelling up the north - more shiny things for the south along with Heathrow runway three.

Yes it repels the green vote which the Labour Party needs to have any hope of staying in government and is another big spending project in the South East of England that sends the message that the Government is only interested in the South East of England and not interested in the North of England. It is politically clueless and leads me to conclude that this Labour Government has a political death wish.

Depends on the expected usage. Dartford has 150,000 vehicles per day. If you just assumed they were cars paying the one off charge of £2.50 then that is £375,000 a day or near enough £137 mlllion a year. 66 years at that rate.

I assume private investors will want a return on the capital invested, for instance if the project cost is £10 billion they would want £500 million a year in toll income for a 5% return on their investment which would mean a toll of around £10 per crossing for 150,000 vehicles a day.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Won't this sort of further massive investment in London & South East infrastructure just help to grow the difference between the L&SE region and all the rest of the country. I know the arguments for "invest in success", but if we have governments that only do that, then what hope is there (other than the crumbs off the table) for the North-East, the North-West, the West ...?

Actually it might be a big benefit for business wanting to import/export between the Midlands (and Northwards) to/from Europe.

I agree there are effectively already rail links across the Thames, if there was more demand for public transport across the Thames that far down stream then the Tilbury ferry would still be running.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Actually it might be a big benefit for business wanting to import/export between the Midlands (and Northwards) to/from Europe.

Why would they want to want to use a Lower Thames Crossing for road transport when they can use the M25 on the West side of London?

 

[Harpo]

if there was more demand for public transport across the Thames that far down stream then the Tilbury ferry would still be running.

It was carrying around 100,000 passengers a year so there was demand, but councils withdrew funding.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why would they want to want to use a Lower Thames Crossing for road transport when they can use the M25 on the West side of London?

A Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) provides a shorter route for much of the Midlands and North to the Channel crossings. Plus the M25 round the West side of London can get pretty congested.

IIrc.
M40 to A2 is shortest via West and South M25.
M1 to A2 is shortest via North and East M25.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Bad retrograde step from a clueless government. Building a new crossing won't deal with congestion at the Dartford crossing it will make it worse over time. It will encourage more passengers and goods to travel by ICE vehicle. This is a government without a ruling philosophy and simply listens to the biggest lobbyists - currently the big housebuilders, fossil fuel and road transport industries.

And so much for levelling up the north - more shiny things for the south along with Heathrow runway three.

Like it or not road transport accounts for the overwhelming majority of transport in this country. The road network is at a standstill and this will alleviate it at one of its most important points.

As for the government listening to business lobbyists, thank goodness they are because we need to overcome decades of stagnation, their predecessors seemed more interested in pandering to Nimbys.

I’m all for improving rail and public transport, but doubt this will have any impact on rail services whatsoever.

 

[Mikey C]

Actually it might be a big benefit for business wanting to import/export between the Midlands (and Northwards) to/from Europe.

Exactly

This isn't for the benefit of Kent and Essex, this is all about connectivity between the Channel Ports and the whole of the country. Vast amounts of commercial traffic coming up from the channel gets caught in the jams.

Live M25 Dartford Crossing updates as one tunnel is closed

The left hand tunnel of the Dartford crossing is shut and there is congestion to just after J3

www.kentlive.news

 

[yorksrob]

Regardless of the wider arguments around road investment, I can't really see this having much effect on the railway - it will just be a Dartford tunnel relief road.

I spent my first couple of decades living in deepest Kent and ended up going to France more often than Essex. There never seemed to be much interaction between the two.

 

[PeterC]

No doubt a separate toll account will be required to catch out diverting motorists with Dartford freeflow accounts.

 

[PTR 444]

A Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) provides a shorter route for much of the Midlands and North to the Channel crossings. Plus the M25 round the West side of London can get pretty congested.

IIrc.
M40 to A2 is shortest via West and South M25.
M1 to A2 is shortest via North and East M25.

If you’re coming from Dover or the Channel Tunnel, you most likely would be using the M20 rather than the A2/M2 to get to the M40.

Channel Tunnel to LTC traffic would use the A229 between the M20 and M2.

 

[I'm here now]

Why does rail have to be the only answer?

It’s tried and tested w/ 2 insular systems on both banks to hook up to. The real question should be why does Road have to be the only answer!

 

[weeklycommuter]

Why does rail have to be the only answer?

For long distance freight one freight train driver replaces about 76 lorry drivers so rail freight greatly reduces the need for long distance lorry drivers of which there is an ongoing shortage and offers far higher productivity and far lower labour costs.

Rail freight - Network Rail

With partners across the sector, we’re working harder than ever to deliver better, faster, stronger services to support Britain’s economy.

www.networkrail.co.uk

It’s been well publicised that each freight train removes 76 lorries from our roads.

 

[The Planner]

For long distance freight one freight train driver replaces about 76 lorry drivers so rail freight greatly reduces the need for long distance lorry drivers of which there is an ongoing shortage and offers far higher productivity and far lower labour costs.

I get all that, I work in the industry. The original post said it was terrible for rail that its a road tunnel, plenty of people since then haven't exactly come up with concrete ideas of what a rail solution here releases.

 

[JamesT]

For long distance freight one freight train driver replaces about 76 lorry drivers so rail freight greatly reduces the need for long distance lorry drivers of which there is an ongoing shortage and offers far higher productivity and far lower labour costs.

But is there freight on this route which is currently carried by lorries but which would be better handled by rail? 76 lorries could be going to 76 different destinations, 1 train cannot.
If the issue is getting freight from Kent ports North of the Thames, wouldn't it be much cheaper to encourage the shipping companies to use the ports in Essex or Suffolk instead?

 

[Harpo]

76 lorries could be going to 76 different destinations

And probably from 76 different origins spread right across Europe, with road haulage presumably chosen as the best option end-to-end?

 

[Peter Sarf]

To answer the OP directly. I see the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) making very very little difference to rail. Could argue it would compete with HS1 but that assumes that trainload freight (ie block trains) can be attracted to several lorries which I doubt. If the railways were to go back to carrying wagon load freight then the Lower Thames Crossing would be a threat - but rail is never going back to different wagons going to different destinations from different sources.

Regardless of the wider arguments around road investment, I can't really see this having much effect on the railway - it will just be a Dartford tunnel relief road.

I spent my first couple of decades living in deepest Kent and ended up going to France more often than Essex. There never seemed to be much interaction between the two.

I lived in Strood for decades right where the A2/Ms junction is. You have made me remember. Most trips out of Kent were to France OR Birmingham. Sent by train to Birmingham as a child alone (did we really do such things) but if the family were going as a whole it was by car. Back then even before the M25 existed and back in the days when there was only ONE (two way) tunnel at the Dartford crossing.

If you’re coming from Dover or the Channel Tunnel, you most likely would be using the M20 rather than the A2/M2 to get to the M40.

Channel Tunnel to LTC traffic would use the A229 between the M20 and M2.

Yes. Up "Blue Bell Hill" (A229) which I watched getting widened in the 1980s (?) to become a dual carriage way linking the M20 to the East with the M2 Western end. Then followed widening of the A2. Though much traffic uses the M2/A2 all the way to Folkstone.

For long distance freight one freight train driver replaces about 76 lorry drivers so rail freight greatly reduces the need for long distance lorry drivers of which there is an ongoing shortage and offers far higher productivity and far lower labour costs.

So why is HS1 not hoovering up these lorries 76 at a time ?. It is exactly the route required.

But is there freight on this route which is currently carried by lorries but which would be better handled by rail? 76 lorries could be going to 76 different destinations, 1 train cannot.
If the issue is getting freight from Kent ports North of the Thames, wouldn't it be much cheaper to encourage the shipping companies to use the ports in Essex or Suffolk instead?

This is the weakness of rail - it is unavoidable unless we close many roads !.

And probably from 76 different origins spread right across Europe, with road haulage presumably chosen as the best option end-to-end?

True.

 

[zwk500]

It’s tried and tested w/ 2 insular systems on both banks to hook up to. The real question should be why does Road have to be the only answer!

Road isn't the only answer, the most recent transport link across the Thames east of London is a rail tunnel!

The rail network in Kent is badly hampered by the loading gauge (the CT routes were cleared for W8 or W9 for the initial project but most traffic is now W9+), so extra cross-Thames rail capacity isn't really that helpful unless you also invest in clearance (which, IMO, should also be done). Whereas the road network east of London in this area regularly suffers from major congestion and having the opportunity to relieve the busy section of M25 around either bank with another road will be of great benefit to the industrial areas around the various port facilities as well as the country at-large as Dover as the LTC will help relieve the M25, A282 Dartford Crossing, A2 between the M2 and M25, and the M20.

Cross-London rail freight capacity is needed, but there's a very open question if a Kent-Essex link would be better than better connections to the west of central London. And, as mentioned, the Kent network needs clearing for the S45 swapbodies now forming the bulk of cross-channel freight, and also the rail strategy needs to consider how the strategic capacity of Barking Yard and the UIC-Gauge freight paths on HS1 fit into all this.

 

[quantinghome]

Important to note that new railway crossings of the Thames east of Tower Bridge have not been lacking in the recent past.

How many new road crossings have there been over the past thirty years? None. 1 under is construction - Silvertown, 1 cancelled - Thames Gateway / Gallions Reach, and 1 approved yet to start - LTC.

There are a total of six road crossings of the Thames east of Tower Bridge (counting each tunnel structure separately). They were opened in 1897, 1908, 1963, 1967, 1980 and 1991. That's a new crossing every 19 years on average. Taking just the 'modern' crossings (since the 60s), a new crossing was built on average every 9 years. When Silvertown opens next month it will have marked 34 years since the last crossing was built.

In that time 7 new rail crossings have been built east of Tower Bridge - 3 LU, 2 DLR, Crossrail and HS1. 14 if you want to get technical about it.

So I think rail holds up well in the wider scheme of things.

If we want to do something controversial, how about making LTC EV only? It would save a huge amount on ventilation systems.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Like it or not road transport accounts for the overwhelming majority of transport in this country. The road network is at a standstill and this will alleviate it at one of its most important points.

As for the government listening to business lobbyists, thank goodness they are because we need to overcome decades of stagnation, their predecessors seemed more interested in pandering to Nimbys.

I’m all for improving rail and public transport, but doubt this will have any impact on rail services whatsoever.

Their own press release says it will reduce demand over the Dartford crossings by a maximum of 20%. And that won't last long as any spare capacity will be taken up by new road journeys (that induced demand thingy). So in a few years after opening you'll have two crossings at a standstill. And let me guess people will be arguing that just one more lane will fix it this time...

 

[Nym]

I think the bigger question should be, why isn’t it going to be Motorway and why isn’t it going to extend to the M20…?