Dartford Crossing
Discussion
From the BBC:
New Thames crossing 'will help' Dartford Crossing
It seems strange that instead of curing the cause of the problem, they seem intent on providing a bit of pain relief.
New Thames crossing 'will help' Dartford Crossing
BBC said:
The government has reiterated its belief that queues at the Dartford Crossing are so bad there will have to be a new, extra Thames crossing.
Roads minister Mike Penning said it would alleviate congestion at the tolls caused by "the success" of the M25.
He was responding to John Baron, Tory MP for Basildon and Billericay, who had suggested introducing automatic number plate recognition technology instead.
Mr Baron said it could solve congestion at the Dartford Crossing.
He told MPs that it would be better than raising the tariffs to fund a second crossing.
But Mr Penning said the Department for Transport did not believe Mr Baron's solution would work.
'Archaic barriers'
"Even with free-flow tolling at Dartford the northern approach to the tunnel would still be congested even on the predictions we have now.
"The small bore tunnel has a huge restriction. We need to look at another crossing for the Thames because this is national, I repeat national, infrastructure," he said.
Conservative MP for Sevenoaks Michael Fallon also said the existing crossing could be improved.
"Do you accept there is a persistently serious problem of congestion both northbound and southbound which is costing everybody an awful lot of time and money?
"Why can't we have earlier and clearer signage and much better traffic management in front of the toll booths themselves?"
Mr Penning said: "We are very aware of the congestion at the tolls.
"Most of the congestion is caused by the barriers, which is an archaic method of collecting tolls, and we will introduce free-flow tolling as soon as we can."
Isn't the whole problem the barriers? Why build a new crossing, when the whole problem would be solved, I think, by removing the barriers. Friday afternoons are a nightmare, and always result in miles of tailbacks, yet the rest of the M25 can be reasonably free flowing. Roads minister Mike Penning said it would alleviate congestion at the tolls caused by "the success" of the M25.
He was responding to John Baron, Tory MP for Basildon and Billericay, who had suggested introducing automatic number plate recognition technology instead.
Mr Baron said it could solve congestion at the Dartford Crossing.
He told MPs that it would be better than raising the tariffs to fund a second crossing.
But Mr Penning said the Department for Transport did not believe Mr Baron's solution would work.
'Archaic barriers'
"Even with free-flow tolling at Dartford the northern approach to the tunnel would still be congested even on the predictions we have now.
"The small bore tunnel has a huge restriction. We need to look at another crossing for the Thames because this is national, I repeat national, infrastructure," he said.
Conservative MP for Sevenoaks Michael Fallon also said the existing crossing could be improved.
"Do you accept there is a persistently serious problem of congestion both northbound and southbound which is costing everybody an awful lot of time and money?
"Why can't we have earlier and clearer signage and much better traffic management in front of the toll booths themselves?"
Mr Penning said: "We are very aware of the congestion at the tolls.
"Most of the congestion is caused by the barriers, which is an archaic method of collecting tolls, and we will introduce free-flow tolling as soon as we can."
It seems strange that instead of curing the cause of the problem, they seem intent on providing a bit of pain relief.
I agree free flowing tolls would be much better, or even make it free like they said they would once it had paid for itself... In all seriousness though, I'd imagine they will still want to limit speed in and in the run up to the tunnel, and to a lesser extent maybe the bridge, which will cause some queues, though nothing like to the extent that it does at the moment.
Given the fact the QE2 bridge was paid for in the late 90's and the tolls are now effectively a tax rather than a return on investment the Government should fund any new crossing by bond issue and use the toll income to repay these.
The problem is where to build the new crossing. Outside the M25 and a massive new road building program will have to be authorised and funded to ensure enough vehicles use it to cover the costs via tolls. Inside the M25 and you are in heavily populated areas when new 6 or 8 lane roads would be difficult to build.
There has been talk over the years of looking at a "super crossing" between Canvey Island and Kent which would allow the A130 extention to Sadlers Farm to track traffic north and easy access to the M2 and M20 in Kent. Successive Governments have ignored this option due to cost but they are not looking 50+ years down the line, they are basing their calculations on current traffic flow. The reason we are now paying to widen the M25 is because it was not built properly in the first place as again Governments did not take into account the growth in road use over a long enough period; QED politicians in this country are short sighted.
The bridge was not congested at all a little while back when there was a power problem and the toll barriers were not able to work for a few days....................
The problem is where to build the new crossing. Outside the M25 and a massive new road building program will have to be authorised and funded to ensure enough vehicles use it to cover the costs via tolls. Inside the M25 and you are in heavily populated areas when new 6 or 8 lane roads would be difficult to build.
There has been talk over the years of looking at a "super crossing" between Canvey Island and Kent which would allow the A130 extention to Sadlers Farm to track traffic north and easy access to the M2 and M20 in Kent. Successive Governments have ignored this option due to cost but they are not looking 50+ years down the line, they are basing their calculations on current traffic flow. The reason we are now paying to widen the M25 is because it was not built properly in the first place as again Governments did not take into account the growth in road use over a long enough period; QED politicians in this country are short sighted.
The bridge was not congested at all a little while back when there was a power problem and the toll barriers were not able to work for a few days....................
I meant to say that Hugh! Scrap the charges. If there were no charges, there would be no problems. Perhaps have a speed restriction, and put up cameras to catch the speeders.
I agree budgie, 5 miles either way of jams isn't uncommon, so 10 miles for 3 or 4 hours sometimes. It's a massive waste of fuel, and I'm sure it registers that the population increases.
If that were the case Mattt, how come Blackwall doesn't suffer the same problems?! Sounds like a poor excuse really.
I agree budgie, 5 miles either way of jams isn't uncommon, so 10 miles for 3 or 4 hours sometimes. It's a massive waste of fuel, and I'm sure it registers that the population increases.
If that were the case Mattt, how come Blackwall doesn't suffer the same problems?! Sounds like a poor excuse really.
Grey Ghost said:
Given the fact the QE2 bridge was paid for in the late 90's and the tolls are now effectively a tax rather than a return on investment the Government should fund any new crossing by bond issue and use the toll income to repay these.
But why have a new crossing? We don't need one. The only reason that it's a bottleneck is because of the toll booths.Grey Ghost said:
The reason we are now paying to widen the M25 is because it was not built properly in the first place as again Governments did not take into account the growth in road use over a long enough period; QED politicians in this country are short sighted.
I think that's a tad harsh. No one has a crystal ball, and I have no doubt that people would have bemoaned the costs if the M25 had been 6 lanes each way from it's conception.Grey Ghost said:
The bridge was not congested at all a little while back when there was a power problem and the toll barriers were not able to work for a few days....................
Exactly. The solution is to scrap all forms of payments, as was pledged to happen in about 2003. Edit: It was actually announced on Tuesday, 1 April, 2003.
Edited by MX7 on Friday 11th November 12:14
MX7 said:
Grey Ghost said:
Given the fact the QE2 bridge was paid for in the late 90's and the tolls are now effectively a tax rather than a return on investment the Government should fund any new crossing by bond issue and use the toll income to repay these.
But why have a new crossing? We don't need one. The only reason that it's a bottleneck is because of the toll booths..
I agree that the toll booths are the bottleneck and if resolved we quite probably do not need another crossing built but if we are going to have to suffer a new crossing in our area Joe Public shouldn't have to pay for it.But why have a new crossing? We don't need one. The only reason that it's a bottleneck is because of the toll booths..
Grey Ghost said:
The reason we are now paying to widen the M25 is because it was not built properly in the first place as again Governments did not take into account the growth in road use over a long enough period; QED politicians in this country are short sighted.
I think that's a tad harsh. No one has a crystal ball, and I have no doubt that people would have bemoaned the costs if the M25 had been 6 lanes each way from it's conception..
Possibly a little harsh (bad morning at work I think that's a tad harsh. No one has a crystal ball, and I have no doubt that people would have bemoaned the costs if the M25 had been 6 lanes each way from it's conception..
) but a lot of the places I visit around the world look 25-50 years or more ahead for capacity. The airports at Madrid and KL are prime examples where terminals have been built but are not scheduled to come into use for a few years when demand is forecast to rise. Other countries in the far east are building roads that are wider than needed as they are also looking to demand for road space continuing to go up. The road from the new Bangkok airport to the City is one example.Grey Ghost said:
The bridge was not congested at all a little while back when there was a power problem and the toll barriers were not able to work for a few days....................
Exactly. The solution is to scrap all forms of payments, as was pledged to happen in about 2003. .
Totally agree. The bridge is fully paid for and it's maintenance fund is overflowing but still we have to pay tolls. If they introduced staggered speed zones strictly enforced by cameras on the approaches and the bridge and tunnels traffic would flow without a hitch.Exactly. The solution is to scrap all forms of payments, as was pledged to happen in about 2003. .
Grey Ghost said:
I agree that the toll booths are the bottleneck and if resolved we quite probably do not need another crossing built but if we are going to have to suffer a new crossing in our area Joe Public shouldn't have to pay for it.
Why should the South East be different from the rest of the country? Almost everywhere it's Joe Public who pay for the roads.Grey Ghost said:
Possibly a little harsh (bad morning at work ) but a lot of the places I visit around the world look 25-50 years or more ahead for capacity. The airports at Madrid and KL are prime examples where terminals have been built but are not scheduled to come into use for a few years when demand is forecast to rise. Other countries in the far east are building roads that are wider than needed as they are also looking to demand for road space continuing to go up. The road from the new Bangkok airport to the City is one example.
I'm not sure Spain is a good example. They tried to better their infrastructure, and now it's left lying idle. I know if the same happened here, there would be calls for heads to roll. ) but a lot of the places I visit around the world look 25-50 years or more ahead for capacity. The airports at Madrid and KL are prime examples where terminals have been built but are not scheduled to come into use for a few years when demand is forecast to rise. Other countries in the far east are building roads that are wider than needed as they are also looking to demand for road space continuing to go up. The road from the new Bangkok airport to the City is one example.As for Asia, it's probably difficult to over engineer anything over there. It will grow.
Grey Ghost said:
Totally agree. The bridge is fully paid for and it's maintenance fund is overflowing but still we have to pay tolls. If they introduced staggered speed zones strictly enforced by cameras on the approaches and the bridge and tunnels traffic would flow without a hitch.
I think speed monitoring to keep it free flowing could work well. I've seen suggestions that we have a weeks trial with no payment to see what the effect would be, but I think they know the outcome.
Sorry pressed Submit too quickly.
When the kids aren't in school the area around the crossing is significantly worse as everyone goes to Bluewater and Lakeside.
And let's not forget the number of people without Dart Tags. I reckon it takes twice as long using money and in my experience more than half of people don't have tags.
Maybe it's time to think how we can resolve the problems ourselves rather than just building more roads.
When the kids aren't in school the area around the crossing is significantly worse as everyone goes to Bluewater and Lakeside.
And let's not forget the number of people without Dart Tags. I reckon it takes twice as long using money and in my experience more than half of people don't have tags.
Maybe it's time to think how we can resolve the problems ourselves rather than just building more roads.
Having read the comments, i think that there is a agreement that the issue IS the tolls themselves and that if you had the ability to charge cars whilst they were still moving, then traffic WOULD NOT HAVE TO STOP.
Its not as though they need to develop the technology to do it. The congestion charge has it and if if someone does not sign up for it in advance, you could stick the extra on their car tax bill, the next time their online renewal comes up (or if they sell their car).
Speed in the tunnel is obviously an issue as you dont want people changing lanes and making people brake (thereby causing those behind to do the same in the darkness) because people are hogging the middle lanes etc.
The solution (and I cannot believe I am even saying this) would be an average spped camera enforced rolling 40-50mph speed limit through the crossing. All lanes would be equal(ish) and simpley flow for the short time either side that it was absolutely necessary.
The trouble is that there is an agenda in a government department somewhere to justify a new crossing. The only way they can justify it is to have a reasonable cause to build it.
The only reasonable cause is to reduce the congestion on the m25 crossing.
If that congestion was to suddenly dissappear, then their carefully scripted agenda falls apart.
So it aint going to happen unless a well funded and properly undertaken independent investigation is undertaken to scientifically show that it would work.
Then all you need is 100k plus signatures.
Its not as though they need to develop the technology to do it. The congestion charge has it and if if someone does not sign up for it in advance, you could stick the extra on their car tax bill, the next time their online renewal comes up (or if they sell their car).
Speed in the tunnel is obviously an issue as you dont want people changing lanes and making people brake (thereby causing those behind to do the same in the darkness) because people are hogging the middle lanes etc.
The solution (and I cannot believe I am even saying this) would be an average spped camera enforced rolling 40-50mph speed limit through the crossing. All lanes would be equal(ish) and simpley flow for the short time either side that it was absolutely necessary.
The trouble is that there is an agenda in a government department somewhere to justify a new crossing. The only way they can justify it is to have a reasonable cause to build it.
The only reasonable cause is to reduce the congestion on the m25 crossing.
If that congestion was to suddenly dissappear, then their carefully scripted agenda falls apart.
So it aint going to happen unless a well funded and properly undertaken independent investigation is undertaken to scientifically show that it would work.
Then all you need is 100k plus signatures.
HughG said:
On the subject to Dart Tags, it amazes me how many people I know who use it regularly dont have one, even after I've harped on about all the (numerous) benefits.
I very rarely use the Dartford crossing, probably no more than 5 times each way a year and I've got a Dart-tag. Costs nothing to have it, cheaper and more convinent for those times I do use it. No disadvantages, anybody that uses the crossing regularly would be silly not to get one.Hol said:
Having read the comments, i think that there is a agreement that the issue IS the tolls themselves and that if you had the ability to charge cars whilst they were still moving, then traffic WOULD NOT HAVE TO STOP.
Why charge at all? I know it's an obvious answer, but it was only a temporary measure to start with, and now it causes major problems that costs hundreds (thousands?) of man hours every single day. MX7 said:
Why charge at all? I know it's an obvious answer, but it was only a temporary measure to start with , and now it causes major problems that costs hundreds (thousands?) of man hours every single day.
It certainly was. The bridge was built with funding via one of my previous employers under a bond issue scheme. The idea was to allow repayment over a fixed period of time using toll income and build up a reserve fund that would be used to maintain the bridge for the foreseeable future at the time of issue. The toll revenue is now allegedly used to maintain and upgrade the roads in Essex and Kent around the Dartford Crossing area...........yeah right 
It is a toll and a direct tax
The toll booths are the only cause of holdups
On French toll roads you can go through the lanes for "TAG" users at 60KPH or higher so traffic continues to flow and tolls are collected electronically. We are light years behind in this sort of technology.
Only upside of the crossing to me is that it only costs 20p every time I use it
Grey Ghost said:
The toll booths are the only cause of holdups
They certainly are. There was a power cut recently, the barriers had to be left open and there were no queues all day.Grey Ghost said:
On French toll roads you can go through the lanes for "TAG" users at 60KPH or higher so traffic continues to flow and tolls are collected electronically. We are light years behind in this sort of technology.
Not quite, the non-stop lanes of the Liber-T lanes are 30kph. Strangely, they are operated by the same company as the Dartford tolls. The DART tags and Sanef Autopeage 'badges' are identical.Raify said:
Grey Ghost said:
The toll booths are the only cause of holdups
They certainly are. There was a power cut recently, the barriers had to be left open and there were no queues all day.Grey Ghost said:
On French toll roads you can go through the lanes for "TAG" users at 60KPH or higher so traffic continues to flow and tolls are collected electronically. We are light years behind in this sort of technology.
Not quite, the non-stop lanes of the Liber-T lanes are 30kph. Strangely, they are operated by the same company as the Dartford tolls. The DART tags and Sanef Autopeage 'badges' are identical.Gassing Station | Kent & Essex | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff