Opinion

Lower Thames Crossing: Government needs to keep pace with business investment

Perry Glading, Chief Operating Officer, Forth Ports Ltd (owner of the Port of Tilbury)makes case for Lower Thames Crossing and additional junction.

Just like Heathrow Terminal 5, the Lower Thames Crossing and its stop-start progress through the corridors of power has, in part, contributed to the creation of the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC).

The sentiment that “something’s just got to be done,” is driving the NIC and the business support for the Lower Thames Crossing.

The proposed tunnel and road linking Kent and Essex are desperately needed as the scheme seeks to alleviate a severe bottleneck on a critical international business transport corridor.

On average, the existing Dartford Crossing handles more than 140,000 vehicles each day, with 50% of them being freight vehicles.

By anyone’s estimation, it’s busy. In fact, the crossing is operating at 108% of its design capacity and projections by the Department for Transport estimate traffic will grow by 41% over the next 20 years.

That volume of traffic is not without incident. The crossing is one of the least reliable sections of the UK’s strategic road network, with double the national average accident rate. Freight operators and the public alike face congestion, traffic incidents and closures almost every day, with significant cost and time implications.

With so much trade coming through the current Dartford-Thurrock crossing point, the UK needs to future proof itself to provide for greater national resilience and radically improve productivity.

On 26 January, with ministerial backing and the best part of a five year Parliament ahead, Highways England went out to consultation on its preferred solution – a dual carriageway connecting junction 1 of the M2 to the M25 between junctions 29 and 30. The tunnel crosses under the River Thames just east of the towns of Gravesend and Tilbury (option C). Alongside the preferred route, the consultation considers two other routes north of the river at option C and two routes south of the river.

As a result of its success and growth, the Port of Tilbury is adding to this traffic problem.

London and the South East are booming. Consumer confidence is fuelling demand for construction materials and finished goods, while a drive to streamline supply chains is supporting substantial growth at London’s major port.

In response, the Port of Tilbury is expanding rapidly, with one large scale port estate extension being built out and another two taking shape.

Business has doubled in the last 15 years and is projected to double again by 2030, with a threefold increase in direct employment.

With 18 million people within 75 miles of the port and Greater London set to grow significantly over the next 15 years, the current 8,500 daily vehicle movements will expand rapidly over the same period. 

When combined with the road-based traffic growth at the Channel, Medway and other Thames ports, the case for the Lower Thames Crossing could not be stronger.

Until 24 March, businesses, community groups and individuals have the opportunity to shape HE's strategic approach. 

For south Essex, this means working to ensure the area extracts maximum benefit from the scheme. Thurrock only has to look at HS1 to realise that large-scale public investment can happen on your doorstep without the area capitalising on the full economic development opportunity.

The port has a clear approach. Tilbury supports option C, but with the proviso that the proposed crossing and new road through Thurrock provides a step-change in the connectivity to-and-from the port and improves key strategic roads like the A13 and A1089.

Whichever option C route is finally chosen (2, 3 or 4), the port calls for the inclusion of an all moves junction east of Tilbury with a direct link to the Port of Tilbury area.

The additional junction is vital to:

  • improve connectivity to the current port estate and our new 152-acre port facility at the former Tilbury Power Station site, Tilbury 2
  • provide much needed operational resilience to the port’s operations, with associated relief for the local road network, including residential areas
  • open up north Kent to the substantial employment opportunities at the port (circa 5,500 direct roles in the next five years alone), and
  • develop better access to the trading hubs in the Midlands, northern Europe and the South East.

As Andrew Adonis said recently for the UK not to get on and realise the full economic benefits of expanding aviation capacity in the South East would be a national tragedy. The same could be said for failing to deliver a consented Lower Thames Crossing this Parliament.

It is unlikely that Westminster tube station will be plastered with posters pressing the case for the new tunnel and road, but be under no illusion that this infrastructure project is of national strategic importance and should be built. 

Comments

In fact you want an Option C+!! As there is no tilbury link in option C it cannot be considered. You seem not to care about the environment, the air you breathe, the lives you would happily have blighted. All in the name of progress and economic advancement. There are some things worth fighting for and this is one. The lack of innovative inspiration is staggering. As Henry Ford said " Do what you have always done, and you will always get what you've always got"
In fact you want an Option C+!! As there is no tilbury link in option C it cannot be considered. You seem not to care about the environment, the air you breathe, the lives you would happily have blighted. All in the name of progress and economic advancement. There are some things worth fighting for and this is one. The lack of innovative inspiration is staggering. As Henry Ford said " Do what you have always done, and you will always get what you've always got"
isn't issuing Thurrocks residents with a death sentence against the law? You have no regard for peoples well being or health. It is illegal to build this crossing in YOUR preferred route - look at the statistics on DEFRA regarding air qulaity. You may as well issue us all with Breathing Apperatus as well. Ruining our countryside. When other options are more effective and cheaper than Thurrock why are you insisting on option C? This is a total breech of OUR HUMAN RIGHTS... and illegal
Ever considered just tunnelling from Ockendon to Kent and taking out of the equation 2 major troublesome junctions each by side just permitting traffic a straight through passage? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209384733884102&set=pcb.1237315099630593&type=3&relevant_count=3 You can't fit a quart into a pint pot, and the area is full to capacity already...so why do you persist on wrecking the lives of those who have to live amongst all of the crud and filth that you insist upon dumping on us? Clearly "DILLIGAF" springs to mind after reading Perry's views above, as these actions / opinions are not those of a Thurrock resident. Whatever happened to using resources already here - ie the A1089 Tilbury Dock Approach road - and tunnelling through from there? Option C stinks! (Quite literally !)
What makes you believe that the people of Thurrock an especially Tilbury are in favour of this crossing we are already polluted above the safety standards . I presume intelligence is hardly worth appealing to as obviously the health of the residents of this area is something that comes way below the monetary advantages that is the be all and end all of this proposal
So where do you live then. Guaranteed it certainly won't be in Thurrock or Kent! If you want to build roads do it in your backyard...Idiot!
We are sick of our views being ignored. Where is the consultation on Option A (or even better Option D)? Pollution in Thurrock is already over the legal limit and would only get worse with four lane highway going through the middle of Tilbury.
Where do you get the idea that the residents of Tilbury support Option C? Have you attended any of the meetings? if so next time might I suggest that you turn your hearing aid up as you haven't heard or listened to anything that the people have stated, you know, like being able to breathe without needing a mask. The pollution level is regularly beyond accepted measures and another crossing will only add to it. Tilbury is already the most polluted area in Thurrock so why would we want to add to it?
Perry Glading, seriously what the hell is wrong with you. Great you're gonna make for money, which means for tax revenue, which means money for the NHS. But what's the point when the extra funds will in part have to pay for the increase health problems of local residents. I am absolutely disgusted with the notion that if you means for money if ultimately means it good. Economic growth should be a means to an end - the end being a healthy and prosperous life. Economic growth is not the end goal. To quote Albert Einstein "The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them". To put it simply, your solution is out of date. Get HVGs of the road network and use freight trains and, work with commuters to use their cars least. According to Highways Agency 86% of the traffic will still go through Dartford. Are you seriously saying that when there is a hold up at Dartford crossing the proposed option C is sufficiency far away from Dartford not to be effected. Many of us think that the pile up will actually prevent traffic getting onto the new lower thames crossing; going southbound, traffic only has to pile to up J29; northbound down to J2 to block traffic from the M25 getting onto Option C. Simply put it's too close to the existing crossing, and is pretty much offering the same solution as Option A is. All it's going to do stretch the pitch-point to the east of Gravesham and Thurrock, which is why many of us are suggesting Option D be considered, as it's further away. With the anticipated increase in population, is now not the right time to invest in other forms of transport north and south of the river? Currently if I want to travel south of the river by public transport, my options are pretty poor. Personally I would love to see the investment be spent on a rail crossing at Option C connecting the new Crossrail across the river. Perhaps develop freight trains had can travel on the High Speed Network, removing HGV traffic that cause so much problems at Dartford that way? That way you're removing cars not just from Dartford's road network, but off roads all together. The way I see it, it plays out like this. If a factory was producing waste and polluting the river, no one would proposed to dig a trench to divert 14% of the polluted water and re connect it back to the river. What I'd like to think would happen is pressure be place on the factory to stop polluting the river and clean up it's act. Rather than moving some of the traffic and pollution problems elsewhere, should we not be looking at cleaning up our act?
Team up with us Perry... we will gladly help you promote option D.. https://www.facebook.com/groups/NoLTChere/1267129549982481/?ref=notif&notif_t=like&notif_id=1461875219545531
Option C is a death sentence for all of our future generations ... Tilbury is already over pollution limits Thurrock has 15 AQM in place with a further 2 pending ... the proposed route is too close to the existing crossing and will create a toxic triangle.... Option D was dismissed before full costings etc... were done but as Canvey is now asking for another road off the island would you support a revisit of option D as an alternative to the proposed route as this would be far enough away from the existing crossing to stop thurrock being used as a rat run between the 2 ... and the ensuing chaos gridlock and excessive pollution thus woykd cause
FTAO MR PERRY GALDING The least you could do is have a shred of decency and reply?? Why create a comments box? May i suggest you try and remove your head from your anus for 5 minutes and at least reply to us THE VICTIMS yours sincerly Thurrock
Mr Glading, i would like to take this opportunity to correct a number of ill informed facts you claim with regard to the existing crossing capacity and draw your attention to concerns i Have with your business model. For the record the existing crossing has reduced vehicle count year on year since 2003. It has operated under capacity for many years according to the government's very own corporate report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445125/Traffic_Flow.pdf). By Your very own admission 50% of the crossing capacity is used up by HGV's. This is an appalling use of resource. Tilbury docks has fantastic rail freight connections why are you not making better use of it? I suggest using the £6bn on rail rather than road, appeal to get this budget diverted to better use and less HGV traffic on Thurrock's roads, if investment on rail is lacking to support your ports growth! Consider the wider benefits of a road proposal like Option D. This proposal could still provide Tilbury & Stanford Ports a much shorter passage to the continent, while also providing a new corridor to new markets for many more manufacturing businesses situated deeper into Essex, not just Thurrock. For instance, the ever expanding Southend Airport, and the wider depressed economy of Southend & Rochford. Chelmsford has seen a huge decline in skilled manufacturing over they years, just like Basildon has. Hubs like this are in desperate need to be given the opportunity to save what industry these areas do have and encourage new business to the area. Option C totally ignores this need for growth in the wider Essex & Kent regions, focusing only on capacity issues at the existing crossing. When management & operational issues at the existing crossing cause most of the current hold ups. Remembering Option C potentially reduces crossings made each day by up to 14%! This does not address your transport issues for very long into the future at all and at a cost of £6bn! Option D would be a much faster project to completion. It uses very little greenbelt land. It has no need to compulsory purchase homes at the rate that Option C does. It has a ready made set of links to established national road networks, that have very good links to alternative ports within East Anglia, not just Stanford & Tilbury. Option D supports a sustainable future with respect to the local and national economy. Did you know Option C consumes 1 quarter of Thurrock's remaining greenbelt. It consumes peoples homes & recreation areas. It will create rat runs between the existing crossing and the new crossing, bringing potential gridlock to every Thurrock road when the bridge closes, which will stifle your very own business of shipping. Option C will bring higher levels of pollution from your HGV's. Potentially even more HGV's parked up along side every Thurrock road littering and leaving human waste behind them. This is not acceptable or responsible for a business to suggest to Thurrock people this is what we should put up with for the benefit of your business. Its about time your business cleaned up its act. Not only for the litter and human waste your lorry drivers leave behind them, but to the extremely high levels of pollution your business inflicts on the population of Thurrock, focusing on Calcutta Road right out side your port gates! The highest in the region when it comes to N02 / particulate pollution. This is directly linked to the internal combustion engines of ships and HGV's. Open your eyes Mr Glading, Option C will not deliver on any level you suggest. The shameful thing to do is hurry government decision making processes up on the claims made by Highways England. Highways England have presented flawed data, have tried to bias the recent consultation by omitting Option A, poor community engagement, targeted certain members of population (some not even in the UK) in hope to bias further their consultation data. They have ignored DEFRA's very own Air Quality issues in Thurrock, and to top it all we have a Thurrock MP who suggests a road like Option C will make the air cleaner in Thurrock because vehicles are moving. She totally ignores the fact that a higher number of vehicles crossing the Borough will attribute to increased pollution. Mr Glading, I urge you to review your opinion as ill informed claims are extremely dangerous for the wider community that surrounds your operation. Please consider the welfare of Thurrock, Essex & Kent as part of your business model, as when workers suffer illness they become an unproductive workforce. Many Thanks
Well said Matt ... a re think of option D is needed ... Deep port Logistics park and port of tilbury will add 30000 plus HGV to thurrocks rds when at full capacity ... option D would link to A130 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes .... A12 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes ... roads that are already there .... and do not have the expected gradients that option C will bring that HGV will struggle with .... Option C plus another road that DP also want to build will not resolve any issues in Thurrock and will just compound its existing gridlock and pollution issues
Well said Matt ... a re think of option D is needed ... Deep port Logistics park and port of tilbury will add 30000 plus HGV to thurrocks rds when at full capacity ... option D would link to A130 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes .... A12 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes ... roads that are already there .... and do not have the expected gradients that option C will bring that HGV will struggle with .... Option C plus another road that DP also want to build will not resolve any issues in Thurrock and will just compound its existing gridlock and pollution issues
Well said Matt ... a re think of option D is needed ... Deep port Logistics park and port of tilbury will add 30000 plus HGV to thurrocks rds when at full capacity ... option D would link to A130 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes .... A12 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes ... roads that are already there .... and do not have the expected gradients that option C will bring that HGV will struggle with .... Option C plus another road that DP also want to build will not resolve any issues in Thurrock and will just compound its existing gridlock and pollution issues
Well said Matt ... a re think of option D is needed ... Deep port Logistics park and port of tilbury will add 30000 plus HGV to thurrocks rds when at full capacity ... option D would link to A130 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes .... A12 which is due for expansion to 3 lanes ... roads that are already there .... and do not have the expected gradients that option C will bring that HGV will struggle with .... Option C plus another road that DP also want to build will not resolve any issues in Thurrock and will just compound its existing gridlock and pollution issues
"On average, the existing Dartford Crossing handles more than 140,000 vehicles each day, with 50% of them being freight vehicles. By anyone’s estimation, it’s busy. In fact, the crossing is operating at 108% of its design capacity and projections by the Department for Transport estimate traffic will grow by 41% over the next 20 years." +++ http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php?la=Essex#73496 http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php?la=Kent#38792 +++ If your business decisions are being driven by the numbers in your article then you are being mislead by Highways England. The existing traffic volumes have NEVER reached the levels that Highways England claimed. For example Feb 2016 ranged from 85,000 to 103,000 a day, well short of the 135,000 capacity. +++ Simply because the combined Tunnel and Bridge struggles to cope with accidents and certain HGV vehicles is no reason to slap a rat run through Thurrock and create a toxic triangle bounded by the M25, A13 and this new road and thus create the highest density of motorways anywhere in the UK.
Hello, If you are looking to outsource SEO services to India, We can help you effectively achieve your goal. We are the leading SEO based in Noida India and for a long term relationship we can start our SEO services only $99 per month per website. Web Development, Mobile APPS or SEO we are here to serve you better.Our charges only $12/hour. If you are interested in our services. Do let me know your exact requirement? I would really appreciate if you could share your Phone No/Skype ID to make our discussions more easier. Best Shefali 9211469086 Skype: ranksindia