New Thames Crossing East of Gravesend

[Drago]

Ah, just what the country needs, yet more procrastination.

Either bloody well do it or don't do, because the uncertainty helps no one.

 

[presta]

there is a cycle/pedestrian ferry at Gravesend

Not any more there isn't, it closed on April fool's day this year when the existing contract ran out.

Often thought of the Gravesend / Tilbury ferry, but in 45 years of living in the area, have never used it.

I used the TG ferry to get to the Kent hostels from here, easy, convenient, and bikes go free.

It seems they're amenable to reopening it if they can find someone to run it for the subsidy they're offering.

 

[mjr]

Ah, just what the country needs, yet more procrastination.

Either bloody well do it or don't do, because the uncertainty helps no one.

Presumably up until July, it was full smoke ahead under Sunak and his Plan for Drivers. The new government is probably desperately trying to figure out what to do instead, but I don't see how a bulldozing a new motorway through green belt and under the Thames is compatible with "extend and renew our road network" (Labour Party Manifesto p33). It seems like adding to the maintenance costs at a time when they've already axed some other road projects to reallocate their money to maintenance. It would also be bizarre to approve this, then issue a load of new planning policy statements, so I can understand the delay.

But it would be good not to delay too long, so the ferry can either get a new operator secure that the road isn't coming, or one that is ready for the challenge.

The new government have also made some very encouraging comments about active transport and railways, so if this tunnel is built, it might have cycleways or railways added. Both were previously requested by the public but rejected by National Highways, who might as well be called National Motorways even if they like to greenwash the LTC with new paths on each side but not through the tunnel. It's only 2.6 miles which is a bit over 15 minutes average ride, but it would take the record from that cycling tunnel in Bergen. Presumably the new road tunnel will have an escape tunnel which could be adapted, but I didn't find the plans on the horrible National Highways site, nor their reasoning for not giving the tunnel a world-beating cycleway.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Have to say I fully expected the new govt to cancel it. Not out of green-ness (although they might claim that), just because of the cost, and the fact that they won't be as subject to sunk cost fallacy as the previous lot as they didn't spend the heaps of money that has already gone into planning it.

If anything, deferring it makes me think they are more likely to green-light it, otherwise they'd have already canned it. I think the least likely outcome would be a change of plan, to include rail or cycle access, as that would mean another ton of money on planning and another huge delay. But that's just my worthless opinion. I'm probably wrong.

 

[Bristolian]

If anything, deferring it makes me think they are more likely to green-light it, otherwise they'd have already canned it. I think the least likely outcome would be a change of plan, to include rail or cycle access, as that would mean another ton of money on planning and another huge delay. But that's just my worthless opinion. I'm probably wrong.

I don't think you're wrong. I spent almost ten years working with National Highways (and it's predecessors) and once they have a plan that's approved they will defend it to the bitter end. Adding rail isn't a simple or cheap option - if you think building a motorway is expensive just cost a km of dual track rail Then there's the decade, or more, needed to purchase the land to lay the track on and all the anti's that will be back objecting to the road again. We'll still be having this conversation in 2050.

As far as a cycle track is concerned that might be possible but again would require a lengthy and costly redesign of the tunnel and addition of cycle paths leading to both portals. You can't use the services tunnel as it contains the fume extraction and fire detection system as well as being the the escape route in case of fire in the tunnel.

In the end it will get the go-ahead simply because it removed a huge number of vehicles from the M25 and QE2 bridge, plus it gives another revenue stream

 

[mjr]

As far as a cycle track is concerned that might be possible but again would require a lengthy and costly redesign of the tunnel and addition of cycle paths leading to both portals. You can't use the services tunnel as it contains the fume extraction and fire detection system as well as being the the escape route in case of fire in the tunnel.

Why does that mean we can't have escape tunnels open for sustainable transport when neighbouring countries like France and Norway can? Do they not have fire detection systems and so on?

In the end it will get the go-ahead simply because it removed a huge number of vehicles from the M25 and QE2 bridge, plus it gives another revenue stream

Well, expand the current revenue stream, as those using the QE2 bridge and nearby tunnel already pay.

 

[Bristolian]

Why does that mean we can't have escape tunnels open for sustainable transport when neighbouring countries like France and Norway can? Do they not have fire detection systems and so on?

No-one uses escape tunnels for cycling. No-one would get that past the health and safety brigade or the fire service tasked with the tunnel's safety. Where they exist they are dedicated cycling infrastructure. Of course we can have cycling infrastructure in a tunnel too, but it has to be part of the design brief from the outset to include cycling - this one doesn't even have it as an afterthought. Adding it would be neither easy, quick or cheap and, whilst we probably don't think cost should be a factor in reality it very much is.

You don't just bore another hole alongside the roadway ones because that would affect the design of the walls of the road tunnel. NH would have to undertake a geological survey of the proposed cycleway, then change the existing design to incorporate the extra tunnel and then open up the whole design for planning permission again. These are not five minute jobs and for what? Just so a few hundred cyclists a day can ride through it? Where's the ROI?

@mjr - Please don't think I'm just being argumentative. In fact I have given this some thought and even spoken with a couple of contacts at NH working on the project. As I suspected, planning for a cycle lane or tunnel was never part of the design brief so has never been considered. One of my contacts initial reaction was something like "Oh God, NO!". Between them they suggested the cost of adding a cycling tunnel (including cycle lanes within the existing tunnel profile was discounted on safety grounds) would be somewhere north of £10million (taking everything into account) and would likely add about 5 years to the project even if they could get it past the examining authority and the treasury, not to mention the Government.

 

[mjr]

No-one uses escape tunnels for cycling. No-one would get that past the health and safety brigade or the fire service tasked with the tunnel's safety. Where they exist they are dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Both Lyon (Le Tube / Tunnel de la Croix-Rousse) and Bergen (Fyllingsdalen Tunnel) are described as escape tunnels. The Lyon one looks like it has doors to the car tunnel at intervals (they're the arches across the busway in this video:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-B9MmNdFlU

Of course we can have cycling infrastructure in a tunnel too, but it has to be part of the design brief from the outset to include cycling - this one doesn't even have it as an afterthought. Adding it would be neither easy, quick or cheap and, whilst we probably don't think cost should be a factor in reality it very much is.

The Bergen one was probably designed as dual-purpose from the outset, but Le Tube really was added 60 years after the linked car tunnel opened. I doubt it was cheap, but shouldn't we really be funding alternatives to cars?

You don't just bore another hole alongside the roadway ones because that would affect the design of the walls of the road tunnel. NH would have to undertake a geological survey of the proposed cycleway, then change the existing design to incorporate the extra tunnel and then open up the whole design for planning permission again. These are not five minute jobs and for what? Just so a few hundred cyclists a day can ride through it? Where's the ROI?

Yeah, I've not got all the answers, but unfortunately it doesn't look like NH have either, or at least they've not published those answers in any way easy to find in reasonable time. Who says it would be only a few hundred cyclists a day? Is someone making the mistake of estimating the demand for cycling by the numbers currently using the cumbersome intermittent Dartford shuttle service, or the numbers making the detour via Woolwich? The ROI* of cycling schemes lately has been far higher than that for motorway schemes, so why wouldn't that also apply to the Lower Thames Crossing?

* actually the Benefit-Cost Ratio because that's what seems to get published now.

@mjr - Please don't think I'm just being argumentative. In fact I have given this some thought and even spoken with a couple of contacts at NH working on the project. As I suspected, planning for a cycle lane or tunnel was never part of the design brief so has never been considered.

Ah, right, so it's the politicians who agreed the brief however many years ago who farked us and there's been insufficient will yet to challenge or correct that. Is it Thatcher's fault? This is a zombie project from "Roads for Prosperity", isn't it? A sibling of the Newbury Bypass and Twyford Down Cutting.

I don't think you're just being argumentative. No offence taken or intended.

One of my contacts initial reaction was something like "Oh God, NO!".

Yeah, that's a pretty good summary of NH attitude to cycling! Near me, there's loads of little missing links of 400m or less where a short cycleway between side roads within the ample NH boundary would reduce community and route severance, but there seems to be no interest in the office in Bedford. I doubt they even keep a list of them. Major projects are little better. The A11 Elveden dualling was done without even active travel connectivity at the Mildenhall end. The current A47 Easton dualling is getting the bare minimum of "local access roads" (which look like 60mph so will be used by sat navs as soon as the two more lanes are full) cobbled together with shared-use to produce a cycle route which will go up and down needlessly to zig-zag over and under the new "expressway"... at least that one will still reopen a route that most cyclists have been bullied off, but anyone who has ridden in Benelux or parts of France will probably be cursing every time they ride up the penny-pinching zig-zag bridge ramp to get dumped on an arrow-straight 40mph disused A road with no cycling infrastructure because that's now a county road and we don't do "joined-up thinking" for cycling. The proposed A47 Hardwick changes don't even bring the "NMU provision" (as it used to be called) up to current guidance yet. If it ain't heavy metal, it doesn't seem to play at NH East.

Between them they suggested the cost of adding a cycling tunnel (including cycle lanes within the existing tunnel profile was discounted on safety grounds) would be somewhere north of £10million (taking everything into account) and would likely add about 5 years to the project even if they could get it past the examining authority and the treasury, not to mention the Government.

£10million? That's only 20 illegal Cumbrian former railway bridge infills! What price health? Anyway, that's the sort of "can't do" attitude which makes Britain grate. It's all about the price, not the value.

 

[Trickedem]

No-one uses escape tunnels for cycling. No-one would get that past the health and safety brigade or the fire service tasked with the tunnel's safety. Where they exist they are dedicated cycling infrastructure. Of course we can have cycling infrastructure in a tunnel too, but it has to be part of the design brief from the outset to include cycling - this one doesn't even have it as an afterthought. Adding it would be neither easy, quick or cheap and, whilst we probably don't think cost should be a factor in reality it very much is.

You don't just bore another hole alongside the roadway ones because that would affect the design of the walls of the road tunnel. NH would have to undertake a geological survey of the proposed cycleway, then change the existing design to incorporate the extra tunnel and then open up the whole design for planning permission again. These are not five minute jobs and for what? Just so a few hundred cyclists a day can ride through it? Where's the ROI?

@mjr - Please don't think I'm just being argumentative. In fact I have given this some thought and even spoken with a couple of contacts at NH working on the project. As I suspected, planning for a cycle lane or tunnel was never part of the design brief so has never been considered. One of my contacts initial reaction was something like "Oh God, NO!". Between them they suggested the cost of adding a cycling tunnel (including cycle lanes within the existing tunnel profile was discounted on safety grounds) would be somewhere north of £10million (taking everything into account) and would likely add about 5 years to the project even if they could get it past the examining authority and the treasury, not to mention the Government.

I went to one of the first consultation sessions in Rochester. I asked about active travel and an engineer said that nobody would want to use such a long tunnel. I also asked about a rail crossing. It was very clear that all NH think about is roads for cars and lorries and nothing else. Sadly they are very short sighted and I can't see anything changing anytime soon.

 

[Bristolian]

Guys (and gals) thanks for the responses to my previous post. I know both the Lyon and Bergen tunnels, having worked in both designing fume extraction, visibility and fire suppression systems. The cycling infrastructure in both of those may have been adapted to also be part of the escape route but they were primarily added for cyclists. This has been done, generally but not exclusively, following the Mont Blanc tunnel fire in 1999 as escape routes became mandatory for tunnels over a certain length.

With regards to NH and cycling; unless their remit has changed in the last couple of years they are not charged with providing cycling infrastructure so they don't think about it. They have, when pressurised, added some infrastructure to projects where they are improving roads (i.e. widening, dualling, etc.) but you have to push pretty hard. Despite what anyone thinks about, if they agree to put in a cycling lane they don't receive any additional money so something else has to give. NH works to a 5-year budget based on the road projects they plan to complete in that period. The next budget (RIS3) is currently being negotiated and will run from 2025 to 2030; cycling will only be included in that budget if Government says so. The good thing is that when/if NH do include cycling infrastructure should be good quality and properly segregated unlike most of the NCN created by Sustrans. Not that I am knocking Sustrans, I think they do a great job considering they have to go begging for every penny they spend. To het an understanding of the NCN's history and Sustrans part in it have a read of potholes and pavements by Laura Laker - it was eye-opening for me.

Okay, that all the contribution I will be making to this conversation. Right now I'm off into hospital to see SWMBO who is recovering from a hip replacement operation