Representation by Richard Keegan
- Date submitted
- 24 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I believe that the option described below has not been fully explored by the promoters of the Lower Thames Crossing. For more than 100 years the London, Tilbury and Southend (LTS now C2C) Railway Company provided a reliable public transport crossing between Essex and Kent. It operated a ferry service 365 days in the year, 24 hours a day conveying more than three million foot passengers a year in the early 1950’s. The two tunnels and the QE11 bridge that form the Dartford Crossing do not provide such a reliable means of crossing the river by bus, taxi or private car. Broadly speaking there are two traffics, using the Crossing. Those travelling between the British Isles and Europe, estimated to be 70% of the traffic using the Crossing and those living and working on either side of the river estimated to be 30% of the traffic using the Crossing. The 30% have little or no option other than to use the Dartford Crossing to reach their homes or places of employment whereas those making the Channel Crossing have a range of routes that would enable them to avoid being caught up in one of the frequent incidents causing delay each week. If one of the existing tunnels was to be designated as being for private cars, vans, rigid vehicles and public transport and the other to be used by commercial traffic’s articulated vehicles the delays and disruption experienced by the local motorist and public transport might be much reduced. A similar arrangement is adopted when there is an incident now so it should be a simple reversible matter to conduct a trial over say six months to see if the benefits suggested would be achieved. An alternative more permanent solution might be achieved should it be possible to restore the ferry route by connecting Tilbury and Gravesend by rail. Whilst the tunnel arrangements could be implemented almost immediately with little or no cost the benefit of a rail connection would not be immediate and the cost would not be insignificant. Both solutions though would have the huge benefits of limited impact on the existing built environment, minimise carbon footprint and retain much valued green space for the community at large.