New river crossing will land in Thurrock, Government confirms

Echo: The Government confirms it will not look again at options D and E, meaning any new crossing will land in Thurrock The Government confirms it will not look again at options D and E, meaning any new crossing will land in Thurrock

A NEW river crossing WILL land in Thurrock, the Government has confirmed.

Despite pleas from Thurrock’s MPs, ministers have refused to look again at options D and E, which would link Kent with Canvey Island or Southend.

At a debate in Westminster, Thurrock MP Jackie Doyle-Price revealed a new crossing next to the current Thurrock to Dartford one - option A - would fail to deal with the borough’s clogged up road network and could lead to the closure of Vopak’s vital West Thurrock fuel terminal - causing problems for the regions fuel supply.

She added option C, landing between Tilbury Fort and Coalhouse Fort in East Tilbury, would also add to traffic woes on the A13.

Ms Doyle-Price criticised Thurrock Council and Essex County Council for their lack of vision, saying “poor leadership” had “let residents down”.

Stephen Metcalfe, the South Basildon and East Thurrock MP, said options D and E could help the growth of Southend Airport.

But transport minister Robert Goodwill, said options D and E would not be revisited. The government is taking a closer look at concerns over options A and C, such as further improvements which may be required on the M25 and A13.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:24pm Tue 14 Jan 14

iknowbetter says...

Interesting!!!
Interesting!!! iknowbetter

6:24pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Nebs says...

This is great for everyone. Unless you happen to live in Essex or Kent. Charge a toll on ALL the bridges across the Thames to pay for it.
This is great for everyone. Unless you happen to live in Essex or Kent. Charge a toll on ALL the bridges across the Thames to pay for it. Nebs

6:54pm Tue 14 Jan 14

John T Pharro says...

Refused to look at D or E for that read not in my constituency. The cost would be absolutely prohibitive which should be blindly obvious. So, if extra capacity needed for a crossing concentrate on mitigating the affect in your constituency rather than dumping it afield. This is just like Barmy Boris with airport in the Thames not in my backyard nor where I even have voters so couldn't careless.
Refused to look at D or E for that read not in my constituency. The cost would be absolutely prohibitive which should be blindly obvious. So, if extra capacity needed for a crossing concentrate on mitigating the affect in your constituency rather than dumping it afield. This is just like Barmy Boris with airport in the Thames not in my backyard nor where I even have voters so couldn't careless. John T Pharro

7:05pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Howard Cháse says...

Big multiple tunnel complex rather than bridge that will get shut everytime the wind gets up beyond a light breeze please
Big multiple tunnel complex rather than bridge that will get shut everytime the wind gets up beyond a light breeze please Howard Cháse

7:12pm Tue 14 Jan 14

jolllyboy says...

Barmy. they dont have to do it on a regular basis. This is madness and the chaos whilst doing it will put people off of england for good.
Barmy. they dont have to do it on a regular basis. This is madness and the chaos whilst doing it will put people off of england for good. jolllyboy

7:39pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Mattster says...

And all decided before the free flow tolling comes in, when it will become apparent that the 2nd crossing probably isn't needed. Can anyone say stitch up!
And all decided before the free flow tolling comes in, when it will become apparent that the 2nd crossing probably isn't needed. Can anyone say stitch up! Mattster

7:53pm Tue 14 Jan 14

St George 23rd April says...

Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!!
Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!! St George 23rd April

8:07am Wed 15 Jan 14

pembury53 says...

southend ? as if that could have worked.....
southend ? as if that could have worked..... pembury53

8:20am Wed 15 Jan 14

Dave_ says...

On the news JDP put forward the idea of more ferry crossings akin to Woolwich. I'm sure that there are redundant industrial sites north and south of the river on or not far from the river, that could be utlised for these up/down river from Thurrock. These would be easier and cheaper to put in and in less time than it would take to build bridges or dig tunnels. Plus they could be cheaper than the tunnels and bridges ... Woolwich is currently free. That would spice things up a bit, close to the current set up. I wonder if Thurrock/Essex and Kent Councils would go for it and provide a free service, probably not as they don't have the bottle.
What amazes me is that the supposed combined intelligence of the Commons can't see that the current set up is a squeeze point/bottleneck and causes untold problems each side. Putting more tunnels.bridges in would only serve to exacerbate these problems. The other problem with another bridge/tunnel close to the current position is who would use it? If it cost the same or more than the current tolls, where is the incentive to go x miles out of your way, just to use a different one. I'd stay on the M25 and use the old ones.
On the news JDP put forward the idea of more ferry crossings akin to Woolwich. I'm sure that there are redundant industrial sites north and south of the river on or not far from the river, that could be utlised for these up/down river from Thurrock. These would be easier and cheaper to put in and in less time than it would take to build bridges or dig tunnels. Plus they could be cheaper than the tunnels and bridges ... Woolwich is currently free. That would spice things up a bit, close to the current set up. I wonder if Thurrock/Essex and Kent Councils would go for it and provide a free service, probably not as they don't have the bottle. What amazes me is that the supposed combined intelligence of the Commons can't see that the current set up is a squeeze point/bottleneck and causes untold problems each side. Putting more tunnels.bridges in would only serve to exacerbate these problems. The other problem with another bridge/tunnel close to the current position is who would use it? If it cost the same or more than the current tolls, where is the incentive to go x miles out of your way, just to use a different one. I'd stay on the M25 and use the old ones. Dave_

11:58am Wed 15 Jan 14

Stamper2 says...

Time to screw us all again with outrageous tolls, which no doubt we will be told initially do not need to be charged.......
Time to screw us all again with outrageous tolls, which no doubt we will be told initially do not need to be charged....... Stamper2

12:28pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ian P says...

Dave_ wrote:
On the news JDP put forward the idea of more ferry crossings akin to Woolwich. I'm sure that there are redundant industrial sites north and south of the river on or not far from the river, that could be utlised for these up/down river from Thurrock. These would be easier and cheaper to put in and in less time than it would take to build bridges or dig tunnels. Plus they could be cheaper than the tunnels and bridges ... Woolwich is currently free. That would spice things up a bit, close to the current set up. I wonder if Thurrock/Essex and Kent Councils would go for it and provide a free service, probably not as they don't have the bottle. What amazes me is that the supposed combined intelligence of the Commons can't see that the current set up is a squeeze point/bottleneck and causes untold problems each side. Putting more tunnels.bridges in would only serve to exacerbate these problems. The other problem with another bridge/tunnel close to the current position is who would use it? If it cost the same or more than the current tolls, where is the incentive to go x miles out of your way, just to use a different one. I'd stay on the M25 and use the old ones.
Unfortunately, the Woolwich Ferry has to not only stop in high winds, but also in fog. While more ferries may be a cheaper solution, these would overall be far less reliable than a tunnel. As for your comment about staying on the M25 and using the old crossing I totally agree with you. But what about all the traffic which has to drive to the M25, (or the A whatever the non motorway bit is called), to use the crossing, one assumes they may well prefer to use the new crossing depending on its location?
[quote][p][bold]Dave_[/bold] wrote: On the news JDP put forward the idea of more ferry crossings akin to Woolwich. I'm sure that there are redundant industrial sites north and south of the river on or not far from the river, that could be utlised for these up/down river from Thurrock. These would be easier and cheaper to put in and in less time than it would take to build bridges or dig tunnels. Plus they could be cheaper than the tunnels and bridges ... Woolwich is currently free. That would spice things up a bit, close to the current set up. I wonder if Thurrock/Essex and Kent Councils would go for it and provide a free service, probably not as they don't have the bottle. What amazes me is that the supposed combined intelligence of the Commons can't see that the current set up is a squeeze point/bottleneck and causes untold problems each side. Putting more tunnels.bridges in would only serve to exacerbate these problems. The other problem with another bridge/tunnel close to the current position is who would use it? If it cost the same or more than the current tolls, where is the incentive to go x miles out of your way, just to use a different one. I'd stay on the M25 and use the old ones.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately, the Woolwich Ferry has to not only stop in high winds, but also in fog. While more ferries may be a cheaper solution, these would overall be far less reliable than a tunnel. As for your comment about staying on the M25 and using the old crossing I totally agree with you. But what about all the traffic which has to drive to the M25, (or the A whatever the non motorway bit is called), to use the crossing, one assumes they may well prefer to use the new crossing depending on its location? Ian P

1:33pm Wed 15 Jan 14

RobertFS says...

a tunnel/bridge from Canvey to Kent sounds good to me especially if 'Boris Island' goes ahead - unlikely though!
a tunnel/bridge from Canvey to Kent sounds good to me especially if 'Boris Island' goes ahead - unlikely though! RobertFS

4:10pm Wed 15 Jan 14

raymondhinton says...

option C is the one because of all the works in that area and route
option C is the one because of all the works in that area and route raymondhinton

4:22pm Wed 15 Jan 14

stuart695 says...

this is bad news for anyone in South Essex and Dartford/Gravesham. A further bridge crossing within 5-10 miles of the current site will be subject to the same or more closures that affects the current bridge -high wind, terror etc. When both close on a windy day the traffic gridlock will extend across all of Thurrock, and beyond into Basildon, Upminster etc. Lakeside, Bluewater and the ports will all suffer. Big business in Sth Essex and East London, South Essex councils and Havering, Dartford & Gravesham and environmental groups should be harnessed by Thurrock council in pushing to ensure the new crossing is a tunnel that extends well beyond the riverside, almost to the proposed Motorway joining points. That solves the congestion, air quality and environmental issues in a single solution. And gives a boost to the UK tunnelling industry.
this is bad news for anyone in South Essex and Dartford/Gravesham. A further bridge crossing within 5-10 miles of the current site will be subject to the same or more closures that affects the current bridge -high wind, terror etc. When both close on a windy day the traffic gridlock will extend across all of Thurrock, and beyond into Basildon, Upminster etc. Lakeside, Bluewater and the ports will all suffer. Big business in Sth Essex and East London, South Essex councils and Havering, Dartford & Gravesham and environmental groups should be harnessed by Thurrock council in pushing to ensure the new crossing is a tunnel that extends well beyond the riverside, almost to the proposed Motorway joining points. That solves the congestion, air quality and environmental issues in a single solution. And gives a boost to the UK tunnelling industry. stuart695

6:09pm Wed 15 Jan 14

skinthegoat says...

stuart695 wrote:
this is bad news for anyone in South Essex and Dartford/Gravesham. A further bridge crossing within 5-10 miles of the current site will be subject to the same or more closures that affects the current bridge -high wind, terror etc. When both close on a windy day the traffic gridlock will extend across all of Thurrock, and beyond into Basildon, Upminster etc. Lakeside, Bluewater and the ports will all suffer. Big business in Sth Essex and East London, South Essex councils and Havering, Dartford & Gravesham and environmental groups should be harnessed by Thurrock council in pushing to ensure the new crossing is a tunnel that extends well beyond the riverside, almost to the proposed Motorway joining points. That solves the congestion, air quality and environmental issues in a single solution. And gives a boost to the UK tunnelling industry.
A tunnel? Sorry Stuart, that is far too sensible for the idiots who run(?) this
country.......but what do they care....?
[quote][p][bold]stuart695[/bold] wrote: this is bad news for anyone in South Essex and Dartford/Gravesham. A further bridge crossing within 5-10 miles of the current site will be subject to the same or more closures that affects the current bridge -high wind, terror etc. When both close on a windy day the traffic gridlock will extend across all of Thurrock, and beyond into Basildon, Upminster etc. Lakeside, Bluewater and the ports will all suffer. Big business in Sth Essex and East London, South Essex councils and Havering, Dartford & Gravesham and environmental groups should be harnessed by Thurrock council in pushing to ensure the new crossing is a tunnel that extends well beyond the riverside, almost to the proposed Motorway joining points. That solves the congestion, air quality and environmental issues in a single solution. And gives a boost to the UK tunnelling industry.[/p][/quote]A tunnel? Sorry Stuart, that is far too sensible for the idiots who run(?) this country.......but what do they care....? skinthegoat

7:29pm Wed 15 Jan 14

John T Pharro says...

RobertFS wrote:
a tunnel/bridge from Canvey to Kent sounds good to me especially if 'Boris Island' goes ahead - unlikely though!
I suggest you google map the area you propose and see how far it is. You couldn't build a bridge from Canvey it is at sea level. You woukd have to start the bridge somewhere around The A127. Look how far back the run up to the current bridge starts. As to a tunnel from Canvey look at the distance. As I said before the costs rules this out which is precisely why D & E have been ruled out. As to Boris Island only left in to pander to Barmy Boris's ego so he has something to show for his re election as London Mayor.
[quote][p][bold]RobertFS[/bold] wrote: a tunnel/bridge from Canvey to Kent sounds good to me especially if 'Boris Island' goes ahead - unlikely though![/p][/quote]I suggest you google map the area you propose and see how far it is. You couldn't build a bridge from Canvey it is at sea level. You woukd have to start the bridge somewhere around The A127. Look how far back the run up to the current bridge starts. As to a tunnel from Canvey look at the distance. As I said before the costs rules this out which is precisely why D & E have been ruled out. As to Boris Island only left in to pander to Barmy Boris's ego so he has something to show for his re election as London Mayor. John T Pharro

8:18pm Wed 15 Jan 14

LauqhLast.. says...

St George 23rd April wrote:
Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!!
But can you all be bothered to protest?
[quote][p][bold]St George 23rd April[/bold] wrote: Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!![/p][/quote]But can you all be bothered to protest? LauqhLast..

9:19pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Mikkel1 says...

We are still paying to use the current bridge that has LONG been paid for. Could the money they are still raking in, possibly be going to pay for a second? It sure makes me think so about the proposal.
We are still paying to use the current bridge that has LONG been paid for. Could the money they are still raking in, possibly be going to pay for a second? It sure makes me think so about the proposal. Mikkel1

9:36pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Nebs says...

LauqhLast.. wrote:
St George 23rd April wrote:
Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!!
But can you all be bothered to protest?
Not paying council tax is a pointless protest, they will just prosecute you. Go and block one of the bridges in london and you might get noticed.
[quote][p][bold]LauqhLast..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St George 23rd April[/bold] wrote: Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!![/p][/quote]But can you all be bothered to protest?[/p][/quote]Not paying council tax is a pointless protest, they will just prosecute you. Go and block one of the bridges in london and you might get noticed. Nebs

11:19pm Wed 15 Jan 14

britis04 says...

Remove the tolls and there would be no need for a second crossing. The company managing the toll booths put income before safety and sanity when they continue to collect even though the traffic is across the bridge and way passed the A13 along the M25 even though the other side of the toll booths the M25 southbound is clear as a whistle.

How they get away with it and why no-one has the sense or perhaps authority to open the booths to clear the backlog is beyond belief. No lets make the paying customer queue for a few extra hours after a hard working, waste his petrol so we can get our £2.

If any other company treated their customers like this they'd have no customers.
Remove the tolls and there would be no need for a second crossing. The company managing the toll booths put income before safety and sanity when they continue to collect even though the traffic is across the bridge and way passed the A13 along the M25 even though the other side of the toll booths the M25 southbound is clear as a whistle. How they get away with it and why no-one has the sense or perhaps authority to open the booths to clear the backlog is beyond belief. No lets make the paying customer queue for a few extra hours after a hard working, waste his petrol so we can get our £2. If any other company treated their customers like this they'd have no customers. britis04

11:38am Thu 16 Jan 14

LauqhLast.. says...

Nebs wrote:
LauqhLast.. wrote:
St George 23rd April wrote:
Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!!
But can you all be bothered to protest?
Not paying council tax is a pointless protest, they will just prosecute you. Go and block one of the bridges in london and you might get noticed.
Not going to happen is it...its all in the conditioning.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LauqhLast..[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]St George 23rd April[/bold] wrote: Why can't Thurrock say no to constantly building houses on our open land after constantly rejecting these plans. Thurrock residence have signed petitions against options A and C. If we are ignored once again perhaps we should all stop paying our council tax. Perhaps this protest will get the voices of Thurrock heard. We all can't be put in prison !!![/p][/quote]But can you all be bothered to protest?[/p][/quote]Not paying council tax is a pointless protest, they will just prosecute you. Go and block one of the bridges in london and you might get noticed.[/p][/quote]Not going to happen is it...its all in the conditioning. LauqhLast..

6:03pm Thu 16 Jan 14

BMNO6 says...

Take the tolls away and this will let the traffic flow, its the barriers that are the problem not the traffic, fact. ( sorry I forgot about the toll money that I understand goes to the french ? silly me) fickle unelected coalition, another fact.
Take the tolls away and this will let the traffic flow, its the barriers that are the problem not the traffic, fact. ( sorry I forgot about the toll money that I understand goes to the french ? silly me) fickle unelected coalition, another fact. BMNO6

11:25pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Rob-C100 says...

Any new crossing will be yet another cash cow for the Government, The contract to look after the 'new-style' tolls is going to a French company and will cost us £327 million over 7 years - why on earth do we need the tolls to continue? The government's answer will be to maintain the bridge/tunnels. However, in 2010, the total raked in from motorists was £32 billion - of this, a measly £9.45 billion was spent the following year on roads. Get rid of the tolls completely and see how things are after that. We have all been banging on about getting rid of the tolls so it seems rather strange that the Government has finally listened to reason. It should be an interesting time later this year.........
Any new crossing will be yet another cash cow for the Government, The contract to look after the 'new-style' tolls is going to a French company and will cost us £327 million over 7 years - why on earth do we need the tolls to continue? The government's answer will be to maintain the bridge/tunnels. However, in 2010, the total raked in from motorists was £32 billion - of this, a measly £9.45 billion was spent the following year on roads. Get rid of the tolls completely and see how things are after that. We have all been banging on about getting rid of the tolls so it seems rather strange that the Government has finally listened to reason. It should be an interesting time later this year......... Rob-C100

3:22pm Fri 17 Jan 14

terry2010 says...

britis04 wrote:
Remove the tolls and there would be no need for a second crossing. The company managing the toll booths put income before safety and sanity when they continue to collect even though the traffic is across the bridge and way passed the A13 along the M25 even though the other side of the toll booths the M25 southbound is clear as a whistle.

How they get away with it and why no-one has the sense or perhaps authority to open the booths to clear the backlog is beyond belief. No lets make the paying customer queue for a few extra hours after a hard working, waste his petrol so we can get our £2.

If any other company treated their customers like this they'd have no customers.
You seem to forget one important item:
Who actually owns the Tunnel and the QE2 bridge, look across to France for the answer, that is why we have to keep paying- It is a very good money earner.
[quote][p][bold]britis04[/bold] wrote: Remove the tolls and there would be no need for a second crossing. The company managing the toll booths put income before safety and sanity when they continue to collect even though the traffic is across the bridge and way passed the A13 along the M25 even though the other side of the toll booths the M25 southbound is clear as a whistle. How they get away with it and why no-one has the sense or perhaps authority to open the booths to clear the backlog is beyond belief. No lets make the paying customer queue for a few extra hours after a hard working, waste his petrol so we can get our £2. If any other company treated their customers like this they'd have no customers.[/p][/quote]You seem to forget one important item: Who actually owns the Tunnel and the QE2 bridge, look across to France for the answer, that is why we have to keep paying- It is a very good money earner. terry2010

4:47pm Tue 4 Feb 14

Devils Advocate says...

Why does it have to be a bridge from Canvey Island? We can put a tunnel from Dover to Calais, but can't pop one over from Benfleet to the other side of the river?
Then think on about the Northern link to the A14 from the A130, and how much traffic that would cut from the M25. At this moment all of the heavy Lorries coming over from Calais have to travel what, 60 miles to the Thurrock crossing before moving north? Think how the pressure would be taken off the M25 by not having that continuous 24 hour Northern trundle. Even more sensible of course would be a rail tunnel and have the bulk of our freight shipped by rail. Or would that upset the oil companies too much?
Why does it have to be a bridge from Canvey Island? We can put a tunnel from Dover to Calais, but can't pop one over from Benfleet to the other side of the river? Then think on about the Northern link to the A14 from the A130, and how much traffic that would cut from the M25. At this moment all of the heavy Lorries coming over from Calais have to travel what, 60 miles to the Thurrock crossing before moving north? Think how the pressure would be taken off the M25 by not having that continuous 24 hour Northern trundle. Even more sensible of course would be a rail tunnel and have the bulk of our freight shipped by rail. Or would that upset the oil companies too much? Devils Advocate

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree