• Home /
  • Blog / A bridge over the river; WHY?

A bridge over the river; WHY?


Your Labour Kent County Councillors & Your Labour Borough Councillors are unified in fighting this Government proposal.

We oppose this on the grounds that the need for a THIRD Crossing is not proven, remove the tolls at Dartford before any decision is made. This proposed crossing will destroy the quality of life for residents of Chalk, Westcourt, Riverside and Riverview.

Do you like this post?


commented 2014-07-19 11:58:37 +0100
Being a current resident of the Chalk area please take into the consideration of fuel and noise pollution as well as the traffic, congestion and disruption whilst building the bridge. East Gravesend is a rural area of COUNTRYSIDE which should not be disturbed. Every green area of Gravesend is slowly being built on with a building or structure. I thought Kent was supposed to be ‘The Garden Of England’. Not all residents in these areas will need to use the bridge and people have bought their own properties out here for the location and views. Undisturbed!! The current bridge is straight off of the m25, away from housing and away from nature/life stock. Those who think this is a good idea to kill of the habitats of nature and disrupt the lives of people living in this area are obviously very selfish, and don’t think about others. The current bridge is just fine as it is. Open the tolls, pay in store/phone/text like the current plans are but think about others before planning such large bridge!!!
commented 2014-01-24 14:49:49 +0000
The bit about users (of which I’m one I would add) being able to “optimising their route” is an interesting point – optimise their route to where? Creating a growth in traffic to simply funnel it into the route from hell 7 miles further up at North Ockenden is hardly strategic.
Strategic is having a Lower Thames crossing (preferably tunnels) linking into a new motorway North of the Thames skirting round the existing M25 missing the areas of major conurbation with exits/entries only at major interchange points with the A12, M11 A1 and M1. That is real strategic thinking. Whether that crossing with a new motorway would be better placed further down the Thames where economic growth is arguably even more desperately needed is another debate. I think I might even be persuaded to have a little more sympathy with the idea of a Lower Thames crossing if it was truly long term strategic thinking.
It has to also be remembered that the main cause for the existing bridge at Dartford to close is high winds. Putting a bridge that would be considerably higher a little way down the Thames that would be closed by those self same winds really would be chaos particularly as this traffic would not even have a tunnel to use, I suspect it would just sit there until the winds eased. I suppose we could always do an “operation stack” on the M2 and turn it into a car park.
While we are talking strategy, when you look at KCC’s “Growth without Gridlock” transport strategy it simply accepts that “roll on”, roll off" traffic through Dover will double putting 1,000’s more lorries on Kent’s roads. I suspect that is why they are so in favour of another crossing. These lorries contribute diddly squat to Kent’s economy but this meek acceptance of this predicted doubling of lorries through Dover over the coming years will certainly leave our children and grandchildren with plenty of Air and Noise pollution to contend with, not to mention the health consequences and road repair bill. No mention is made by KCC of a Strategy that would want to see “Roll on”, “Roll off” traffic from Europe destined for the North of the UK being incentivised to go through other ports further up the East coast nearer their destinations reducing pollution.
This is simply the wrong bridge, in the wrong place, being proposed at the wrong time, for a whole load more Economic, Environmental, Sustainability and Strategic reason than I can ever hope to put here.
commented 2014-01-24 09:54:53 +0000
Removal of tolls may work in the short term – but more capacity is clearly what is needed.
There is no logic in building another bridge at Dartford – it will lead to increased congestion North and South of the crossing. Any incident that closed the crossing would lead to a dreadful situation. It must make sense to build a new crossing East of Gravesend. This would both increase capacity and spread the load making it easier for users to optimise their route.
Being against development is “political posturing”, and very negative at that.
Improving and developing infrastructure is essential for the economy – and brings benefits to all. To suggest that a new bridge East of Gravesend would ruin the area is ridiculous – and just plays on peoples understandable nervousness about change. Politicians (even local ones) have a duty to look at the bigger picture. Politicians should explain the benefits of such projects and not just hold a crude “nimby” position against all improvements.
commented 2014-01-23 13:37:53 +0000
Removal of the tolls at Dartford will reduce congestion significantly. The other logical thing to do is put in a second bridge at Dartford taking traffic South – North. Another bridge East of Gravesend achieves nothing but joins traffic onto the same M25 7 miles further North. If the supporters of this option are right about it creating growth that would mean even more traffic funnelling into the aforementioned M25. If it is political posturing doing what is right for the communities that we represent then I’m afraid I will continue to do it, if it is the right thing to do. I would suggest that the previous writer speaks to the people of Chalk Village and puts himself in their position and then decide if he would be in such a hurry to support it.
commented 2014-01-06 21:20:41 +0000
As an occasional user of the Dartford crossing it seems clear that more river crossing capacity is urgently needed. Just looking at a map it seems obvious that the new crossing should be to the East of Gravesend. Objecting to such a development just shows another aspect of negative political posturing that makes any sort of development so difficult. No wonder political parties (all of them)are having trouble retaining members
commented 2013-11-07 02:55:16 +0000
TY :)

The Labour Party will place cookies on your computer to help us make this website better. Please read this to review the updates about which cookies we use and what information we collect on our site. To find out more about these cookies, see our privacy notice. Use of this site confirms your acceptance of these cookies.