Stop destroying our green belt - we need it to breathe. Ancient woodland, flora and fauna, people's long term communities and homes destroyed, all because the Government won't invest in other types of transport. Garden of England - ha, the Patio of England more like.
H
Hermanus Gardner
10 years ago
Find it unbelievable that a possible bridge at Dartford is not even mentioned or considered as an option!
M
Melita Foster
10 years ago
Stop this devastating and unbelievable vandalism.
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
Featured
Option C is not suitable for the existing A2 capacity between M2 and M25. This road runs at near full capacity and without significant upgrade Gravesend will be unable to cope. The proposed route runs too close to housing and will destroy green belt, health, & communities.
T
Tracy payne
10 years ago
Option C will ruin the village of Shorne and surrounding villages on both sides of the river, destroying the ancient woodland, the countryside as well as peoples homes and lives.
Another bridge at Dartford for cars would make much more sense , leaving tunnels for heavy freight.
J
Julie Jacques
10 years ago
Environmental vandalism of the highest order destroying the village of Shorne, forcing the school to close and destroying peoples' homes and lives.
R
Ross Elliott
10 years ago
Option C is totally unacceptable, the environmental destruction will be massive and not solve the Dartford Crossing problem.
R
Roger Fether
10 years ago
why do we need another crossing? If we need one why pick the most expensive option? option C destroys an irreplaceable green belt area and will essentially destroy all of the villages between Gravesend and Rochester
M
Mark Holmes
10 years ago
Environmental vandalism of the highest order in the guise of reducing congestion. Designed to enable development of the greenbelt and valuable arable farmland by stealth.
R
Robert C Flanders
10 years ago
The congestion will have moved from London to Thurrock
G
Gary Outram
10 years ago
The only proposals put forward by the government for addressing
capacity issues on the existing lower Thames crossings are to build a new road crossing, the fourth since the 1960s. Evidence demonstrates that new roads deliver poor value for money, lower than expected economic benefits and create a spiral of increasing traffic, congestion and demand for road capacity. In terms of local economic benefits or connectivity, there is no reason to expect that a new crossing will deliver outcomes that the three previous crossings (opened in 1963, 1980 and 1991) have not.
It is perverse to do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results each time.
You cannot build your way out of congestion or pollution.
L
Louie Beadle
10 years ago
Of the three options C is by far the most damaging and most expensive. What kind of morons does Highways England employ?
R
Rich Woodhams
10 years ago
This 'consultation' seems to be a fait accompli, with the decision being made.
To blight more greenfield sites, plus the totally unnecessary adverse impact on families living in these areas is outrageous
N
Neil
10 years ago
Leave green belt land alone. The villages on both sides of the Thames do not deserve to be blighted by this- the alternatives have been ruled out cheaply and there is clearly an alterate motive behind favouring option C. Stop lying to the people!!!
N
Nicki
10 years ago
Leave the rural areas alone thats why we like living there!!!
L
laura Polden
10 years ago
Build the bridge at Medway, they want it there. Along the wainscott bypass and cross the river there.
N
Nigel Bourne
10 years ago
The current system does not work.
Obvious solution: Build a bridge (or tunnel?) where the problem is - everyone can get to where they wanted to go.
Non-obvious solution: Make everyone go on a huge detour, build a tunnel (having destroyed countryside, quality of life in some villages in the process getting to the river crossing entrance) and then let everyone go on another huge detour (having spoiled more countryside etc) getting everyone back where they wanted to be. (Oh and spend more money than on the obvious solution.)
K
Kirsten Dwight
10 years ago
Featured
Option C is environmentally devastating, and destroys SSSIs, ancient woodland, heritage landscapes and living villages. If a new crossing is needed, it should use brownfield land, and solve the problem where it is most likely to be effective - at Dartford.
M
Martin
10 years ago
Option C would damage precious countryside and not solve the problem at Dartford.
F
Faye Pettman
10 years ago
Why destroy a quiet beautiful area when probably another bridge near Dartford would be more appropriate. Someone should be held accountable for the crossing still not working even after the so called improvements.
Stop destroying our green belt - we need it to breathe. Ancient woodland, flora and fauna, people's long term communities and homes destroyed, all because the Government won't invest in other types of transport. Garden of England - ha, the Patio of England more like.
Find it unbelievable that a possible bridge at Dartford is not even mentioned or considered as an option!
Stop this devastating and unbelievable vandalism.
Option C is not suitable for the existing A2 capacity between M2 and M25. This road runs at near full capacity and without significant upgrade Gravesend will be unable to cope. The proposed route runs too close to housing and will destroy green belt, health, & communities.
Option C will ruin the village of Shorne and surrounding villages on both sides of the river, destroying the ancient woodland, the countryside as well as peoples homes and lives. Another bridge at Dartford for cars would make much more sense , leaving tunnels for heavy freight.
Environmental vandalism of the highest order destroying the village of Shorne, forcing the school to close and destroying peoples' homes and lives.
Option C is totally unacceptable, the environmental destruction will be massive and not solve the Dartford Crossing problem.
why do we need another crossing? If we need one why pick the most expensive option? option C destroys an irreplaceable green belt area and will essentially destroy all of the villages between Gravesend and Rochester
Environmental vandalism of the highest order in the guise of reducing congestion. Designed to enable development of the greenbelt and valuable arable farmland by stealth.
The congestion will have moved from London to Thurrock
The only proposals put forward by the government for addressing capacity issues on the existing lower Thames crossings are to build a new road crossing, the fourth since the 1960s. Evidence demonstrates that new roads deliver poor value for money, lower than expected economic benefits and create a spiral of increasing traffic, congestion and demand for road capacity. In terms of local economic benefits or connectivity, there is no reason to expect that a new crossing will deliver outcomes that the three previous crossings (opened in 1963, 1980 and 1991) have not. It is perverse to do the same thing repeatedly and expect different results each time. You cannot build your way out of congestion or pollution.
Of the three options C is by far the most damaging and most expensive. What kind of morons does Highways England employ?
This 'consultation' seems to be a fait accompli, with the decision being made. To blight more greenfield sites, plus the totally unnecessary adverse impact on families living in these areas is outrageous
Leave green belt land alone. The villages on both sides of the Thames do not deserve to be blighted by this- the alternatives have been ruled out cheaply and there is clearly an alterate motive behind favouring option C. Stop lying to the people!!!
Leave the rural areas alone thats why we like living there!!!
Build the bridge at Medway, they want it there. Along the wainscott bypass and cross the river there.
The current system does not work. Obvious solution: Build a bridge (or tunnel?) where the problem is - everyone can get to where they wanted to go. Non-obvious solution: Make everyone go on a huge detour, build a tunnel (having destroyed countryside, quality of life in some villages in the process getting to the river crossing entrance) and then let everyone go on another huge detour (having spoiled more countryside etc) getting everyone back where they wanted to be. (Oh and spend more money than on the obvious solution.)
Option C is environmentally devastating, and destroys SSSIs, ancient woodland, heritage landscapes and living villages. If a new crossing is needed, it should use brownfield land, and solve the problem where it is most likely to be effective - at Dartford.
Option C would damage precious countryside and not solve the problem at Dartford.
Why destroy a quiet beautiful area when probably another bridge near Dartford would be more appropriate. Someone should be held accountable for the crossing still not working even after the so called improvements.