A Bridge 2 Far

The majority of the vehicles using the Dartford tunnel are already on the M25 or from the M20 via the coastal ports and not from the A2. Hence any crossing at Chalk will not ease the tunnel/M25 issue. It will be a waste of my money and a scar through the green belt for no ultimate benefit. The answer is to build another bridge, not a tunnel, at or near the existing crossing. Drivers will no take a 20 mile detour to avoid a possible delay at Dartford. The reason for the current delays is that the average speed through the tunnels is governed by the hgvs and is between 30/35 mph. There is not a problem south bound where all traffic can move at a steady 50mph. Build a bridge at Dartford not a tunnel at Chalk.

My opposition is based on a conviction that it will do nothing to relieve the congestion at Dartford, but will destroy a growing and vibrant community in and around the villages of Chalk & Shorne. I also firmly believe that the enormous financial cost of any option C variant will never be recouped and the catastrophic damage to the environment will be a legacy the promoters of this ill conceived plan will never shake off. Paramount Park at Swanscombe WILL NOT HAPPEN, so this option should be reconsidered. It would be cheaper and easier to connect to current road networks and impact on the environment would be far less.

Please stop this route. This is absurd.

The Lower Thames Crossing route 'OptIon C' would pass through our local Green Belt, the Kent Downs area of outstanding natural beauty, across the Thames Marshes, through RAMSAR protected areas and designated SSI areas and would result in the greatest impact on the natural environment. It would also have an enormous adverse impact to the people living along the route especially the villages and communities to the east of Gravesham. The traffic congestion and health problems caused by the air pollution at the existing Dartford Crossing are clear to us all but the answer is not to transfer those same problems to the east of Gravesham. Please respond to the Highways Agency consultation and Just Say No" Bryan Sweetland, Kent County Councillor for Gravesham Rural.

Reduction in the number of cars on the roads should be a priority before even contemplating building a new crossing at any of the locations. Car Sharing Schemes should be used and advertised far more than a small sign at the side of the road. The Government are intent on destroying the 'Garden of England' and are turning it into 'The Compost Heap of England' with their continuous destruction of the countryside.

There is a misconception that traffic jams are caused by too much traffic. Whilst traffic volumes play a part it is not the only reason for the traffic jams at Dartford. The instances of traffic problems vary dramatically between North traffic and South traffic, whilst the volumes are similar. There should be research into the number of on-slips on the northbound side. Equally it is said that a new crossing at Dartford would cost 1.25bn whereas a crossing east of Gravesend would cost 3.27bn, a massive difference. I suggest that work should commence on Pollution control and Traffic Control measures at Dartford long before any decision is made to build another crossing. It should also be noted that the proposed tunnel (East of Gravesend) is only a tunnel when it goes under the Thames. Much of the course of the new road will be open to the air and therefore the traffic pollution will just spread the misery from Dartford to Gravesend as well. This just leads to the poisoning of two towns rather than one, which is a ridiculous solution to the problem.

The area affected by Option C has some of the highest environmental and heritage protection. This area should not be destroyed by this proposal.

All options are too close to the original crossings and will just create rat runs through local towns. When there is a delay at the tunnel traffic already backs up to Gravesend regularly. Move it further out to make it an *alternative* crossing, not just an extension of the existing. Furthermore, it's too close to residential areas and it is the final step in enclosing Gravesend on all sides. With the A2, Dartford Crossing, river and high-speed link the town is surrounded. Lastly, it is environmental vandalism to add to the on-going destruction of the history and culture of the town. With the tunnel will come industrial estates, and there's already plans been mooted to build on the area so it will destroy a naturally beautiful area forever. Oh, and who's great idea is it to put a tunnel into a flood plain in times of rising water levels?

While I accept the need for increased capacity over the river, I am totally opposed to the current route proposals, both Options A and C.

I have constantly voted against Option C, and, as a Gravesham Borough Councillor (Riverview Ward), I am totally opposed to Option C. I will continue to oppose it. The area in question includes "Green Belt", Prime Agricultural Land, and is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). I urge The Department of Transport to dismiss Option C and, instead, look for alternative locations, which would obviate the disastrous Ecological and Environmental devastation mentioned, above.

please do not destroy more green belt land, This will impact Gravesend badly, Build another bridge at Dartford

This part of Kent was carved up enough for the channel tunnel. The roads are a nightmare already. Add this crossing and the whole of this area will become an urban wilderness. People LIVE here for goodness sake.

Thoroughly opposed - we don't need another crossing. This side of Gravesend is already a dump, we don't want it.

No.

Preservation of sites such as this are so important. My maternal grandparents are buried in the lovely churchyard and my mothers ashes were buried in their grave. It's a haven of peace and quiet. It should not be spoiled

No!!! Just no,to angry to say anymore

No

This needs stopping now. What are the local councillors playing at.

This saddens me greatly. I recently discovered through my genealogy research that my Mum's Grand Parent's were married in the Chalk Parish Church. Although I have yet to visit your beautiful town and surrounding area I would strongly oppose Option C from across the pond! I would want this area to be preserved so that when I do visit I can envision what it was like when my Great Grandparent's married here. From reading what they propose to do to your beloved land I can only say that I see it happen often too many times here in the U.S. I hope that you will all be successful in stopping Option C.

stupid idea. only people who don't live in chalk have thought of this option. chalk will be ruined and the traffic a joke.