Hundreds vote in Dartford Crossing poll

Hundreds vote in Dartford Crossing poll

Hundreds vote in Dartford Crossing poll

First published in News by

HUNDREDS of people have already voted in a poll about the future of a river crossing in Thurrock.

As the government’s consultation on a new Thames crossing in Thurrock approaches, council leader John Kent said more than 800 people have voted in the poll with the vast majority voting for “none of the above”.

The council asked people to vote online through its own website, or on paper forms giving the three options the government is thought to be suggesting, A, B, and C, as well as a fourth option, D – none of the above.

Mr Kent said: “There’s one overwhelming conclusion: we don’t want another crossing here. I want to thank each and every one of them for sharing their opinion.”

The national consultation is expected to be launched this month <MAY> and the council believes there will be three options. One close to the current crossing between Purfleet and Dartford, another across the river through Grays Beach and close to the docks and Thurrock Park to the Dock Approach Road or further to the east between Tilbury and Coalhouse Forts then north through the green belt, and Orsett.

The council added the fourth option for people that didn’t want any of the new crossings.

Mr Kent explained: “More than 610 people voted online and 407 of them – 66.4 per cent – voted none of the above, and of the 205 people who cut out and filled in a form before sending it in to us, 169, or 82.4 per cent, wanted option D.”

“The aim of the exercise was two-fold, to confirm what the council believed local people thought, and it’s done that, and secondly, but more importantly, to raise awareness of the government’s intention to consult.”

Mr Kent added: “River crossings have been in the news this week, with the focus on possible new bridge links between south and north east London. Perhaps that needs to be sorted out properly before a new strategic crossing is discussed.

“Unfortunately I don’t think the government will change its plans and there will be some form of consultation about a crossing in Thurrock and it will start soon. I urge everyone who took part in our little exercise over the last couple of months to tell the government what they think.”

The Department of Transport is expected to set up exhibitions across Thurrock to showcase the different options for a new crossing.

To find out more, or vote in the poll, go to www.thurrock.gov.uk.

NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKEN PART SO FAR - RESULTS:

 

Paper ballot:
A 7
B 24
C 5
D 169

Online ballot:
A 79
B 16
C 111
D 407

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:17pm Tue 14 May 13

Jack0 says...

All they need to do is remove the tolls as originally promised when the bridge was built. There are four lanes in each direction, same as most of the rest of the M25. With no tolls there would only be congestion problems at times of high wind when QEII needs to be closed, but another bridge will not solve that problem.

If they need a flood defense let it be paid for by the people of London who will benefit, not the people of Kent and Essex
All they need to do is remove the tolls as originally promised when the bridge was built. There are four lanes in each direction, same as most of the rest of the M25. With no tolls there would only be congestion problems at times of high wind when QEII needs to be closed, but another bridge will not solve that problem. If they need a flood defense let it be paid for by the people of London who will benefit, not the people of Kent and Essex Jack0
  • Score: 7

5:19pm Tue 14 May 13

GentleGiant says...

What a biased poll!

The page at http://www.thurrock.
gov.uk/thamescrossin
g/ clearly encourages 'none of the above'

How can this be democratic?

Although should I expect any better from a Labour councillor?
What a biased poll! The page at http://www.thurrock. gov.uk/thamescrossin g/ clearly encourages 'none of the above' How can this be democratic? Although should I expect any better from a Labour councillor? GentleGiant
  • Score: 2

5:22pm Tue 14 May 13

GentleGiant says...

This Kent - says 'We are saying the government should speed up the introduction of free-flow tolls - or better still get rid of the tolls altogether' - it was Labour who decided we should keep the tolls!

Option C is by far the best option - or continue the A130 south over Canvey as was the original plan when the A130 bypass was planned.
This Kent - says 'We are saying the government should speed up the introduction of free-flow tolls - or better still get rid of the tolls altogether' - it was Labour who decided we should keep the tolls! Option C is by far the best option - or continue the A130 south over Canvey as was the original plan when the A130 bypass was planned. GentleGiant
  • Score: 2

9:20pm Tue 14 May 13

Nebs says...

Jack0 wrote:
All they need to do is remove the tolls as originally promised when the bridge was built. There are four lanes in each direction, same as most of the rest of the M25. With no tolls there would only be congestion problems at times of high wind when QEII needs to be closed, but another bridge will not solve that problem.

If they need a flood defense let it be paid for by the people of London who will benefit, not the people of Kent and Essex
London could easily pay for their flood defenses by introducing a charge on all the other bridges across the Thames, same price as Dartford.

The crossing should be from Canvey to Kent. A service area on Canvey would be a major boost to the local economy.
[quote][p][bold]Jack0[/bold] wrote: All they need to do is remove the tolls as originally promised when the bridge was built. There are four lanes in each direction, same as most of the rest of the M25. With no tolls there would only be congestion problems at times of high wind when QEII needs to be closed, but another bridge will not solve that problem. If they need a flood defense let it be paid for by the people of London who will benefit, not the people of Kent and Essex[/p][/quote]London could easily pay for their flood defenses by introducing a charge on all the other bridges across the Thames, same price as Dartford. The crossing should be from Canvey to Kent. A service area on Canvey would be a major boost to the local economy. Nebs
  • Score: 1

9:23pm Tue 14 May 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

GentleGiant wrote:
This Kent - says 'We are saying the government should speed up the introduction of free-flow tolls - or better still get rid of the tolls altogether' - it was Labour who decided we should keep the tolls! Option C is by far the best option - or continue the A130 south over Canvey as was the original plan when the A130 bypass was planned.
And what has this government done about the tolls? It's decided to keep them!

The irony of you looney Tories.
[quote][p][bold]GentleGiant[/bold] wrote: This Kent - says 'We are saying the government should speed up the introduction of free-flow tolls - or better still get rid of the tolls altogether' - it was Labour who decided we should keep the tolls! Option C is by far the best option - or continue the A130 south over Canvey as was the original plan when the A130 bypass was planned.[/p][/quote]And what has this government done about the tolls? It's decided to keep them! The irony of you looney Tories. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Tue 14 May 13

Thurrock Trojan says...

Jack0 wrote:
All they need to do is remove the tolls as originally promised when the bridge was built. There are four lanes in each direction, same as most of the rest of the M25. With no tolls there would only be congestion problems at times of high wind when QEII needs to be closed, but another bridge will not solve that problem. If they need a flood defense let it be paid for by the people of London who will benefit, not the people of Kent and Essex
I agree the tolls should be scrapped because they are causing the congestion, but it's very unlikely to happen now.
[quote][p][bold]Jack0[/bold] wrote: All they need to do is remove the tolls as originally promised when the bridge was built. There are four lanes in each direction, same as most of the rest of the M25. With no tolls there would only be congestion problems at times of high wind when QEII needs to be closed, but another bridge will not solve that problem. If they need a flood defense let it be paid for by the people of London who will benefit, not the people of Kent and Essex[/p][/quote]I agree the tolls should be scrapped because they are causing the congestion, but it's very unlikely to happen now. Thurrock Trojan
  • Score: 2

9:24pm Tue 14 May 13

maxell says...

At least the people were aware of the consultatuion unlike the last phase of the joint area action plan between rochford council and southend council wihich ended on 26th april , this is the same consultation that every house was supplied a consultation pack from shoebury to the rayleigh border the preffered options part , I wonder just how many people reading this new of the last phase of the JAAP plan I bet not many.
At least the people were aware of the consultatuion unlike the last phase of the joint area action plan between rochford council and southend council wihich ended on 26th april , this is the same consultation that every house was supplied a consultation pack from shoebury to the rayleigh border the preffered options part , I wonder just how many people reading this new of the last phase of the JAAP plan I bet not many. maxell
  • Score: 0

12:33am Wed 15 May 13

ThurrockResident says...

Free flowing tolls is the answer and preferably abolish the tolls altogether.
Free flowing tolls is the answer and preferably abolish the tolls altogether. ThurrockResident
  • Score: 0

3:57am Wed 15 May 13

Kim Gandy says...

I vote we get rid of the tolls and get rid of Labour.

Another crossing? Another cash cow.
I vote we get rid of the tolls and get rid of Labour. Another crossing? Another cash cow. Kim Gandy
  • Score: 5

5:54am Wed 15 May 13

max zorin says...

get rid of the tolls and then i think you'll find conjestion will go down..silly me i forgot we live in a country full off greedy scrounging MP's :(
get rid of the tolls and then i think you'll find conjestion will go down..silly me i forgot we live in a country full off greedy scrounging MP's :( max zorin
  • Score: 2

6:50am Wed 15 May 13

ThurrockResident says...

max zorin wrote:
get rid of the tolls and then i think you'll find conjestion will go down..silly me i forgot we live in a country full off greedy scrounging MP's :(
Greedy scrounging MP's is right! :(
[quote][p][bold]max zorin[/bold] wrote: get rid of the tolls and then i think you'll find conjestion will go down..silly me i forgot we live in a country full off greedy scrounging MP's :([/p][/quote]Greedy scrounging MP's is right! :( ThurrockResident
  • Score: 1

7:19am Wed 15 May 13

max zorin says...

ThurrockResident wrote:
max zorin wrote:
get rid of the tolls and then i think you'll find conjestion will go down..silly me i forgot we live in a country full off greedy scrounging MP's :(
Greedy scrounging MP's is right! :(
sure is, MP's are the cause of most problems in this country.
[quote][p][bold]ThurrockResident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]max zorin[/bold] wrote: get rid of the tolls and then i think you'll find conjestion will go down..silly me i forgot we live in a country full off greedy scrounging MP's :([/p][/quote]Greedy scrounging MP's is right! :([/p][/quote]sure is, MP's are the cause of most problems in this country. max zorin
  • Score: 0

10:52am Wed 15 May 13

Noteworthy says...

They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping.

I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon.

A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch.
They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping. I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon. A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch. Noteworthy
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Wed 15 May 13

Ian P says...

Noteworthy wrote:
They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping. I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon. A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch.
They dropped the speed limit for one reason and one reason only, to try and catch more drivers speeding. The very same reason they will not remove the old redundant roundabout on the A127 near Basildon.
[quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping. I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon. A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch.[/p][/quote]They dropped the speed limit for one reason and one reason only, to try and catch more drivers speeding. The very same reason they will not remove the old redundant roundabout on the A127 near Basildon. Ian P
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Wed 15 May 13

perini says...

Ian P wrote:
Noteworthy wrote: They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping. I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon. A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch.
They dropped the speed limit for one reason and one reason only, to try and catch more drivers speeding. The very same reason they will not remove the old redundant roundabout on the A127 near Basildon.
Apparantly it would cost too much to remove that roundabout - reason stated was that services are too close to the surface and would need burying/re-routing!
[quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping. I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon. A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch.[/p][/quote]They dropped the speed limit for one reason and one reason only, to try and catch more drivers speeding. The very same reason they will not remove the old redundant roundabout on the A127 near Basildon.[/p][/quote]Apparantly it would cost too much to remove that roundabout - reason stated was that services are too close to the surface and would need burying/re-routing! perini
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Wed 15 May 13

top banana 1 says...

perini wrote:
Ian P wrote:
Noteworthy wrote: They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping. I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon. A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch.
They dropped the speed limit for one reason and one reason only, to try and catch more drivers speeding. The very same reason they will not remove the old redundant roundabout on the A127 near Basildon.
Apparantly it would cost too much to remove that roundabout - reason stated was that services are too close to the surface and would need burying/re-routing!
If it was in the USA they would do it over night, government see the motorist as a cash cow because we have no alternative but to pay up and shut up , robbing bastards , you only have to look at how they tax fuel putting vat on after the tax , so we are taxed twice , anyone noticed how LPG is creeping up, the longer we sit in jams the more they take in tax revenue, and what would happen if we all drove electric cars , frightening ain't it
[quote][p][bold]perini[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ian P[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Noteworthy[/bold] wrote: They're looking to introduce free-flowing tolls, removing the barriers to allow traffic to cross the river without stopping. I think the best plan would be to wait until that is implimented before jumping on another bandwagon. A bit like putting the SPECS cameras in on the A127, then before seeing if that reduced fatal accidents on its own, dropping the limit to 50mph for a considerable stretch.[/p][/quote]They dropped the speed limit for one reason and one reason only, to try and catch more drivers speeding. The very same reason they will not remove the old redundant roundabout on the A127 near Basildon.[/p][/quote]Apparantly it would cost too much to remove that roundabout - reason stated was that services are too close to the surface and would need burying/re-routing![/p][/quote]If it was in the USA they would do it over night, government see the motorist as a cash cow because we have no alternative but to pay up and shut up , robbing bastards , you only have to look at how they tax fuel putting vat on after the tax , so we are taxed twice , anyone noticed how LPG is creeping up, the longer we sit in jams the more they take in tax revenue, and what would happen if we all drove electric cars , frightening ain't it top banana 1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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