The location and the routes to and from the Lower Thames Crossing have finally been revealed – this is how it was covered in the Thurrock Gazette: REVEALED: Lower Thames Crossing route from Thurrock to Kent is finally confirmed… and it has not gone down well – http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/15218274.REVEALED__New_Thames_Crossing_from_Essex_to_Kent_is_finally_confirmed____here_s_how_the_news_has_gone_down/
The local MPs and many councillors have already had their say about the decision. Rather than focus on the positioning and point scoring the politicians are engaging in, we’d prefer to outline our objections to the crossing and then start a discussion on the strategy and tactics needed to halt this development.
Reasons to object to the Lower Thames Crossing are numerous… One is the increased levels of air pollution more roads and traffic coming through Thurrock will bring. This story is a few years old but we suspect that the problem has only worsened since this was published: Data shows Thurrock is one of the UK’s pollution hotspots – http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/10999854.Data_shows_Thurrock_is_one_of_the_UK_s_pollution_hotspots/ Presumably, the Tory government sees illness and deaths caused by air pollution as the necessary price to pay for economic ‘growth’ – in other words, so long as the bottom line is healthy, the rest of us are expendable.
Then there’s the noise… You can be right down on the marshes in Stanford-le-Hope and still be able to hear the noise of traffic from the A13. The crossing means more traffic and more noise – 24/7… If you live in East Tilbury and Linford, whatever route is chosen, you’ll be subjected to the noise. Anyone who’ll be moving into the new housing development that’s now going up alongside the railway station at East Tilbury, particularly if they’re at the western end of it, will find that the new approach road is too close for comfort.
More noise, pollution and people feeling they’re being boxed in by massive new roads with no escape is only going to add to stress levels. The simple things that people do to relax and get away from the pressures of modern life such as sitting in or pottering around in the garden, or taking a walk in the nearby countryside will be wrecked by constant traffic noise and poor air quality. There’s only so much people can take of feeling that they’re being hemmed in by new development and that their concerns and fears about the consequences of this are being dismissed before they start to get angry.
There’s research showing that increasing road capacity generates more traffic and the early benefits of new roads are lost as traffic volumes increase: New roads create new traffic – http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/roads-nowhere/induced-traffic Not only that, new roads attract development that generate considerable volumes of traffic. The two obvious examples of that are the Lakeside and Bluewater shopping malls which wouldn’t have been built if it hadn’t been for the M25. Bear in mind the the M25 was originally conceived as a way of diverting traffic around London but because of the large number of road junctions linking to the existing road network, it became a magnet for traffic generating development.
The Lower Thames Crossing proposals which are based on forecasts of increasing traffic levels assume that there will always be the oil available to fuel vehicles. As a considerable proportion of the oil consumed in the UK comes from increasingly volatile regions such as the Middle East, assuming an uninterrupted flow of oil is naïve. We’re old enough to remember the energy crisis of 1973 when the Yom Kippur and the subsequent OPEC embargo on oil exports led to chaos in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis It would appear that the lessons of that crisis have not been absorbed by a younger generation of politicians and planners.
We may or may not have reached ‘peak oil’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil – the debate is still ongoing on this one. The point is that oil is a finite resource and some day, it’s going to run out. The problem is that no government appears to have the foresight to plan for a world where oil production has peaked and where we have to do some radically new thinking on how to organise our towns, cities, agriculture, economy and society to deal with it. No, all we get is the same short term thinking that sees more and more traffic on the roads and simply builds more infrastructure to carry it rather than ask how traffic can be reduced and our society and economy put onto a more sustainable footing.
In the face of the decision, this is what the Thames Crossing Action Group had to say: Thames Crossing Action Group: “We will not give up” – http://www.yourthurrock.com/2017/04/12/thames-crossing-action-group-will-not-give/ This group has put in a lot of graft in voicing their opposition. Another group that put in a considerable amount of time, effort and money to oppose the unwanted and unsustainable development of executive style homes at Dry Street to the south of Basildon is GAG2011 – https://www.facebook.com/gag2011/ Sadly their efforts were not successful and the development at Dry Street has commenced…
We’re not in any way casting aspersions on either the Thames Crossing Action Group or GAG2011. However, this question has to be asked – has it come to the point where direct action aimed at physically stopping the road and crossing from being built has to be considered? That could well be something along the lines of the infamous protest against the Newbury bypass in the 1990s: Twenty years after the protests, what is the legacy of the Newbury bypass? – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/24/newbury-protest-camp-bypass-legacy with the obvious caveats that lessons from their experience need to be taken on board. For obvious security reasons, we don’t want to publicly comment on what could happen in terms of direct action as we don’t fancy being branded as ‘domestic terrorists’! Suffice to say, there ‘s a lot to discuss in terms of strategy and tactics…