Talk:Lower Thames Crossing

Description section Unbalanced?
An 'unbalanced' banner has been added to the Description section. Reading the section I can't see a lot wrong with it given that is a basically a description of the road. Is it the phrase 'Advocates of the proposal argue that a new crossing is needed to alleviate congestion at the Dartford Crossing', in which case I suggest we tweek that and remove the banner. I do agree that there is an implication that they are wrong within the current wording. PeterEastern (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/medway-crossing/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tolls?
Is this also going to be a DartCharge expensive toll crossing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.205.126 (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Thames Crossing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926220620/http://www.kent.gov.uk/news/oct-06-kent-and-essex-tackle-traffic-together.htm to http://www.kent.gov.uk/news/oct-06-kent-and-essex-tackle-traffic-together.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposed Lower Thames Crossing as of Design Consultation 2020.jpg

Kent Downs AONB
The route does not join in the Kent Downs AONB. The A2/M2 where it joins is outside of the AONB in any map. Unless this statement can be verified this will be removed. Adds to the imbalance of the proposed routes descriptions. Feudonym (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

DCO withdrawal
Unexplained/unreferenced removal of information from this article has been reverted several times today. It is not enough to state "incorrect info" as a reason for deleting content, especially when the withdrawal from the DCO process has been extensively covered in the media. (Kent Online, Construction News and from Highway England themselves Turini2 (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

To do list ?
There's a lot of potential on this article - I previously did some substantial edits of the GTA West Corridor, a major freeway proposal in Canada. A few thoughts on this article after that experience! Any other thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Background on why this road is proposed - congestion at Dartford Crossings etc, high winds close the bridge etc
 * Detailed description of the proposed route, with details on the tunnel, junctions etc
 * Flesh out the history section, expand on why particular routes were chosen/not chosen (new tunnels at Dartford etc), results of consultations (support %, changes to routes etc), cost of the proposal, timeline
 * Further details on impacts/environmental concerns - secondary sources, not just campaign groups - carbon emissions, farmland, induced demand
 * Details regarding Highways England mitigation and changes to the proposed design
 * Expansion of "perspectives" section on supporters / opposition to the crossing, with references
 * Relevant photos of Dartford Crossings and locations where the new road will pass through


 * Its good to see your comments. I thought that a map in the infobox would have been a good idea, and I am working on it now. Top priority would be a section on its current status- local journalists are totally confused as to its current status and this reflects in the articles they write. As of 17.00hrs today, scheme hasn't applied for planning permission though everyone assumes it is shovel ready. Invitations for tenders for the link roads both north and south have been published (4 contracts for design and build schemes). The Medway issues are that it is a pay tunnel- but free for Gravesham resident and it is not clear why. If you have the experience to bring it up to scratch- go for it. When we know if it is going and where I am happy to get the camera out but I suspect drone footage may be more appropriate. Anyway happy to talk. ClemRutter (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed routes 2009 - Option A 14
Any reason why only route 14 for option A goes into much further detail, and not the 15 other routes? Indeed, neither are the 6 route options for C, and further 13 combination options detailed. I suspect there are certain impartial groups who are disgruntled A14 was not selected and so are expressing their frustrations by highlighting how incredibly amazing this route would have been. I have already had to remove unnecessary, biased detail (speed limits) but I propose this whole A14 option should be removed altogether. Unless there are good reasons to keep this route variant only (which was rejected anyway) and not the 21-34 others. Feudonym (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)