<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Have Your Say on New Thames Crossing	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.ucra.co.uk/have-your-say-on-new-thames-crossing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.ucra.co.uk/have-your-say-on-new-thames-crossing/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2021 18:07:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Pete		</title>
		<link>https://www.ucra.co.uk/have-your-say-on-new-thames-crossing/#comment-5619</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pete]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2016 11:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ucra.co.uk/?p=1759#comment-5619</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A new crossing would be totally unproductive and very destructive. More roads only encourage more vehicles. At this time of austerity there are far more pressing and urgently required areas that this amount of money would greatly help in. Housing, the NHS, policing, and education. Green belt land, sites of historic and scientific interest should be protected. The plans for this disastrous crossing destroys what is left of the lungs of London to the east and will add further to the air pollution that is already breaking international law.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A new crossing would be totally unproductive and very destructive. More roads only encourage more vehicles. At this time of austerity there are far more pressing and urgently required areas that this amount of money would greatly help in. Housing, the NHS, policing, and education. Green belt land, sites of historic and scientific interest should be protected. The plans for this disastrous crossing destroys what is left of the lungs of London to the east and will add further to the air pollution that is already breaking international law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Edward Negus		</title>
		<link>https://www.ucra.co.uk/have-your-say-on-new-thames-crossing/#comment-5269</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Edward Negus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ucra.co.uk/?p=1759#comment-5269</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The idea of a third crossing is needed ,down river is the only place it should go ,there are two reasons why it should be at that part of the river ,Firstly the A 130 coming from Chelmsford has been improved with the junction at sadlers farm modernised to take heavy lorrys heading for the new port so the road structure is already in place for a bridge next to the port London side and we have seen how many lorrys go that way to and from dover and the channel tunnel this last year gone by .Secondly we need to draw away traffic away from Dartford so the A 130  up the A13 is the answer ,we cannot have a bridge further down river because of the new large container ships size wise and height or a tunnel as we have already taken 14 feet out of the river bed for the new large ships, any more and the ammo ship will move and be a danger to lives in the area,The answer is clear draw traffic away from dartford tunnel before it gets there ,the road cannot take it ,take the lorrys off another way and the problem is solved]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The idea of a third crossing is needed ,down river is the only place it should go ,there are two reasons why it should be at that part of the river ,Firstly the A 130 coming from Chelmsford has been improved with the junction at sadlers farm modernised to take heavy lorrys heading for the new port so the road structure is already in place for a bridge next to the port London side and we have seen how many lorrys go that way to and from dover and the channel tunnel this last year gone by .Secondly we need to draw away traffic away from Dartford so the A 130  up the A13 is the answer ,we cannot have a bridge further down river because of the new large container ships size wise and height or a tunnel as we have already taken 14 feet out of the river bed for the new large ships, any more and the ammo ship will move and be a danger to lives in the area,The answer is clear draw traffic away from dartford tunnel before it gets there ,the road cannot take it ,take the lorrys off another way and the problem is solved</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Luke		</title>
		<link>https://www.ucra.co.uk/have-your-say-on-new-thames-crossing/#comment-5235</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Luke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ucra.co.uk/?p=1759#comment-5235</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not too concerned but either option in &#039;Option C&#039; which meets the A127 as traffic will not be aimed at Upminster, but will help in getting traffic away from the town if there&#039;s ever an incident on the M25. 

I am concerned about a new junction near South Ockendon, where there is numerous housing, and it is part of the motorway which is already overcrowded with junctions.  

The important thing is to make sure the road is sympathetic to the countryside, residents, and that the road is designed effectively for traffic coming off the M25 and into Kent. No corners must be cut, except for the mess that is the Dartford Crossing and the A2/M25 junction. 

Also this new road will not be of much use if it doesn&#039;t eventually meet the M20, with provisions to use the M26 to get to get back on the M25!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not too concerned but either option in &#8216;Option C&#8217; which meets the A127 as traffic will not be aimed at Upminster, but will help in getting traffic away from the town if there&#8217;s ever an incident on the M25. </p>
<p>I am concerned about a new junction near South Ockendon, where there is numerous housing, and it is part of the motorway which is already overcrowded with junctions.  </p>
<p>The important thing is to make sure the road is sympathetic to the countryside, residents, and that the road is designed effectively for traffic coming off the M25 and into Kent. No corners must be cut, except for the mess that is the Dartford Crossing and the A2/M25 junction. </p>
<p>Also this new road will not be of much use if it doesn&#8217;t eventually meet the M20, with provisions to use the M26 to get to get back on the M25!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
