Mark Fry wrote:

The problem is that the Dartford Crossing is no longer enough. More
crossing capacity is needed. IMO retaining the tunnel and hypothecating
the revenue to fund more Thames Estuary bridges, tunnels and ferries is
the best solution.

I don't agree the Dartford Crossing is plenty, if they just done away with
the toll booths. I watched this happen on more than one occasion, the car
arrives at the booth gives the crossing officer £5.00, simple, cars cost
£1.00 so should be £4.00 change, easy. Not so, the half wit in the booth
then checks the five pound note out under a U.V light, fair enough, then
he/she proceeds to count out £4.00 about 4 times, just to make sure that
they haven't paid too much change.....By which time there's quite a queue at
this booth and this isn't unique, it happens at all of them......

But if they got rid of the toll, how long would it be until the extra
traffic on the road caused more congestion than the toll booths did?

Regarding funding, that would be true if the funding from the crossing went
to pay for more crossings, but this isn't the case. When the bridge was
constructed it a joint venture involving a company called Trafalgar House,
amongst others. Not too long ago the company controlling the crossing has
become a French company called Le Crossing, so do you think the revenue
generated by Le crossing will be funding more Le Crossings? I doubt it.

I think the government claim it will, and there are more plans for more
crossings further downstream. Meanwhile Ken Livingstone is trying to
persuade the government to use the Dartford toll revenue to help pay for
the Thames Gateway Bridge between Thamesmead (Eastern Way) and Beckton
(connecting to the North Circular where it joins the A13). This is
likely to reduce Dartford Crossing congestion much more than abolishing
toll booths ever would, and I strongly support it (although I oppose the
bus lane on it, as not building it would save nearly £40m).