Longdendale Bypass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The Longdendale Bypass (also known as the A57/A628 Mottram-in-Longdendale, Hollingworth & Tintwistle Bypass) is a £184.31m road scheme in England planned by the Highways Agency. The stated aim of the bypass is to alleviate traffic congestion on the A57/A628/A616 trunk roads that presently pass through the three villages. The proposed new road is controversial because if built, it would pass through the valley of Longdendale and into part of the Peak District National Park.

Contents

[edit] Background

The existing trunk road connects the M67 from Manchester to the M1 in South Yorkshire. It is a single carriageway road through the villages of Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle and through the Peak District National Park and carries a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. Because of the nature of the route and the high volume of traffic, there are problems with noise and pollution, as well as other factors which impact upon the lives of local people.

[edit] Safety

The accident rate at Tintwistle is more than twice the national average however the accident rate on the A628 Woodhead Pass is extremely high, so high that it was rated the fifth most dangerous road in England [1] Although the bypass itself is planned to bypass Tintwistle it will not bypass the Woodhead Pass.

[edit] History and progress

Plans for a bypass date back at least 20 years, but the scheme found favour when it was restored to the then Conservative government's road programme in 1989. Following a public consultation process, a preferred route was selected in October 1993. After subsequent reviews of the entire road-building programme by the government, work was suspended in 1996. In July 1998 the new Labour government published the results of its own review in the “A New Deal for Trunk Roads” document[2] and included the bypass as a scheme to be progressed through the preparatory stages.

In November 2002, the Highways Agency submitted a report to the Regional Planning bodies (North West, East Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside). In this submission, they formed the conclusion that there were no realistic alternatives to a bypass of the villages to solve the problems that existed. Subsequently, in April 2003 the bypass entered the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI).[3]

The Highways Agency appointed Mowlem PLC under their Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) initiative, in order to take the scheme forward. The ECI allows for detailed planning work to be carried out while the scheme is taken through the statutory procedures.

On 31 January 2006, the Secretary of State for Transport published formal proposals in the form of Draft Orders. The published Orders included proposals to:

  • Bypass sections of the A57 and A628 passing through the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle within the Metropolitan Borough of Tameside and the County of Derbyshire. The bypassed sections are between the M67 eastern Terminal Roundabout at Hattersley and Townhead Farm on the east side of Tintwistle over a distance of approximately 5 kilometres [Draft Line Order];
  • Provide route restraint measures on the bypass and at Flouch;
  • Provide for a length of the A57 and the A628 that is to be superseded by the bypass, to cease to be a trunk road [Draft Detrunking Order];
  • Provide for the stopping up of existing highways and private means of access, to improve and alter existing highways and to construct new highways and accesses that may be necessary for the construction of the new bypass and the route restraint measures at Flouch [Draft Side Roads Orders];
  • Compulsorily purchase land and rights required for the construction of the scheme including essential mitigation works [Draft Compulsory Purchase Order].

A Freedom of Information request in May 2006 led to the Highways Agency releasing details of all properties they had purchased over the past 30 years in connection with the scheme.[4] [5]

The public and other interested organisations were allowed a period of 13 weeks until 5 May 2006 to express their support, comment on, or object to the proposals. According to figures released in the press by the Highways Agency, as of July 2006, 1400 people wrote formal letters of objection to the scheme, with 1000 writing in favour of it.[6]

Although the formal consultation period has ended, it is still possible to write in to express opposition or support for the scheme until the planned Public Inquiry takes place (May 2007).

Following the large number of objections, and because the Longdendale bypass is a scheme that the government permits to be considered at a regional level, the North West Regional Assembly presented advice to Ministers in January 2006 and provided a revised sequencing of priority schemes in June 2006. On 6 July 2006 The Secretary of State for Transport responded to this advice[7] and confirmed that funding provision could be made for the Longdendale bypass beyond 2010/11[8].

The change to the proposed timing of construction and funding for the project required a review of the published Environmental Statement and it was republished together with the associated Draft Orders on 8 February 2007. There is a 6 week consultation period, during which it is possible to write in support or to object to the proposals. The consultation period ends on 30 March 2007.

The Public Inquiry has been delayed to undertake these necessary statutory processes and is currently planned to start in May 2007.

[edit] The route

The scheme envisages a new dual carriageway, leaving the M67 terminal roundabout in a northeasterly direction, passing under the A6018 Roe Cross Road, Old Road and Old Hall Lane in a tunnel some 120 metres north of the point where those roads converge. This tunnel would be about 170 metres long.

To the east of this area the route continues to a roundabout which provides for a link road down to the A57 Mottram Moor. A proposed local authority road ('Glossop Spur') would continue this link to the A57 at Woolley Bridge. To the east of the roundabout, the Preferred Route would proceed in a northeasterly direction through the Swallows Wood nature reserve, then curving southeasterly to join the existing A628 east of Tintwistle near Townhead Farm.

[edit] Cost

A recent report[9] from the 'Nichols Group' for the Department for Transport has shown that the estimated cost of the bypass has grown by 104.8% to £184.31m since the original estimate of £90m in 2003.

[edit] Traffic figures

Whilst supporters of the scheme argue for the bypass on the basis that it will relieve the three villages of traffic congestion, the Highways Agency's own figures do not fully support this contention[10] . In the Environmental Statement produced by the Highways Agency, the 'Predicted Traffic Figures' support the following largely temporary reductions in traffic by 2010:

  • a 100% permanent reduction along the westbound section of the A57 after the junction with the A6018 - this is because this section of road will be blocked and made into a one-way street, making it impossible to access the A628.
  • a 13% reduction in traffic along Market Street (A628), Hollingworth (decreasing to 5% by 2025).
  • an 8% reduction in traffic along Mottram Moor (A57) (decreasing to 4% by 2025).

All other routes show a marked increase in traffic, both immediately and over time:

  • Brookfield (A57) - an 18% increase by 2010 (rising to 21% by 2025).
  • M67 - a 17% increase by 2010 (rising to 24% by 2025).
  • Back Moor (A6018) - a 9% increase by 2010 (rising to 23% by 2025).
  • Ashworth Lane (B6174) - a 6% increase by 2010 (rising to 36% by 2025).
  • Roe Cross Road (A6018) - a 6% increase by 2010 (rising to 36% by 2025).

[edit] Climate change impacts

Government funded research carried out by English Nature found that the proposed scheme would increase greenhouse gas CO2 pollution in the area by 15,840 tonnes per annum. Furthermore, the costs of the CO2 pollution were not included in the Highways Agency cost benefit analysis. [11]

In the republished Environmental Statement summary, the Highways Agency admit that the scheme will entail "an estimated increase of 9% in emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide". [12]

However, in his recent Statement of the Area address on 21 November 2006, the Leader of Tameside Council announced that 4,500 trees had already been planted and this would be increased to 10,000 to compensate for the loss of trees when the bypass is built and also to help mitigate the the CO2 increases. The council leader also claimed that each tree planted would offset 75kg of CO2 per annum [13]. This figure -- for trees to be planted in northern England -- is 3.5 times greater than that for trees planted in tropical rainforests. [14].

The highest sequestration rate measurements for UK forests indicate that around 10 tonnes of CO2 are collected per hectare per year (for well managed forests with an unlikely assumption that the carbon stored in the timber from felled forests is never burnt.) DEFRA - [15]) Therefore, to offset the bypass CO2 pollution at least 1600 hectares of forest would be required (several times the area of the nearby town of Glossop). Therefore, with a planting density of 4200 trees per hectare, offsetting the local increase in CO2 pollution would require a 6.7 million trees to be planted.

In their alternative proposal to the bypass, Translink claim that the removal of HGVs from the A628 onto a cross peak train line would save approximately 100,000 tons of CO2 per year.[16]

[edit] Proponents and opponents

Proponents include the State, in the form of the Highways Agency and Department for Transport. Two Labour Members of Parliament whose constituencies form part of the route, Tom Levitt and James Purnell, also back the scheme, and they are joined by the Labour-controlled local authority Tameside and Longdendale Councillors, especially the Executive Leader of Tameside, Roy Oldham. A local pro-bypass group, the Longdendale Siege Committee are also supporters of the scheme (they handed a petition of 8,500 signatures into Downing Street on 13 February 2003). [17] The Bypass has also received the support of AGMA (the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) [18]. Old Glossop Ward Councillor Chris Webster has publicly stated his support for the Bypass, and criticised the position of the Peak District National Park Authority, on the grounds of the perceived economic advantage the bypass will bring to the haulage industry and associated businesses[19].

Opponents and objectors include Michael Clapham[20] (Labour Member of Parliament for Barnsley West and Penistone), the Peak District National Park Authority, English Nature, the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency, and the National Trust, the Directors of the Public Health of Greater Manchester[21][22], as well as the Ramblers Association and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).Local campaigning groups, Save Swallows Wood, Alternative Proposals for Transport and Woodhead Against Increased Traffic (WAIT), have lead a grass roots campaign to oppose the scheme. Vivienne Westwood, who grew up in Tintwistle, has also been vocal in her opposition to the bypass.[23]

[edit] Alternative measures

The proponents and supporters of the bypass argue that the scheme has no alternative.[24] Despite the reasons the supporters give for constructing the bypass, there appear to be no proposals by either the Highways Agency or the local authority to implement interim measures to alleviate congestion in the meantime.

Opponents of the scheme support the 'Way to Go' initiative put forward by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), which is pressing Councillors, MPs, and the Peak District National Park to reject the bypass scheme and consider instead a number of measures designed to alleviate the traffic problems and generally improve local transport without causing damage to the environment.[25]

This alternative approach calls for:

  • Weight restrictions on the A57/628, forcing heavy goods traffic onto the existing M1/M62 motorway network and away from the Peak District National Park
  • Weight restrictions on the A57/628 but only during rush hour time periods.
  • Road Tolls on the A57/628.
  • Traffic calming in the villages on the A628 and A57 to prevent 'rat running'.
  • A ‘Streets for People’ programme in all residential areas to encourage walking and cycling.
  • Continental-style safe routes to school.
  • Travel-to-work plans.
  • Integrated bus and train services throughout the Peak District and improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
  • Discount travel by public transport.
  • Improved public transport links and safe cycle routes to local railway stations.
  • A new railway station at Gamesley and improved services at existing stations.

Some opponents of the scheme also advocate 'Translink' as an alternative proposal, which envisages enabling (through the reopening of the Woodhead Tunnel) direct rail links between Glossop and Sheffield and beyond. Translink claims the "Rolling Highway" would be a quick, safe and cost effective means of carrying freight across the Pennines; a credible alternative to using the heavily congested and dangerous A616/A628 single carriageway trunk road. HGV vehicles simply roll on and roll off the low floor wagons. The Rolling Highway system has proved to be extremely successful in Europe for transportation across Alpine countries.

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Radio 4 Britain's Most Dangerous Roads", Radio 4 Britain's Most Dangerous Roads
  2. ^ "A new deal for trunk roads in England: Understanding the new approach", Department for Transport website
  3. ^ "Targeted Programme of Improvements", Highways Agency website
  4. ^ "A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle Bypass - Properties Purchased by the HA", Highways Agency, 31 May 2006
  5. ^ "A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle Bypass - Properties Purchased by the HA", Highways Agency, 14 August 2006
  6. ^ "Inquiry for controversial bypass", BBC, 1 June 2006
  7. ^ "Letter to the North West Regional Assembly and Regional Development Agency", Secretary of State for Transport, 6 July 2006
  8. ^ "Annex B: Indicative list of schemes from 2009/10 to 2015/16", Secretary of State for Transport, 6 July 2006
  9. ^ "Review of Highways Agency's Major Road Programme", page 5 (opens PDF)
  10. ^ "Predicted Traffic Flows With and Without the A57/A628 Bypass", Route Restraint Environmental Statement, Vol 3-set02, Figure 1-5 (opens PDF)
  11. ^ http://www.savemottram.org.uk/A628%20Response%20Report.doc
  12. ^ 'A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass and A628/A616 Route Restraint Measures: Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement', Highways Agency Publications, Manchester, 2007
  13. ^ http://www.tameside.tv:80/textonly/state06text.htm
  14. ^ http://www.treesftf.org/about/cooling.htm
  15. ^ http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forestry-strategy/review-evidence.pdf
  16. ^ http://www.translinkuk.com/benefits.htm
  17. ^ http://www.tomlevitt.labour.co.uk/ViewPage.cfm?Page=2851 Website of Tom Levitt MP on Siege petition
  18. ^ http://www.agma.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=1149007
  19. ^ "New rumpus over bypass objection", Glossop Chronicle, 10 January 2007
  20. ^ http://www.empty.co.uk/wait/Scan%20Chronicle%20%C9%20Front%20Page.doc "Clapham joins residents opposing by-pass", Barnsley Chronicle, 4 May 2006
  21. ^ http://farm1.static.flickr.com/135/358812354_bd837abd64_b.jpg "Directors of the Public Health of Greater Manchester - Objection to the Longdendale Bypass, page 1"
  22. ^ http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/358812359_1b4bd69a2b_b.jpg "Directors of the Public Health of Greater Manchester - Objection to the Longdendale Bypass, page 2"
  23. ^ "Vivienne Westwood Supports our Campaign!", Campaign to Save Swallows Wood website, 24 May 2006
  24. ^ "Suggested Alternative Solutions?", Longdendale Siege Committee website
  25. ^ "What are the alternatives?", Campaign to Save Swallows Wood

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/n/Longdendale_Bypass_269c.html"