Longdendale Bypass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains information about a planned or expected future road. It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change as the road's construction or completion approaches and more information becomes available.

The Longdendale Bypass (also known as the A57/A628 Mottram-in-Longdendale, Hollingworth & Tintwistle Bypass) is a controversial £184.31m road scheme in England planned by the Highways Agency which aims to alleviate traffic congestion on the A57 road/A628 road/A616 road routes that presently pass through the villages. There is both strong support and opposition for this long-planned scheme which would pass through the valley of Longdendale and part of the Peak District National Park.

Contents 1 Background 2 The route 3 Scheme history 4 Public Inquiry 5 Proponents and opponents 5.1 Proponents 5.2 Opponents 6 Alternative measures 7 Traffic figures 8 Climate change impacts 9 See also 10 References 11 External links 11.1 Official information 11.2 Supporting groups 11.3 Opposing groups 11.4 Other information

[edit] Background

The existing trunk road, the A628, 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 with a high proportion of heavy goods vehicles. There are problems with noise and pollution, as well as other factors which impact upon the lives of local people and the accident rate at Tintwistle is more than twice the national average^{[citation needed]}. The supporters of the scheme (they handed a petition of 8,500 signatures into Downing Street on 13 February 2003)^{[citation needed]} and say that the scheme has no alternative^[1]. The cost of the scheme is estimated at £184.31m (by 104.8% to since the original estimate of £90m in 2003)^[2].

It has been noted that no proposals by either the Highways Agency or the local authority to implement interim measures to alleviate congestion prior to the bypass being completed. Concern has been raised that the scheme will not improve safety on the Woodhead Pass is extremely high which was rated the fifth most dangerous road in Britain.^[3].

[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 170m tunnel about 120 metres north of the point where those roads converge.

To the east of this area the route continues to a roundabout which provides for a link road down to the A57 Mottram Moor. 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.

Another proposed local authority road, the 'Glossop Spur' would link to the A57 at Woolley Bridge.^[4]

The Department for Transport has published a map of immediate area and another showing routes across the peaks and the location of Flouch, which is scheduled to have associated traffic works. An independently produced overlay for Google maps is also available.

[edit] Scheme history

See also: Road protest (UK)

The plans for the bypass go back more than 10 year, and were restored in the Conservative government's 'Road's For Prosperity' white paper in 1989 and following a public consultation process, a preferred route was selected in October 1993 and after subsequent reviews of the entire road-building programme by the government, work was suspended in 1996^[5] due in part to major road protests, recognition of induced traffic and the need for demand management and increasing concerns over increasing CO2 levels.^{[citation needed]}

In July 1998 the new Labour government published the results of its own review in the “A New Deal for Trunk Roads” document^[6] 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. In April 2003 the bypass entered the Targeted Programme of Improvements, and recognising the likelihood of increased traffic on this route proposals would also be put in place to discourage road users switching from other cross-Pennine routes.^[5]

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.^[7]

On 31 January 2006, the Secretary of State for Transport published formal proposals in the form of Draft Orders to construct the bypass, make good to old roads and introduce 'route restraint measures'. 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.^[7]

In May 2006 the Highways Agency released information under the Freedom of Information Act of all properties they had purchased over the past 30 years in connection with the scheme^[8] and an updated copy in August 2008^[9]

By the end of the consultation period 1400 people wrote formal letters of objection to the scheme and 1000 write in favour.^[10]. Objections were also received from Countryside Agency, English Nature, the Peak District National Park, the National Trust^[11]

North West Regional Assembly had presented advice to Ministers in January 2006 and then in June 2006 provided a revised sequencing of priority schemes.^{[citation needed]}

On the 6th July 2006 the Secretary of State for Transport responded to this revised sequences and confirmed that funding provision could be made for the Longdendale bypass beyond 2010/11.^[12]

In December 2006 Rebecca Lush, a long standing road protester and founder of Road Block highlighted the scheme as being particularly inappropriate and damaging.^[13]

On 25 January 2007, Roads Minister Stephen Ladyman confirmed that the anticipated earliest start date for work would be 2013^[14].

The change to the proposed timing and costs required a review of the Environmental Statement, which was duly republished with associated Draft Orders on 8 February 2007. There was then a 6 week consultation period, during which the Peak District authority responded.^[15]

In March 2007 a government funded report showed that the cost of the scheme had doubled from £90m to £184m^[16]

[edit] Public Inquiry

Details of the Public Inquiry were announced in April 2007^[17] It was to be run by Persona Associates with John Watson as Inspector.^[17] An official public inquiry website was launched which is offers news, transcripts and documentation for download.

A Pre-Inquiry Meeting (PIM) took place on the 1 May 2007. During the pre-inquiry meeting John Watson was questioned about his suitability to preside over such an environmentally sensitive project. He stated that he has written many articles about highway construction. Members of the audience insisted that he provided a list of his publications.^{[citation needed]}

The inquiry opened on the 26 June 2007.^[17]

On the 16 July 2007 the inquiry was adjourned until 4th September with a final deadline for Proofs of Evidence is 14 August 2007.^[17]

On the 11 September 2007 the inquiry was adjourned until the 19 September to allow the Highways Agency to Review Traffic Evidence.^[18]

On the 19 September 2007 it was adjourned again until the 6 November.^[17]

On 6 November 2007 it was adjourned until the 18 December.^[19]

On 4 December 2007 the Highways Agency published as document Route Restraint Measures - Explanation of the Further Change in the Traffic Forecasts and suggested that this data would not be available until Easter 2008.^[20]

On 18 December 2007 the inquiry reviewed the new information and was then adjourned while the Highways Agency to correct their traffic modelling. The inspector commented that "it was the fifth iteration of the traffic model since the original announcement in February 2006". A date for the next session has not been fixed.^[21].

On 3 March 2008 the Highways Agency responded to queries from the inspector indicating that it expects to have revised evidence available by October 2008^[22]

[edit] Proponents and opponents

[edit] Proponents

• Agencies: UK Government, Highways Agency and Department for Transport, AGMA (the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities)^[23]

• Campaign group: Longdendale Siege Committee

• Individuals: Tom Levitt^[24] and James Purnell (Labour Members of Parliament whose constituencies form part of the route), Roy Oldham ( Executive Leader of Tameside), Labour-controlled local authority Tameside and Longdendale Councillors, Chris Webster (Old Glossop Ward Councillor)^[25]

[edit] Opponents

• Agencies: Campaign to Protect Rural England, Countryside Agency, English Nature, Environment Agency, National Trust, Peak District National Park Authority, Ramblers Association

• Campaign groups: Alternative Proposals for Transport, Save Swallows Wood and Woodhead Against Increased Traffic (WAIT)

• Individuals: Michael Clapham (Labour Member of Parliament for Barnsley West and Penistone)^[26], the Directors of the Public Health of Greater Manchester^[27][28], Vivienne Westwood (who grew up in Tintwistle)^[29]

[edit] Alternative measures

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.^[30]

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 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] 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^[31] . 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).

The stated aim of the bypass is to reduce traffic flow along (at least) the A57 and the reviewed environmental statement of February 2007 provided radically different traffic forecasts to the original forecasts summarised above. In particular, the new traffic forecast indicated that there would be over 26,000 vehicles per day travelling along Back Moor. According to the data presented by the Highways Agency, this amount of traffic is greater than what presently uses the main A57 Hyde Road in Mottram.

[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. ^[32]

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". ^[33]

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 CO₂ increases. The council leader also claimed that each tree planted would offset 75kg of CO₂ per annum ^[34]. This figure -- for trees to be planted in northern England -- is 3.5 times greater than that for trees planted in tropical rainforests. ^[35].

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 - ^[36]) 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.^[37]

[edit] See also

• Campaign for Better Transport (UK)
• Road protest (UK)
• M67 motorway
• Woodhead Tunnel
• Woodhead Line

[edit] References

[edit] External links

[edit] Official information

• A57/A628 Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle Bypass official Highways Agency information about the scheme
• Mottram/Tintwistle Bypass and Glossop Spur Public Inquiry website Official public inquiry website

[edit] Supporting groups

• Longdendale Bypass Supporters website of the Longdendale Siege Committee - a local group in favour of the scheme

[edit] Opposing groups

• Save Swallows Wood a local group opposing the scheme
• Stop Mottram Bypass website opposing the scheme
• Stop the A57/A628 Bypass website opposing the scheme
• Woodhead Against Increased Traffic local group opposing the scheme
• Save The Woodhead Tunnel group promoting railfreight through Peak District

[edit] Other information

• Anti Longdendale Bypass Petition - petitions.pm.gov petition against the proposed bypass.
• Translink Reopen a trans-Pennine rail link for freight.