Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:18
Peter Freeman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 21:46
As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.
There's a reason people living in Glossop take the train into the city centre and why the Woodhead Line was not completely removed here, because it's faster and more efficient than sitting on the M67 and Hyde Road every morning and evening peak.
As it stands this 'bypass' is merely competing with an already established and good rail connection. It does nothing for the strategic network and is against any sustainable design principles that road building should be aiming towards ...
So, a substantial proportion of commuters
already do use the "good rail connection". That's appropriate. Nevertheless, there is severe congestion in Mottram. This presumably consists of (a) commuters who, for a genuine reason, cannot use the train, (b) other traffic unable to take the train - mainly freight, trades, deliveries and services, and (c) some lazy die-hards who just love being in their cars. These three traffic categories (a,b,c) will always exist, however much we improve public transport. They exist everywhere, and often predominate, even in cities with excellent PT.
The proposed Mottram-only bypass will probably not attract many commuters from their "good rail connection" because it still leaves the M67 city-end problems. It will -
(i) provide some relief for the deserving members of categories (a) and (b),
(ii) improve the environment for those living, working, walking, cycling or shopping alongside the current congestion,
(iii) provide at least a start for a Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass, and
(iiii) provide hope for a tolerable route over Woodhead.
ps. 'get over it' was rude - my apologies.