A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
A6140_ashton-nthn-bypass
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 22:27

A57/A628 Longdendale Bypass approval

Post by A6140_ashton-nthn-bypass »

I read with interest, as a former resident of Hollingworth, that the Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass was approved for funding today.

In my own personal view, having lived there, and seen the plans for the bypass, I do not belive that it will solve the problems, only shift them further elsewhere in the valley.

In particular, the connection onto the M67 is no different, if not worse, than the present situation.

Two websites of interest in relation:

http://www.saveswallowswood.org.uk/index.shtml- protest group

Anyone think this will be a bumpy ride, come 2006 - 2008?

Charley, Huddersfield
User avatar
Roadtripper_Ian
Member
Posts: 7064
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 21:14
Location: Central Buchan

Post by Roadtripper_Ian »

1) I would have thought that the bypass would solve most of the problems, as it bypasses all the traffic lights on this secftion which causes the queues. Woodhead will still be a slow crossing, but without the eternal queues through the villages the westen end will be much quicker, reducing the journey time.

2) Translink - they must be kidding! ?76m to reinstate the line seems rather optimistic, and as the alternative for HGVs is to simply drive across in 45 minutes I can't see the business case for it.

Ian
"I don't make the rules, ma'am, I just make them up and write them down"
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

<<In my own personal view, having lived there, and seen the plans for the bypass, I do not belive that it will solve the problems, only shift them further elsewhere in the valley.>>

It will relieve the intolerable traffic levels through the villages of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle, and the congestion caused by the traffic lights at the first two.

The queues to get off the M67 at the eastern end are caused by the lights at Mottram - with a free-flowing dual carriageway the other side of the roundabout, this would not be a problem even if it isn't a GSJ.

Further up the valley there are no major junctions or villages, so even if there is a bit more traffic it will simply trundle along at a 30-40 mph crawl.

Going west, there may be longer queues at the M60 junction, but that's a different issue really.

The fact that the scheme is only a small part of a proper strategic trans-Pennine route is noargument for not doing it at all - I would think the traffic situation in these villages (particularly with the high proportion of HGVs) is one of the most unpleasant in the UK.

Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
BoyRacerMark
Banned
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 11:43

Post by BoyRacerMark »

I can't believe I'm suggesting this, but a one way slip road may be benifitial.

I draw a diagram. badly.
BoyRacerMark
Banned
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 11:43

Post by BoyRacerMark »

5 mins later and I come up with this insult to MS Paint ;)

Anyway, you get the idea. ignore road widths - but lane markings are accurate.
DIAG.JPG
andyfrith
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 18:55
Location: Sheffield / Chesham, Bucks
Contact:

Post by andyfrith »

The translink proposal has already been thought up by Central Railways, as part of a major Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Rugby-London-Chunnel-France rail freight line. See http://www.central-railway.co.uk/ This proposal (actually in planning stages) will use the Woodhead Tunnel itself, and since its part of a major scheme is likely to be successful at taking lorries of the roads than just a transpennine line.
Nonetheless, I imagine the translink proposal woulds take years to plan and build, in today's political climate, especially since it has not been taken beyond the idea yet. I would guess 10 years at least before it could be open? That timescale is surely too long to wait if we can have a bypass providing relief much quicker, since it has now been approved.
M19
Member
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2001 05:00
Location: Rothwell, Northants

Post by M19 »

Why don't they just make the whole M67 Motorway from Manchester to the M1? I would argue that a lot of the traffic jamming up the M62 and in fact, the M6 is probably Manchester-Sheffield traffic.
In fact, I would go further to suggest that a more strategic solution would be to have a route from the M56 in cheshire, bypassing the south of Manchester Airport and Stockport a-la-A6(M) to multiplex with the M60 with, say 6 lanes, with a direct sliproads feeding onto the M67, which would then cross the pennines to Sheffield, but also further through the Yorkshire Motorway box, across the A1(M), by-pass the North of Doncaster and link up with the M180 and name the whole lot the M67. Hey presto, a bit of strategic thinking and you have a new route virtually linking the ports of Holyhead with Humberside.This would eliminate any need to upgrade the M62, which would otherwise encourage traffic to divert needless mile to use it, as they do today to get to Sheffield. Bring it on....
A19
M19
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

<<Why don't they just make the whole M67 Motorway from Manchester to the M1?>>

Because a whole barrel-load of Nimbies and eco-loons would moan like hell about despoiling the beauties of the Peak District (despite the fact that the moors around Woodhead are a featureless, desolate wasteland).

Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
Steven
SABRE Maps Coordinator
Posts: 19171
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 20:39
Location: Wolverhampton, Staffordshire
Contact:

Post by Steven »

<<Why don't they just make the whole M67 Motorway from Manchester to the M1?>>

<<Because a whole barrel-load of Nimbies and eco-loons would moan like hell about despoiling the beauties of the Peak District (despite the fact that the moors around Woodhead are a featureless, desolate wasteland).>>

Not exactly.

Probably becauseany plans to get the M67 actually completed would fall straight through the same holes as the previous ones, mainly to do with huge costs.

The political situation is such that any attempt to build the motorway (and then to police the route during construction work) would be utter suicide. It would probably make all the Twyford Down business look like chickenfeed.

Steven
Steven
Motorway Historian

Founder Member, SABRE ex-Presidents' Corner

Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!

User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

<<Probably becauseany plans to get the M67 actually completed would fall straight through the same holes as the previous ones, mainly to do with huge costs.>>

The costs would be no greater (allowing for inflation) than those of building the similar stretch of the M62, and it would be just as useful.

<<The political situation is such that any attempt to build the motorway (and then to police the route during construction work) would be utter suicide. It would probably make all the Twyford Down business look like chickenfeed.>>

Illustrates what I said about government kow-towing to unrepresentative pressure groups. The right to protest is one thing, the right to disrupt democratically-approved public works at great expense to the public purseis something else entirely. Create a one-mile exclusion zone along the route for any protesters and bang an ASBO on anyone who violates it Image

Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
A6140_ashton-nthn-bypass
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 22:27

Post by A6140_ashton-nthn-bypass »

I have to agree with Steven, whichever colour of political administration is in power when this scheme gets built (if ever) will be in for a tough time.

However muchthe Longdendale Bypass is dressed up or rebaged as a "relief road" or "scaled-downsolution", it will still be part of piece by piecescheme to upgrade the Manchester - Sheffield route.

The Peak District was Britain's first national park. The Dark Peak/Upper Longdendale may not be visually stunning, but it is scenic,often-overlooked green lung between the Manchester and Yorkshire urban area. Although this country is clouded in apathy, this would be a serious issue to a lot of people, including myself.

A simple, quick solution would be to reduce Glossop commuter traffic (of which there is a significant amount), by:
  • upgrading the Hadfield/Glossop railway (on the cheap, a la Metrolink Phase 1) to metro-style tram/train
  • "mini" bypass of Mottram, connecting Mottram rbt with Backmoor
  • weight restriction limit on Woodhead</UL> Then again, I have no room to talk, being a car commuter usingthe A628/A57/M67most days.
    Charley, Huddersfield (well near Holmfirth, actually)
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

<<weight restriction limit on Woodhead>>
The A628/A616 route is the only trunk road across the Pennines between the M62 and A50. A weight restriction here would either lead to diversion along even less suitable roads, or, if they had weight restrictions too,trucks having to make humungous detours.
Obviously I know that in terms of practical politics the Woodhead route is highly unlikely to be dualled in my lifetime, let along turned into a motorway. However I believe the HA have plans for an eastbound crawler lane on the section where the road starts to climb out of the valley near the tunnel portal, which would make a significant difference.
Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
User avatar
coasterjunkie
Member
Posts: 2301
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 17:59
Location: Woodsetts, South Yorkshire

Post by coasterjunkie »

However I believe the HA have plans for an eastbound crawler lane on the section where the road starts to climb out of the valley near the tunnel portal, which would make a significant difference.

This is the slowest section of the eastbound journey, as it is where the hill becomes steep enough for loaded trucks to significantlyslow.With this and the bypass, the well-documented problems with this route would be three-quarters solved.
Andy
Andy

If you've got it, a truck brought it!
User avatar
Roadtripper_Ian
Member
Posts: 7064
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 21:14
Location: Central Buchan

Post by Roadtripper_Ian »

A few crawler lanes would sort out a lot of the slower bits, and you never know- they might come up with a bypass for some of the twistier bits.

As for Central Railway, I don't think they envisaged any journeys as short as the Mottram Old Yard - Tinsley Yard shuttles that Translink proposes.

Ian
"I don't make the rules, ma'am, I just make them up and write them down"
User avatar
Paul
Member
Posts: 9464
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 15:22
Location: Ingbirchworth/Leeds
Contact:

Post by Paul »

I've had a read of the Translink proposals and they actually seem pretty sound. Never mind the environmental impact of so many HGV's going via Woodhad (or worse, Snake Pass), this part of England often gets the worst of any bad weather, so a system unaffected by bad weather would, just on those terms alone, be effective.

From a Sheffield point of view it'd be better to have the South Yorks end of the route at Tinsley as there is more space for associated development (the Deepcar site is actually in quite a steep valley), and much closer to motorway links (M1, M18). If the terminus were at Deepcar then HGVs would still have to travel on the under-capacity A616/A61 to get to the M1.

Paul
Regards,
Paul
User avatar
M60-Tony
Member
Posts: 8673
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 08:41
Location: Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire

Post by M60-Tony »

<I read with interest, as a former resident of Hollingworth, that the Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass was approved for funding today.>

As did I, as a resident of Glossop from 1985 to 2002.

Of course, if there is an election next year, the incoming administration could decide to review, postpone, or cancel the project.

Or am I being too cynical?

Tony
Tony

"We have more and more laws, and less and less law enforcement."
BoyRacerMark
Banned
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2001 11:43

Post by BoyRacerMark »

<<Because a whole barrel-load of Nimbies and eco-loons would moan like hell about despoiling the beauties of the Peak District (despite the fact that the moors around Woodhead are a featureless, desolate wasteland).

Peter>>

Peter, you may have noticed I'm almost as pro roads as you are, and get highly irritated at ecowotsits and rubbish from environ(mentalists)

However, what you've put is utter *******. Don't you see, this gives "the other side" ammo, in the same way them saying roads attract traffic does to us. Please stop posting stuff you can't possibly believe it. You'll be saying Twyford Down was a good idea next.
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

<<Peter, you may have noticed I'm almost as pro roads as you are, and get highly irritated at ecowotsits and rubbish from environ(mentalists)

However, what you've put is utter *******. Don't you see, this gives "the other side" ammo, in the same way them saying roads attract traffic does to us. Please stop posting stuff you can't possibly believe it.>>

Sorry Mark, the above was meant as a bit of a comedy rant Image.

There's a later message in the thread that gives a more balanced viewpoint.

I also don't genuinely believe that Brunstrom's severed head should be placed on a pole outside the Tower of London.

<<You'll be saying Twyford Down was a good idea next.>>

Well, the road was a good idea, but perhaps it could have been built in a more environmentally sensitive manner.

Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
Jimbo
Member
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 20:30
Location: Gloucestershire

Post by Jimbo »

<<You'll be saying Twyford Down was a good idea next.>>

> Well, the road was a good idea, but perhaps it could
> have been built in a more environmentally sensitive manner.

I remember at the time that the option of a tunnel was suggested by many people but it was dismissed as being even more environmentally damaging than the cutting (as well as costing more).

Jim.
User avatar
PeterA5145
Member
Posts: 25347
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 00:19
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Contact:

Post by PeterA5145 »

<<I remember at the time that the option of a tunnel was suggested by many people but it was dismissed as being even more environmentally damaging than the cutting (as well as costing more).>>
I know it's all water under the bridge, but would an online upgrade of the existing A33 Winchester bypass to D3M status have been totally out of the question?
Peter
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
Post Reply