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.
BBC Radio Manchester have posted this video, claiming the council have confirmed to them that all the pumps (old and new) on the A555 are not up to the job and were due to be replaced this week.
Robert Kilcoyne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2019 20:45
At least 20 roads have now been closed. It is worrying that the A6 has now been closed at Hazel Grove so there must be an increasing risk that the River Goyt could burst its banks:-
Maybe a bit of joined up thinking? Rising Sun junction is last sensible point to keep heavy traffic out of the affected area - late news reported further evacuations in New Mills and Furness Vale. This assumes the A523 is open of course.
Alternatively it was unconnected and due to flooding in Hazel Grove itself?
Robert Kilcoyne wrote: ↑Thu Aug 01, 2019 20:45
At least 20 roads have now been closed. It is worrying that the A6 has now been closed at Hazel Grove so there must be an increasing risk that the River Goyt could burst its banks:-
Maybe a bit of joined up thinking? Rising Sun junction is last sensible point to keep heavy traffic out of the affected area - late news reported further evacuations in New Mills and Furness Vale. This assumes the A523 is open of course.
Alternatively it was unconnected and due to flooding in Hazel Grove itself?
In truth that's where I'd put my money. In today's connected world I'd like to think we'd get more joined up thinking but I suspect the various forces involved are happily assuming we all have smart Sat Nav, saving them the bother.
The discussions on the Toddbrook Reservoir have been moved to their own thread
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
I never thought it seemed very credible to build a local bypass at such a price. But maybe there's a chance it could be revived in more strategic form as part of the trans-Pennine network improvements? Certainly it's hard to see how M60 J24-J3 could cope if they plugged a new trans-Pennine expressway into it as is.
I never thought it seemed very credible to build a local bypass at such a price. But maybe there's a chance it could be revived in more strategic form as part of the trans-Pennine network improvements? Certainly it's hard to see how M60 J24-J3 could cope if they plugged a new trans-Pennine expressway into it as is.
It's certainly not dead, they're still planning for it. Not least because of the masses of new housing they want to plonk along it. The local opposition is arguably more about this than the road itself (which people seem to grudgingly accept if it is designed to remove traffic from the A6).
Whereas the cross-Pennine tunnel... I'll wager that never happens.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
The government have been pretty clear that national road funding will fall into two categories:
1. RIS - strategic schemes of any size
2. MRN - local schemes up to £100m (and preferably less than £50m)
It's pretty easy to see where the trans-Pennine expressway fits into this, especially as it's now planned with a more manageable short tunnel. But as the article makes clear, there's no place for £500m local schemes, even if LAs really, really want them.
Ooo, rather than building a half decent bypass and downgrading the old road and introducing lots of urban realm improvements this presents a great opportunity to build much watered down developer led proposal - lots of accesses into new housing estates and sub-standard junctions and a load of retail sheds and business parks while at the same time doing nothing to the old road at all please....!
c2R wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 17:36
Ooo, rather than building a half decent bypass and downgrading the old road and introducing lots of urban realm improvements this presents a great opportunity to build much watered down developer led proposal - lots of accesses into new housing estates and sub-standard junctions and a load of retail sheds and business parks while at the same time doing nothing to the old road at all please....!
Probably for the best really at a time when we really need to be considering alternatives. The rail links in the area need massive improvements which would be a much better investment than building this.
Also the reporter blatantly googled "Goyt Valley" for an image without checking to see if the image was actually on the proposed route!
That's the laziest reporting I've ever seen, and clearly to evoke emotion about the destruction of a beautiful valley by a horrid road - when actually what we're talking about here is a new road threading its way along a reserved line between existing urban sprawl.
The new road would be an opportunity to remove through traffic from the existing A6, reducing the existing road capacity, providing improved cycle lanes, adding plantings and urban realm improvements, and much improved public transport facilities (such as bus only sections or a tram extension.
Instead, nothing will get done now, and the heavy traffic will continue to travel up the A6 next to the narrow footways and inadequate cycle facilities; while other traffic rat runs through side streets past schools and more homes - the money won't be used on rail improvements instead and nor will any alternatives actually be considered - it's a complete fairyland fantasy to think that it will.
The Packhorse Bridge is ten miles away from the proposed route. Also the location is not as 'unspoilt' as it looks. The bridge itself was moved there in 1965 prior to the flooding of the nearby original site as Errwood reservoir was created. So the image is actually a great illustration of the plasticity of natural and cultural heritage, i.e. the opposite of this absurd article's intent.
As I have said previously, this road has stopped being about traffic relief and more about enabling more car dependent slums of the future box estates to be built.
Locals don't want that, funnily enough.
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
jackal wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2019 09:07
The Packhorse Bridge is ten miles away from the proposed route. Also the location is not as 'unspoilt' as it looks. The bridge itself was moved there in 1965 prior to the flooding of the nearby original site as Errwood reservoir was created. So the image is actually a great illustration of the plasticity of natural and cultural heritage, i.e. the opposite of this absurd article's intent.
I'm afraid that sort of reasoning is about on par with portraying the proposed route as like that. The sort of post that seems to imply there are only two categories, complete wilderness and everything else, with everything else, from the busiest city centre to the quietest piece of farmland, being considered equal because they're heavily shaped by human influence.
I listen to the Spotify the music streaming service and one of the adverts is a bloke saying that the new road has cut his commuting times in half. I suspect it's just a sign that a general election is imminent, but it's a weirdly specifically targeted ad.
Helvellyn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:25
The sort of post that seems to imply there are only two categories, complete wilderness and everything else, with everything else, from the busiest city centre to the quietest piece of farmland, being considered equal because they're heavily shaped by human influence.
Helvellyn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:25
The sort of post that seems to imply there are only two categories, complete wilderness and everything else, with everything else, from the busiest city centre to the quietest piece of farmland, being considered equal because they're heavily shaped by human influence.
Quite the strawman you've constructed there.
Nope, try again. You made a valid point about the picture not being representative of where the proposed road is but then came up with "the plasticity of natural and cultural heritage," with the implication that it's somehow fake and doesn't count anyway as an excuse to justify development, or at any rate "isn't unspoilt because it involves (relatively modern) human activity". That approach is just as specious as the picture used to present the objection.
In any case anyone who pretends any form of development isn't a necessary evil at best that inevitably makes an obnoxious mess is in denial.
Last edited by Helvellyn on Mon Sep 09, 2019 11:15, edited 1 time in total.
