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.
I realise a birdseye view doesn't take into account the hilliness of the area, so this route may not be practical, but this is a path that avoids all buildings.
Due to the relief of the area the bypass would pass underneath the A6018, possibly in a deep cutting. There wouldn't need to be full access between the two roads, probably just north-facing slips allowing access between the west and north. Not many people would be going back towards Stalybridge from the M67 or vice versa. Traffic from Hattersley and Mottram could use the existing roads.
A57 traffic would be unaffected, other than becoming the only dominant road through Mottram without the extra A628 traffic, easing congestion considerably.
Effectively, eastbound traffic arriving at the Hattersley Roundabout would be split entirely between long-distance traffic taking the new bypass, and local traffic continuing to use the old road.
This can't be the most difficult construction scheme in the history of roadbuilding! (I pretty much worked it out on the back of a fag packet...)
How difficult can it be ??? When I was working on the scheme in 2001, we had 33 line options each with significant issues and had to reduce then down to 7 options, with IIRC 3 options worked up for volumes, consideration of the cut of visibility splays... Large signs have vast amounts of extra cut on the inside of a cutting.
Road engineering gets a tad more difficult when you need to balance cut and fill on a site to reduce the cost of shifting material off site, look at gradients and superelevation... It's a very dynamic design process.
a1adam wrote:This can't be the most difficult construction scheme in the history of roadbuilding! (I pretty much worked it out on the back of a fag packet...)
If it was that easy... wouldn't it already have been built?
a1adam wrote:This can't be the most difficult construction scheme in the history of roadbuilding! (I pretty much worked it out on the back of a fag packet...)
If it was that easy... wouldn't it already have been built?
Surely the reasons it hasn't been built are lack of money and/or political will, not construction difficulties (although as a local I recognise that the terrain means it's not as easy as it looks on a map). AIUI a detailed scheme design was produced the last time it was actively considered.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
a1adam wrote:This can't be the most difficult construction scheme in the history of roadbuilding! (I pretty much worked it out on the back of a fag packet...)
If it was that easy... wouldn't it already have been built?
Surely the reasons it hasn't been built are lack of money and/or political will, not construction difficulties (although as a local I recognise that the terrain means it's not as easy as it looks on a map). AIUI a detailed scheme design was produced the last time it was actively considered.
This is quite true, but my point is that it's not as easy as just drawing a line on a map. In fact - given that the design work has been done and the locals are very vocally in favour of it being built - drawing a line on the back of a fag packet is evidently not the difficult bit.
Just looking at the traffic figures and the A57 takes more traffic than the A628 so although a A628 only bypass would help but the A57 will still be very busy so the effects of the new road won't be that good!
Chris5156 wrote:
This is quite true, but my point is that it's not as easy as just drawing a line on a map. In fact - given that the design work has been done and the locals are very vocally in favour of it being built - drawing a line on the back of a fag packet is evidently not the difficult bit.
I once designed a signal-controlled junction for the A4 and A346 on the back of a fag packet.
Marlboro Lights, needless to say...
Seriously though, points taken about the difficulties of the A628 scheme. Not as simple as it looks on the map, clearly. But if the design/route is right and the locals approve, then who would be against the scheme and for what reasons (other than the engineering/cost reasons outlined above)?
If it comes down to the bypass eating into the National Park then I have a suggestion. However many square miles of park are degraded by the new road should be compensated for by expanding the park's boundaries in an alternative location.
For example, the moors between the A62 and M62 outside the park's boundaries are just as scenic as the affected area, if anything even less built-up and more "natural". It would make a good swap if they were to become included in the Peak District in compensation for the impact on western Longdendale.
a1adam wrote:Seriously though, points taken about the difficulties of the A628 scheme. Not as simple as it looks on the map, clearly. But if the design/route is right and the locals approve, then who would be against the scheme and for what reasons (other than the engineering/cost reasons outlined above)?
They seem to think the answer would be banning HGVs from the Woodhead route (and indeed the entire Peak District National Park, except for access), thus leaving no HGV route between the M62 and A50. Very green, that
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein
Hmmm. Of course "my" route would veer just south of Swallows Wood, leaving it intact
I can definitely see their point in terms of not wanting their local countryside ruined, and it's good that they accept there is a real problem. However the alternative solutions outlined on that website really are pretty pathetic to be honest.
I guess most of their anti-road feeling comes from bad PR caused by shoddy, destructive schemes they've been aware of. It's up to the road builders to demonstrate how new roads can, if well engineered, enhance nthe environment or at least be perfectly acceptable to the local landscape.
I'm sure there were many complaints about the M62 crossing the Pennines. Now it's an integral part of that particular landscape!
They seem to think the answer would be banning HGVs from the Woodhead route (and indeed the entire Peak District National Park, except for access), thus leaving no HGV route between the M62 and A50. Very green, that
It would be interesting to learn what their stance was on keeping the Woodhead Tunnel open for future freight workings, ie are they anti-everything or just anti-traffic.
a1adam wrote:Seriously though, points taken about the difficulties of the A628 scheme. Not as simple as it looks on the map, clearly. But if the design/route is right and the locals approve, then who would be against the scheme and for what reasons (other than the engineering/cost reasons outlined above)?
They seem to think the answer would be banning HGVs from the Woodhead route (and indeed the entire Peak District National Park, except for access), thus leaving no HGV route between the M62 and A50. Very green, that
Yep, lets just turn the national park in to a big playground for Mancunians and Sheffieldians on weeekends away (unless they drive or ride bikes there, as that's really bad). No-one in the peak district wants to move around much...
It's amusing to see quiet how naieve they are... I doubt traffic queueing pretty much permanently through the villages would be resolved by the traffic calming they propose as a solution. It's probably not that good for the environment either....
They just see the word "bypass" and immediately think "This must not happen" and that public transport is the automatic answer. Thing is, on congested town routes buses are just as likely to be stuck in traffic as cars but when a bypass is built the Bus service can be vastly improved. Look at somewhere like Porthmadog. The buses go through town as usual, but aren't stuck in traffic jams doing so.
rhyds wrote:They just see the word "bypass" and immediately think "This must not happen" and that public transport is the automatic answer. Thing is, on congested town routes buses are just as likely to be stuck in traffic as cars but when a bypass is built the Bus service can be vastly improved. Look at somewhere like Porthmadog. The buses go through town as usual, but aren't stuck in traffic jams doing so.
Agreed... However, they need to reaslise that the route is a through route between Manchester and Sheffield (and effectively the East Midlands). Sheffield is signed on the M60, via M67; and Manchster is signed from the M1 this way, to prevent long distance traffic from taking the shorter but less suitable Snake Pass route. Therefore local public transport improvements really aren't the answer!
a1adam wrote:Hmmm. Of course "my" route would veer just south of Swallows Wood, leaving it intact
The problem with heading south is that Arnfield Reservoir is in the way, and is around 40-50 metres (~120-150ft) lower than the altitude you need to be at to bypass Tintwistle. A viaduct would be needed whether you avoid Swallows Wood or not, but avoiding it completely would probably mean a viaduct across the whole width of the reservoir. Going further north, you could get away with 2 short viaducts, one at Swallows Wood, and the other crossing the Arnfield Brook.
No doubt it could be done, but it would presumably add to the cost substantially.
rhyds wrote:They just see the word "bypass" and immediately think "This must not happen" and that public transport is the automatic answer. Thing is, on congested town routes buses are just as likely to be stuck in traffic as cars but when a bypass is built the Bus service can be vastly improved. Look at somewhere like Porthmadog. The buses go through town as usual, but aren't stuck in traffic jams doing so.
Agreed... However, they need to reaslise that the route is a through route between Manchester and Sheffield (and effectively the East Midlands). Sheffield is signed on the M60, via M67; and Manchster is signed from the M1 this way, to prevent long distance traffic from taking the shorter but less suitable Snake Pass route. Therefore local public transport improvements really aren't the answer!
Exactly, but "green" campaigners see bypasses as simply being ways to allow horrible cars to get in to their little weekend retreat.
Twas very busy through Mottram this weekend. On Saturday some temporary traffic lights were stuck on red as we were heading towards Manchester and there were visi-vests controlling traffc. We queued all the way up Mottram Moor which, whilst not unusual, involved a lot more queue jumpers than normal (I'm a fan of the zip-merge but when I've queued all the way up the hill, what makes you think I'm going to let you whip past us all and then into that tiny gap in front of me?) The queue in the other direction was solid almost back to M67 J3.
Coming home the traffic news announced that it was still just as bad just as we passed the 300yrd marker for Simister so I cancelled the indicator and went across the M62 instead. Long way around for a short cut!
Then on Sunday they were saying something about an accident and it was all backed up again. Almost like someone was doing it on purpose to highlight the problem.
Sitting in the queue I did notice some signs I'd not seen before. One 'official' councilly sign saying that Glossop Spur work was now underway and a couple of unofficial new yellow 'sign our petition' signs. Anyone know owt about either?
I went on a fact-finding mission to Mottram at the weekend! I drove around every highway and byway in the area to get a fuller understanding of the situation.
Coming in from the west, the first thing that struck me was the construction of the new Tescos at Hattersley. This is only going to add to the fun and games at the end of the M67.
Sure enough, traffic was crawling through Mottram until the crossroads, and then the answer hit me: why on earth are people allowed to turn right at the lights? There is no right-hand filter lane, so all it takes is one right-turner and traffic will be blocked for a whole phase of the lights.
If anyone really wanted to turn right into Market Street, they'd be better off turning right at the Hattersley roundabout, then left along Ashworth Lane.
I wonder what difference to eastbound traffic it would make if right-turning was prohibited at the Mottram traffic lights?
Oh, and on a different note...Gorsey Brow is a cool little lane linking Mottram with Broadbottom, a seriously steep hill.
