A57/A628 Mottram Tintwistle bypass

[the cheesecake man]

I've driven this route throughout my driving life - since 2001ish. I'm sure others even longer, but the queues are always the same - sometimes it seems they never go.

Yep, queues almost any time in both directions. Nowhere else has so reliably got queues even when other places are quiet eg at 8pm or 10am on Sunday.

Although I was under the impression woodhead was the dominant flow, apparently it's not,

You're right that far more traffic uses Woodhead Pass than Snake Pass (12k v 4k according to SABRE Maps), but Glossop is much bigger than Tintwistle (32,000 v 1,400). The proportion of traffic heading into Glossop that continues across the Pennines is quite small, I'd guess around 10% and AADT on SABRE maps shows 20k west of Glossop versus 4k east so that's about right. Hence why there is no proposal to bypass Glossop.

Finally, as others have mentioned this is the western half of the original bypass. There's nothing stopping a future extension east and although I accept it's unlikely, it's not impossible. Given the 20 years that have gone by I'm grateful for anything now, even if it is a bit meh.

Hopefully Building the whole lot in one go would be much better but that's far too much sense to be allowed in British transport policy.

[FleetlinePhil]

It's still a not very subtle admission they are simply going to enable more car commuting from Glossop because it doesn't actually relieve the A628 at all, it's an A57 bypass that screams "get on the M67 and sit in traffic at Denton because you'll think it's quicker than catching the train from Padfield".

Hadfield rather than Padfield, but your point still stands.

...As for public transport it is being ripped to pieces at the moment due to reduced passenger numbers during the Covid period.

Indeed, the Glossop/Hadfield line it is still running with only two of the three booked diagrams, leaving hour gaps in a nominally half-hourly service even at peak times - there is no departure from Manchester Piccadilly at 1633 or 1803! This compares with a twenty minute peak headway pre-Covid, and apparently it will not even improve with the December timetable change. Shocking!

[jackal]

I'm going to attempt to defend it. But I'll start by saying it is pretty crap.

I've driven this route throughout my driving life - since 2001ish. I'm sure others even longer, but the queues are always the same - sometimes it seems they never go. The major problem and major bottleneck is, in my experience, the crossroad lights at Mottram. I've tried the obvious alternative - going west, turning right at the filter lights and then left to approach the lights from the north. Nothing works, it's just gridlock.

This scheme does, at least, remove that set of lights. It does, granted, produce another set of lights, but with more space, filter lanes. Although I was under the impression woodhead was the dominant flow, apparently it's not, and regardless by making the Glossop traffic more free flowing it could mean Woodhead traffic flows better too.

Finally, as others have mentioned this is the western half of the original bypass. There's nothing stopping a future extension east and although I accept it's unlikely, it's not impossible. Given the 20 years that have gone by I'm grateful for anything now, even if it is a bit meh.

I have mixed feelings. The scheme serves a very clear need as traffic from the A57, A628 and A6018 are bottlenecked on Mottram Moor. But one can't help but notice that a lot of the scheme is a bypass of the A57 Woolley Lane, serving commuting traffic with little strategic value.

Really there has been a failure of policy. Instead of a realistic long term policy to improve the A628 in stages (including a Mottram-Tintwistle bypass), we had the unrealistic long term trans-Pennine tunnel, and this realistic but short term scheme.

[Hdeng16]

I wonder if the eastern half of the bypass (the but not yet being built) is almost now small enough to become a development-led scheme in future?

[Peter Freeman]

I'm going to attempt to defend it. But I'll start by saying it is pretty crap.

I'll defend it too, because it's better than nothing.

Yes, it's 'pretty crap' because it's so small: only half of an already-small project. Also because it uses a hamburger. But it's a stepping stone. The next piece is easy to free-flow splice on, and it can eventually (30 years?) make it over the hill as a surface route upgrade.

These incremental constructions, although inefficient, must continue to be the way forward in an austerity climate. And, let's face it, the tunnel's not going to happen. UK doesn't do tunnels under mountains (but yes, under open fields near to ancient monuments).

As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.

[Bryn666]

As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.

A dull and frankly unworthy response from someone with usually quite insightful views. Quite simply Greater Manchester cannot accommodate more driving from its closely attached suburbs, it is a compact metropolitan region best suited to metro systems and public transport. The M60 diameter itself is barely 10 miles and relatively flat.

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 if we stand any chance of dealing with climate change and the social impacts of unrestricted car commuting whilst providing a modern, fit for purpose network.

[Helvellyn]

As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.

A dull and frankly unworthy response from someone with usually quite insightful views. Quite simply Greater Manchester cannot accommodate more driving from its closely attached suburbs, it is a compact metropolitan region best suited to metro systems and public transport. The M60 diameter itself is barely 10 miles and relatively flat.

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 if we stand any chance of dealing with climate change and the social impacts of unrestricted car commuting whilst providing a modern, fit for purpose network.

I partially agree, and obviously me being me I'm going to grumble about building almost anything, but it is an almost uniquely terrible bit of the road network at present, enough that even I'm not getting too upset by the idea.

[Bryn666]

As for it pandering to car commuters - get over it.

A dull and frankly unworthy response from someone with usually quite insightful views. Quite simply Greater Manchester cannot accommodate more driving from its closely attached suburbs, it is a compact metropolitan region best suited to metro systems and public transport. The M60 diameter itself is barely 10 miles and relatively flat.

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 if we stand any chance of dealing with climate change and the social impacts of unrestricted car commuting whilst providing a modern, fit for purpose network.

I partially agree, and obviously me being me I'm going to grumble about building almost anything, but it is an almost uniquely terrible bit of the road network at present, enough that even I'm not getting too upset by the idea.

Yes, I am not saying it shouldn't be built, I'm just pointing out that the approved design achieves none of the objectives its proponents say it will. It is designed almost entirely to make it easier to drive from and to Glossop whilst doing nothing for the A628.

The old A57 should be truncated at the M67 roundabout, keeping the old road open undermines the whole point of shifting traffic off the road here, it would also have reduced the need to introduce an awful hamburger as there'd be fewer entry conflicts onto the roundabout.

[Helvellyn]

Fair enough, point taken.

[fras]

I've gone this way quite often, to get to the Oil Can Cafe, near Holmfirth. I can confirm that the traffic lights in Mottram are the main bottleneck. Once you get past these, it is slow but it does move. We normally come to these lights from the south as there is a Tesco on the A560 just off the roundabout where we normally buy the papers and have a "physical needs break", so we use the B6174 to get back on track. The new bypass will suit us just fine, I think, if it ever gets built !

[jgharston]

IWe normally come to these lights from the south as there is a Tesco on the A560 just off the roundabout where we normally buy the papers and have a "physical needs break", so we use the B6174 to get back on track. The new bypass will suit us just fine, I think, if it ever gets built !

When I've had to do a Sheffield-Manchester run, I've gone via Glossop then turned off on the A626 to Charlesworth then down the C-road through Broadbottom and joining the B6174 westwards past that Tesco. I never timed it, but it keeps the engine running properly instead of straining on the pedals at less than walking pace. And that was in an automatic, I've never attempted it since getting an manual car, and I know I am really bad at stop/start crawling up hills in near-stationary traffic in it.

[Was92now625]

When I've had to do a Sheffield-Manchester run, I've gone via Glossop then turned off on the A626 to Charlesworth then down the C-road through Broadbottom and joining the B6174 westwards past that Tesco. I never timed it, but it keeps the engine running properly instead of straining on the pedals at less than walking pace. And that was in an automatic, I've never attempted it since getting an manual car, and I know I am really bad at stop/start crawling up hills in near-stationary traffic in it.

I've tried something like this. But never been totally convinced. However, I'd also say that a longer route rather than being stuck in VERY slow traffic is also better for the driver.

[Peter Freeman]

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.

[Bryn666]

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.

Yes, as explained upthread there are some benefits to the new road but NH have previous form for scoring own goals and not achieving what they have sold to locals. I fear this is one of those examples.

There is a very real risk that removing the Mottram bottleneck whilst making lives immeasurably better for locals will just make Denton Island unbearable. It doesn't work now, and NH have tried nothing radical and are all out of ideas. Their last intervention, a free-flow left turn lane off the M60 anti-clockwise slammed traffic into a kerbed buildout and has achieved diddle squat. Something to help would be to utilise the missing flyover and provide some free-flow on/off the M60 - this helps strategic traffic whilst discouraging car commuting into the city centre.

[Truvelo]

That's a brilliant design which would help considerably. However, golf courses tend to be vocal in their opposition to their land being used for such developments unless this golf course isn't the la di da type.

[Hdeng16]

whilst doing nothing for the A628.

I absolutely disagree with that comment specifically. It's minor, but it doesn't do 'nothing'. Effectively it's just a junction upgrade, but by 'moving' the Mottram traffic lights it's given them space to build a much larger junction with multiple phases rather than the current simple crossroads. This will help the A628, just not by much.

[Bryn666]

whilst doing nothing for the A628.

I absolutely disagree with that comment specifically. It's minor, but it doesn't do 'nothing'. Effectively it's just a junction upgrade, but by 'moving' the Mottram traffic lights it's given them space to build a much larger junction with multiple phases rather than the current simple crossroads. This will help the A628, just not by much.

I'm probably being over-pessimistic! I would like to, just once, see a strategic road scheme that actually isn't riddled with BS compromises and politicking. Maybe one day eh?

[Hdeng16]

whilst doing nothing for the A628.

I absolutely disagree with that comment specifically. It's minor, but it doesn't do 'nothing'. Effectively it's just a junction upgrade, but by 'moving' the Mottram traffic lights it's given them space to build a much larger junction with multiple phases rather than the current simple crossroads. This will help the A628, just not by much.

I'm probably being over-pessimistic! I would like to, just once, see a strategic road scheme that actually isn't riddled with BS compromises and politicking. Maybe one day eh?

That (and pretty much the rest of your post) I totally agree with! It is still a depressing scheme, but it's something. I long for the same day! I've thought (twice) we may have been getting it with the A66 but still nothing....

[the cheesecake man]

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.

In support of this, Glossop-Mottram is the only place I've ever noticed a significant increase in traffic during a train strike.
Back in 2002, I spent three months commuting from Sheffield to Ashton-under Lyne*. It consistently took 1hr10mins-1hr20mins, except for two days when there was a train strike in the north-west and it took 1hr45mins.

*if it had been possible to get there by train directly from Sheffield (as with Stockport or Marple) I'd have done so rather than be in category (c). To get to Ashton by going into Piccadilly and walking to Victoria or taking a slow circuitous (but scenic) route via Huddersfield was not realistic so I consider I was in category (a). You are course free to believe I was in (c), for example if you think I should have declined the job and stayed on the dole queue.

[JammyDodge]

I made a light modification to Bryn's layout, to make to M67-M60 slip the main slip

Also, talking about commuting into the City Centre, why can't bus lanes be put in between Denton and Piccadilly? There are some here and there, but no continuous lanes to speed up busses in and out of the city and could be used to create express bus routes out towards Hyde. It would also facilitate slightly safer cycling routes. While it is not ideal to cycle in a bus lane, I find it generally safer than a general traffic lane