Tel: 0845 226 3392

E-mail: info@saveswallowswood.org.uk

Website: www.saveswallowswood.org.uk

Longdendale Integrated Transport Strategy

Project Office (Rm 3.21)

Assistant Executive Director

Technical Services

Tameside MBC Council Offices

Wellington Road

Ashton-under-Lyne

OL6 6DL

13th

May, 2010

Having attended the exhibitions, and based on feedback from our supporters, here is our detailed response

to the LITS proposal for your consideration.

1. We are concerned that three of the six “options” presented to the public incorporated a road scheme.

It was not at all clear from the presentation what the purpose of these options were, and they seemed

to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation to some degree, by suggesting that certain public

transport and other “soft” measures were only feasible if implemented in combination with the road

option. However, no evidence was presented to justify this assertion.

2. We are also concerned that by you will regard support for a non-road element that you consider to be

feasible only as a package that includes a road option. We would like to be clear that we do not support

any proposal that includes a road scheme.

3. The original Mottram-Tintwistle bypass plans showed that removing the bottlenecks on the A628

through Longdendale led to traffic increases, which had a negative impact on communities within and

surrounding the local area as well as the National Park. We are concerned that the LITS consultation

focuses on too small an area and fails to address the wider impacts of any changes to the transport

network. We would like all communities affected by traffic on the A628 corridor (including Derbyshire,

Langsett, and the other areas of Tameside adjoining the M67) to be recognised as stakeholders and

given the opportunity to influence the outcome of the strategy.

4. We support the proposal for reduced speed limits (20 mph) through Hollingworth and Tintwistle and

we would like to see these progressed as soon as possible.

5. We support the proposal for increased bus services and would like more specific information about

where these services would run and analysis of journeys within the local area that warrant extra

services. In our view, the LITS must address the lack of suitable direct bus connections between

Longdendale/Glossop and Sheffield, Stockport, and Manchester. We would also like to see timetabling

changes to improve bus connections with local rail services, and the introduction of new routes that

will facilitate access to the National Park and reduce car-dependence for local residents and visitors

alike.

2

6. We support proposals to improve local rail stations and increase the frequency of services. We would

like support for rail to be extended to include the reopening of the Woodhead line, as this would

provide a vital commuter link to South Yorkshire and the East as well potential trans-Pennine rail-

freight services.

7. We are concerned that the exhibition failed to educate members of the public on the options that were

presented and used technical jargon that was not fully explained. Much was made of the “problems”

(in fact, around 50% of the exhibition space was dedicated to these), but very little detailed information

was provided about different elements of the “options” that were presented. Despite this, members of

the public were expected to form an opinion and provide a response using your questionnaire. An

example of this is the use of “Smarter Choices,” which is technical jargon not commonly understood,

which should have been explained fully to people and, ideally, been supported by examples of this in

practise and the kinds of changes that could be expected.

8. We would have liked more detailed information relating the different elements you were proposing, on

the following areas:

● Effectiveness at reducing traffic congestion

● CO2 impact

● Estimated cost

● Environmental impact (land take, wildlife impacts, etc.)

● Journey times (focussing on journeys for local residents rather than for through-traffic)

9. A detailed plan of the road element was presented but no evidence on the likely impacts was made

available. Rather it was presented, once again, as an “option” that would achieve the stated aims of the

strategy. However, we know from the Highways Agency’s original Mottram-Tintwistle bypass proposal

that focussing on removing bottlenecks by increasing road capacity leads to traffic increases elsewhere

as well as being environmentally unsound. Given the narrow focus of the LITS consultation on the

problems in Mottram, we are concerned that the road option will be pursued at the expense of

neighbouring communities. We would like to remind you that the Highways Agency scheme was

forecast to increase traffic on the following roads within Tameside and Glossop, as the table below

based on information published by the Highways Agency traffic forecast (February 2007) shows:

Road % Change 2015 % Change 2030

A560 Gee Cross 7% 31%

A57 Glossop 9% 11%

B6174 Stalybridge Road 20% 26%

A57 bet. Dinting Ln & Simmondley Ln 24% 27%

A57 Snake 27% 33%

M67 West of Mottram 33% 33%

A616 North of Flouch 36% 1%

A628 Woodhead 40% 39%

A628 (T) Crowden 48% 55%

A6016 Glossop 49% 61%

A6018 Back Moor 66% 73%

Shaw Lane 79% 60%

A57 Hyde 103% 103%

3

Given that these figures were based on a scenario that included “route restraint” on the A628, we are

concerned that Tameside MBC would be repeating the mistakes of the past by overstating the benefits

of a road scheme that later does not stand up to scrutiny, wasting further time and money and, once

again, leaving local residents no better off than they are at the moment.

10. We would like to see a greater emphasis on partnership working, and for LITS to clearly demonstrate a

commitment to delivering a truly sustainable transport solution for that is consistent with the Council’s

Agenda 21 pledges on Transport1. For example, the absence of any representatives from Derbyshire CC

at the public exhibitions was notable. The public exhibition made it clear that many of the problems are

caused by overdevelopment in Glossop and increased transport pressures from commuters to/from the

High Peak, so it is difficult to see how a truly integrated approach to transport can be developed by

Tameside MBC in isolation from Derbyshire.

11. We would like LITS to clearly demonstrate a commitment to delivering a truly sustainable transport

solution that is consistent with the Council’s Agenda 21 pledges on Transport2 and prioritises making

best use of existing infrastructure over new development.

12. It is our understanding that the £100 million that has been allocated by AGMA is specifically for a road

proposal. We are uncertain how Tameside, therefore intends to fund any of the other measures

presented to the public. In future reviews of the AGMA funding package, we would expect Tameside to

ensure that the AGMA funding is specifically allocated more broadly to the LITS strategy rather than

specifically to the road element of the strategy.

13. The strategy must be revised to include a Park-wide weight restriction, which must then be progressed

as a priority. It is our understanding that this is of great interest to the Peak District National Park, and

our local survey showed it also has high levels of popular support3. While local politicians are claiming

this is being progressed independently, we think this should be pursued as a priority, as it would have

an enormous and immediate impact on all the villages and would then give a clearer indication of the

local impacts.

14. It is our view that efforts to improve rates of walking and cycling should be pursued immediately, as

these are low-cost and will also have a positive impact on health. According to ONS figures for

Longdendale, 60% of households with a car or van also use public transport, whereas 40% of public

transport users live in homes without a car or van. However, since the majority of the traffic identified

by LITS as the cause of congestion is identified as coming out of Glossop and the surrounding areas,

efforts must be made to reduce this as well and must, therefore, aim to address the journeys being

made by local residents in Longdendale and Glossop. As the tables below show, the majority of all

journeys to work, both in Longdendale and in the High Peak, are less than 6 miles long. High

percentages of journeys (43% and 51% respectively) are below 3 miles long. Focussing on reducing car

use for these short journeys will, in our view, achieve the objectives of LITS and are more consistent

with latest Government guidance on transport planning.

Distance Travelled to Work - Workplace

Population (UV80) Longdendale Tameside North West England

Less than 5km (3.1 miles) 43% 54% 44% 40%

Less than 10km (6.2 miles) 56% 72% 63% 58%

1 http://www.tameside.gov.uk/la21/transport

2 http://www.tameside.gov.uk/la21/transport

3 http://www.saveswallowswood.org.uk/news/2006-03-21.htm

4

Over 10km (6.2 miles) 9% 14% 25% 28%

Mainly from home 35% 14% 12% 14%

Distance Travelled to Work - Workplace

Population (UV80) High Peak East Midlands England

Less than 5km (3.1 miles) 51% 44% 40%

Less than 10km (6.2 miles) 64% 62% 58%

Over 10km (6.2 miles) 17% 25% 28%

From home 19% 14% 14%

15. Any attempt to increase walking and cycling on this route is counter-intuitive if, as in the original bypass

proposals, traffic on the A57(T) increases. The majority of local journeys are less than six miles in

length. A growing number of cyclists commute within Glossop and the surrounding area, however,

there is no provision for these roads users, despite the high volumes of traffic and some very obvious

pinch points on the road. Some examples of improvements to local cycling routes and infrastructure

within the Glossop and Longdendale areas could include:

� A safe cycle route from Broadbottom to Brookfield, via the Hague, highlighted by the purple line on

the map below. This would provide a safe, low-level cycling and horseriding route, connecting two

sections of the TransPennine Trail (NCN 62) that currently rely on a road diversion via Charlesworth.

The council should note that the section marked with the orange dots (denoting a cycle way) is

currently restricted by the owners of Tara House Farm on Woolley Bridge Lane.

© Ordnance Survey 2010

� A safe on-road commuter cycle route from Glossop to Mottram through the addition of cycle lanes

at various pinch points along the A57(T) and priority stop lines at all major junctions on this route.

5

16. National Trails are promoting cycle and walking routes using the Pennine Bridleway4. This publicity

should be capitalised on to attract visitors to the area by creating connections with local trails. We

would like to see the status of several local footpaths changed to bridleways, creating a circular off-

road route connecting Stalybridge, Matley and Mottram with the Pennine Bridleway. The map below

highlights these.

© Ordnance Survey 2010

The purple lines show the sections currently designated as footpaths we would like to be reclassified as

bridleways, linking up with the existing bridleway network and the Pennine Bridleway.

The green line highlights a route that is current designated as a bridleway, with permission for cyclists.

We welcome the improvements that are currently being made to this route.

17. Timetabling between bus and rail services needs to be integrated. For example, from Hollingworth, the

most direct bus route to a connecting station is the 247 from Hollingworth to Hadfield, which at most

times during the day leaves only 2 minutes to transfer from the bus on arrival in Hadfield to the train

leaving for Manchester. Missing this connection adds 30 minutes onto the journey time.

4 http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/Penninebridleway/

6

18. Travel from Hollingworth to Stockport currently takes two hours by public transport (bus, then rail into

Manchester and out again)5. The table below compares local journeys made by car with those same

journeys by public transport.

Journey

Distance6

(miles)

Est. Travel Time (hrs) Comments

by car7

by public

transports8

Hollingworth to

Stockport

10.3 16-19

mins

1hr 38 –

2hrs 15

No direct public transport route

to Stockport. Bus or train via

Glossop, New Mills or

Manchester.

Hollingworth to Marple 7.8 16-17

mins

47 mins –

1 hr 10

No direct public transport route

to Marple. Bus or train via

Glossop, New Mills or

Manchester

Glossop to Sheffield 25.44 41 mins 1 hr 48 –

2 hrs 29

PT bus route via Buxton and

Bakewell or train via

Manchester

Hollingworth to

Manchester

11.4 22 mins 59 mins –

1 hr 7

Bus via Ashton or Hyde; bus

then train via Glossop

As the table shows, some relatively short car journeys (assuming clear traffic conditions) take

considerably longer by public transport. In fact, most of these journeys take considerably longer by

public transport assuming peak time levels of traffic congestion. We therefore fail to accept the

5 See Hollingworth-Stockport1.pdf

6 Based on Google map directions.

7 Based on Google map directions.

8 Based on Google map directions.

237 from

Hollingworth

237 arrives

Hadfield

Train leaves

Hadfield

Wait time* Arrives

Manchester

Journey Time

0616 0625 0630 5 mins 0715 1 hr

0636 0645 0700, 0720, 0740,

0758

15 mins 0743 0803

0825 0843

1 hr 15

0809 0819 0821, 0841, 0901 2 or 32 minutes 0927 0942 1 hr 32

0919 0929 0931, 1001 2 or 32 minutes 1012 1042 1 hr 23

1019 1029 1031, 1101 2 or 32 minutes 1112 1142 1 hr 23

1119 1129 1131, 1201 2 or 32 minutes 1212 1242 1 hr 23

1219 1229 1231, 1301 2 or 32 minutes 1312 1342 1 hr 23

1319 1329 1331, 1401 2 or 32 minutes 1412 1442 1 hr 23

1419 1429 1431, 1501 2 or 32 minutes 1512 1542 1 hr 23

1519 1529 1531, 1601 2 or 32 minutes 1612 1642 1 hr 23

1617 1631 1631, 1657 2 or 32 minutes 1705 1733 1 hr 16

1706 1716 1722, 1744 6 mins 1757 1812 1 hr 6

1721 1731 1759 28 mins 1834 1 hr 10

1745 1755 1828 33 mins 1903 1 hr 18

1826 1836 1843 13 mins 1915 32 mins

1842 1851 1901 10 mins 1942 31 mins

1917 1926 1931 2001 5 mins 2012 2042 41 mins

2004 2013 2031 2131 18 mins 2112 2212 41 mins

2130 2139 2231 52 mins 2312 41 mins

2230 2239 No train - - -

7

argument that the focus of the LITS strategy should be aimed at improving journey times. What we

would like to see is a concerted effort to improve public transport times, within a strategy that aims to

reduce overall levels of traffic congestion through the villages, to provide local residents with a viable

alternative to the car for their journeys.

19. One of the arguments for original Mottram-Tintwistle scheme was that it would improve journey times

for local residents. However, journey times from the villages of Tintwistle, Hollingworth, Mottram, and

Glossop to the main commuter areas of Manchester and Stockport (or at least, to the junction with the

M60) have not, to our knowledge, and analysis of journeys lengths and destinations was not provided

in the LITS exhibition. Given that “journey time savings” are part of the economic justification for a road

scheme in accordance with NATA, we would like this information to be made available to the public.

20. The proposal to reduce congestion by reopening the Woodhead line should also be consideration.

While we accept that the £100 million allocated by AGMA will not be sufficient to progress such a

proposal, we would like to see a commitment to this included in the strategy.

21. The absence of any mention of climate change is notable. The Climate Change Act requires an 80%

reduction in climate change emissions by 2050. This is relevant to all sectors, and therefore includes

transport. The North West Climate Change Action Plan, 2010-2012, states that, “Although regional

carbon emissions have declined since 1990, the underlying trend is for a growth in emissions related to

population growth and the increased use of industrial, domestic and transportation fuels,” recognising

this as one of the challenges for the region. For transport, the outcome they identify for 2020 states:

“The emissions from our new vehicles have almost halved through innovative technologies and

sustainable fuels, and we are developing the infrastructure needed for ultra low carbon vehicles and to

adapt to climate change. Walking, cycling and public transport are making a valuable contribution to

carbon reduction, supported by land use planning, improved local services and increased use of digital

connectivity which reduce the need for travel. We have better inter-city services and direct links to the

European rail network to reduce unnecessary car and air travel.” The LITS proposal focuses on air

quality but does not acknowledge the “underlying trend” in reduced emissions, meaning that even if

nothing is done and traffic levels remain unchanged, local air quality will improve. However, as the

Mottram-Tintwistle bypass proposal showed, increasing capacity encourages more journeys by car and

leads to no overall improvement for the local area. For LITS to be a truly “sustainable” transport

strategy, it must consider the impacts of climate change and make CO2 reduction an essential aim of

the strategy.

22. We would like more information on work-based travel plans and “individual marketing” schemes that

you are proposing, as well as information on existing schemes within Tameside, and how you would

expect these to reduce local traffic congestion. Research by the Campaign for Better Transport (below)

shows that travelling planning on an individual and company level can lead to a 14% reduction in car

use.

8

23. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with LITS Officers to discuss the various issue and

opportunities presented by the local situation.

Note: All map extracts are © Ordnance Survey 2010.