Tel: 0845 226 3392E-mail: info@saveswallowswood.org.ukWebsite: www.saveswallowswood.org.uk

Longdendale Integrated Transport StrategyProject Office (Rm 3.21)Assistant Executive DirectorTechnical ServicesTameside MBC Council OfficesWellington RoadAshton-under-LyneOL6 6DL13

May, 2010Having attended the exhibitions, and based on feedback from our supporters, here is our detailed responseto 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 seemedto pre-empt the outcome of the consultation to some degree, by suggesting that certain publictransport and other “soft” measures were only feasible if implemented in combination with the roadoption. 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 befeasible only as a package that includes a road option. We would like to be clear that we do not supportany proposal that includes a road scheme.3.

The original Mottram-Tintwistle bypass plans showed that removing the bottlenecks on the A628through Longdendale led to traffic increases, which had a negative impact on communities within andsurrounding the local area as well as the National Park. We are concerned that the LITS consultationfocuses on too small an area and fails to address the wider impacts of any changes to the transportnetwork. 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 andgiven the opportunity to influence the outcome of the strategy.4.

We support the proposal for reduced speed limits (20 mph) through Hollingworth and Tintwistle andwe 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 aboutwhere these services would run and analysis of journeys within the local area that warrant extraservices. In our view, the LITS must address the lack of suitable direct bus connections betweenLongdendale/Glossop and Sheffield, Stockport, and Manchester. We would also like to see timetablingchanges to improve bus connections with local rail services, and the introduction of new routes thatwill facilitate access to the National Park and reduce car-dependence for local residents and visitorsalike.

We support proposals to improve local rail stations and increase the frequency of services. We wouldlike support for rail to be extended to include the reopening of the Woodhead line, as this wouldprovide 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 werepresented 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 informationwas 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. Anexample 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 inpractise and the kinds of changes that could be expected.8.

We would have liked more detailed information relating the different elements you were proposing, onthe 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 madeavailable. Rather it was presented, once again, as an “option” that would achieve the stated aims of thestrategy. However, we know from the Highways Agency’s original Mottram-Tintwistle bypass proposalthat focussing on removing bottlenecks by increasing road capacity leads to traffic increases elsewhereas well as being environmentally unsound. Given the narrow focus of the LITS consultation on theproblems 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 wasforecast to increase traffic on the following roads within Tameside and Glossop, as the table belowbased 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%

Given that these figures were based on a scenario that included “route restraint” on the A628, we areconcerned that Tameside MBC would be repeating the mistakes of the past by overstating the benefitsof a road scheme that later does not stand up to scrutiny, wasting further time and money and, onceagain, 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 acommitment to delivering a truly sustainable transport solution for that is consistent with the Council’sAgenda 21 pledges on Transport

. For example, the absence of any representatives from Derbyshire CCat the public exhibitions was notable. The public exhibition made it clear that many of the problems arecaused by overdevelopment in Glossop and increased transport pressures from commuters to/from theHigh Peak, so it is difficult to see how a truly integrated approach to transport can be developed byTameside MBC in isolation from Derbyshire.11.

We would like LITS to clearly demonstrate a commitment to delivering a truly sustainable transportsolution that is consistent with the Council’s Agenda 21 pledges on Transport

and prioritises makingbest 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 roadproposal. We are uncertain how Tameside, therefore intends to fund any of the other measurespresented to the public. In future reviews of the AGMA funding package, we would expect Tameside toensure that the AGMA funding is specifically allocated more broadly to the LITS strategy rather thanspecifically to the road element of the strategy.13.

The strategy must be revised to include a Park-wide weight restriction, which must then be progressedas a priority. It is our understanding that this is of great interest to the Peak District National Park, andour local survey showed it also has high levels of popular support

. While local politicians are claimingthis is being progressed independently, we think this should be pursued as a priority, as it would havean enormous and immediate impact on all the villages and would then give a clearer indication of thelocal impacts.14.

It is our view that efforts to improve rates of walking and cycling should be pursued immediately, asthese are low-cost and will also have a positive impact on health. According to ONS figures forLongdendale, 60% of households with a car or van also use public transport, whereas 40% of publictransport users live in homes without a car or van. However, since the majority of the traffic identifiedby 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 beingmade 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. Highpercentages of journeys (43% and 51% respectively) are below 3 miles long. Focussing on reducing caruse for these short journeys will, in our view, achieve the objectives of LITS and are more consistentwith latest Government guidance on transport planning.

Distance Travelled to Work - WorkplacePopulation (UV80) Longdendale Tameside North West England