Skip to content or view screen version

A57/A628 Mottram Bypass - News from the local paper

Little Em | 22.07.2004 16:16 | Ecology | Free Spaces | Sheffield

An article suggesting that work is approved and going ahead in the local paper today. This is at odds with both the response of the Peak Park Authority, at a recent meeting, and the usual planning procedure, that requires the draft Orders to be published and a Public Enquiry to be held before *any* building work begins.

Here is a copy of the full article (not available online, hence written out here).

"Earlier move for bypass"

"Earth movers could be rolling on site 12 months early to being building the long-awaited multi-million pound Longdendale Bypass.

The Peak Park Transport Forum has announced a 2006 start date - after rejecting an alternative scheme by Translink.
Members turned down proposals to move cross-Penning goodes traffic by rail by re-opening the closed for 30 years Woodhead Tunnel.
And linking both ends with the Hattersley and Deepcar near Sheffield by a 'roll on and roll off shuttle" [Terrible English - the journalists, not mine!]
Now the way is open for a bypass stretching from Mottram through Hollingworth to beyond Tintwistle.
Tameside Executive Leader Cllr. Roy Oldham said: "I am pleased to see the Translink proposal was rejected by the group, simply because it was not a viable option..."

See for other info on this topic.

Thanks for reading,
Little Me

PS - Who are the Peak Park Transport Forum? They're based in Macclesfield, so can easily be said to be quite out of touch with the mood of local residents who will be directly affected by this announcement and any road, should it get the go-ahead.

Little Em
- e-mail: info(a)


Hide the following 10 comments


22.07.2004 16:19

That's Little Em, having a dyslexic moment (did I spell that right?)

Little Em

is there a local opposition group?

22.07.2004 17:46

hi little em - thanks for that. is there a local opposition group in that area? could you let me know, and i'll get you my email address? many thanks, becca


Local groups

22.07.2004 21:52

Hi Becca,

There are few things going on locally, but not much. I'm helping the APT (Alternative Proposals for Transport) out, to get them moving a bit - sorting out some publicity and just injecting some fresh energy in their direction, and also trying to network the cause to a wider audience, through postings such as this one. Because the bypass issue has been off and on for so many years, and many of those opposed to it are just good ordinary folk going about their business with busy lives, there are only a handful of people at the moment who are really trying to get things going. If you could get involved, there's plenty to do!


Little Em


22.07.2004 22:05

Having had a chat with the guy behind the Translink proposal, it seems that the proposal has been rejected by the PPTF. From the sound of it, though, this result comes down to pressure from the local council who have stood up to every alternative that has been proposed. The Translink scheme is excellent: re-opening the Woodhead Tunnel to freight, thereby achieving the target of getting HGVs of the A628/A57 route from Sheffield to Manchester.

The timescales of the rail link match those of the bypass proposal, so time isn't any grounds for objection. The figure add up too: Translink would cost half that of the bypass and bring much greater economic, social, and environmental benefits. Only problem is, the council reworked the figures with costings based on carriages of a much higher spec that those that would actually be required to meet EU safety standards. This pushed the cost of putting carriages on the tracks up to a riduclous level. Elsewhere in the EU, this type of solution would be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it's a radical proposal for the UK, and the political will isn't there.

This is also a popular scheme with the locals. Many people in this area have connections and family who were involved when the tunnel was first built and then later worked the line.

More info about the Translink proposal is on the web here ->

See what you think...

Little Em

hi em

22.07.2004 23:24

We went to talk to people about this tonight and one of the things that came up was that the road is so congested on that route that a bypass would be necessary. so we talked about the fact that bypasses don't necessarily relieve traffic congestion (and can increase it) and also that a viable alternative via rail could work, the success of previous anti-road campaigns, and fighting back against car culture.

some people are interested in doing stuff and i said we'd find out some more and then try and get more people interested.

looking forward to meeting you


Research into impact of Newbury Bypass

22.07.2004 23:59

Hi Heather,
This might interest you...


Whilst it does say some positive things about the way pollution has been managed on the Newbury bypass, it also points out that "...the old A34 still has the same levels of pollutants despite traffic now being routed onto the new A34 Newbury Bypass."

A good talking point, perhaps.

Yes, congestion on the road is a problem: no-one opposing the bypass disputes that a solution must be found. Concern amongst residents is there are some very attractive alternatives - such as Translink, and/or banning freight from the route (as happened on the Snake Pass trunk route a few years back) - that will achieve the same end, and provide greater benefits, but Councillors don't want to talk about anything other than a road.


Little Em

where will it stop?

23.07.2004 01:27

a relief road for relieving a relief road prehaps?

and new roads attract new traffic not necessarily taking the load off the old road (which is what is sold to people to promote new roads - the pollution around newbury bypass was talked about tonight).

there are alternatives as mentioned above.

also, theres a wider domino effect i think. eg. new businesses attracting people in newbury because of the new road meant proposals for 1,500 houses in an in-fill development between the town and the bypass.

and we cannot keep spending billions on roadbuilding. Newbury bypass cost over £100 million and did not solve the problem.

and ecologically it cost/damaged the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, four Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs - the country's most important wildlife sites) at Snelsmore Common, the River Kennet, the River Lambourn and the Kennet Flood Plains (previously home to the Desmoulin's Whorl Snail, discovered during the construction of the road.

and what did the car drivers get out of the bypass? the Highways Agency said the time saving works out at about two minutes.

Thanks for that, Costain, Nat West, RAC, Bovis, LG Mouchel & Partners etc..

I know lots of people already know this but some people won't.


Who Will Win????????????????

23.07.2004 13:22

It looks like competition is heating up in the battle of, "Who Can Make The Most Comments", at present it looks as though Little Em has actually made more comments than Heather, could this be?

Yes it is folks, little Em is beating Heather in the Comments race for once but who knows?

Maybe Heather will make a come back and reclaim her crown as the queen of the comment!


more roads = more cars = more roads =.....

12.08.2004 15:32

if you want government reports/figures, check out the SACTRA (the Standing Advisory Committee for Trunk Road Assessment) report that came out in the mid-90s that finally said what we all had been saying (build a new road, it fills up, problem not solved etc). People in local councils (& central government) still like to deny this!


The key to it all?

16.08.2004 23:47

I think that SACRA report shows what's really going on ...

"8: Given these definitions of 'improvement' and 'the economy', theory suggests that there are a number of important mechanisms by which such transport improvements could, in principle, improve economic performance. These include:

Reorganisation or rationalisation of production, distribution and land use;
Effects on labour market catchment areas and hence on labour costs;
Increases in output resulting from lower costs of production;
Stimulation of inward investment;
Unlocking inaccessible sites for development; and
Triggering growth which in turn stimulates further growth."

I think the interesting phrase in relation to this particular scheme is "Unlocking inaccessible sites for development". My money is on that being the real reason why this proposal is being pursued over and above all alternatives.

Thanks EF!er. Great resource.

little em
mail e-mail: info(a)
- Homepage: