SkyscraperCity banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Probably duplicated on the Manchester forum but....

A decade-long saga to build a bypass on the congested route between Manchester and Sheffield could finally be nearing the end as it’s revealed plans will be submitted this year.

Stalybridge and Hyde MP Jonathan Reynolds says he has received confirmation from the government that the planning application for the proposed Mottram bypass will go ahead in 2020.

The plans, part of the £242 million Trans-Pennine upgrade programme, would see a new dual carriageway created from the M67 junction 4 roundabout to a new junction on the A57(T) at Mottram Moor.

A new single carriageway would also be constructed to connect to the A6018 Roe Cross Road and a new single carriageway linking the the A57(T) at Mottram Moor to a new junction on the A57 at Woolley Bridge.

As well as the new roads, a number of ponds would be created to deal with the water run-off from the Peak District and farmland.

The proposed route for the project, which has been in the pipeline for ten years, was confirmed in 2017 by Highways England.





https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/decade-long-saga-over-mottram-17680336

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/saga-over-delays-sheffield-manchester-link-road-could-soon-be-over-1383697
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Discussion Starter #2

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
The detailed map is on here,

What I can't figure out is how to the western side could be linked into a new transpennine dual carriageway (probably as it won't be for a long time).

You would have thought this would have been designed so it's atleast possible to continue to the dual carriageway part north-west?

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/trans-pennine-upgrade/supporting_documents/Route map 1.pdf
Not as mystifying as why they've drawn the key upside down on that drawing ^^ !

Do you mean "continue the dual carriageway north-EAST"?
The MEN & Star articles in your other post do say this Mottram bypass has been designed with future further Trans-Pennine upgrade in mind.

No doubt they wont publish conceptual routes for the latter for fear of damaging property prices now for something that might never happen. But I suspect the route would be something like (Gtr Mcr - S Yorks direction):

Use the dual-carriageway segment of this bypass from the Jcn4 M67 terminus roundabout, as far as past the new underpass (via the intermediate 'Cricket Ground' roundabout),
then at a point just where the bypass turns through 90deg to head SE, the new TP dual carriageway would continue straight on for a bit (requiring a new roundabout at that point) then turn slightly more to the north so to loop north of Hollingworth, the Arnfield Reservoir and Tintwistle, before coming back south to re-join the existing A628/Woodhead Rd alignment near Valehouse Reservoir. From hereon eastwards the Woodhead Rd would be widened, dualled and straightened, until entering a new summit tunnel somewhere north of Torside Reservoir and re-emerging east of the summit somewhere between Dunford Bridge and Langsett.

That route though would mean a lot of roundabouts on said dual-carriageway new TP crossing, but maybe they deliberately don't want to make it too attractive to national traffic as an alternative to the M62, as to build all this in a National Park is going to see have to answer the environmental question of new roads driving more demand.
 

·
E = MC²
Joined
·
5,453 Posts
Before we start to get all dreamy about a new Greater Manchester to South Yorkshire Dual Carriageway, this particular Mottram Bypass has been talked about for 30 years to my personal knowledge.
The Issue here has always been that the Traffic Light Junction at the Gun Inn, where Market Street, Wooley Lane and Mottram Moor join up is where the Snake Pass (Via Wooley Lane) and Woodhead Pass (Via Market Street) meet.
Traffic from Both Pennine Passes are funneled into Mottram Moor (Toward Manchester) and most of the day that road is crawling at walking pace in Both directions.
It has been the case since the M67 was Built (1981), that the 1.25 Mile Roadway between the M67 Roundabout at Mottram and the Gun Inn is not wide enough to accommodate the traffic going on to the Snake Pass(A57) and the Woodhead Pass (A628).
Originally the M67 was intended to stretch much further and 1/3rd of a mile west from the Mottram roundabout are Ski Ramps where the main part of the motorway should have risen onto an overpass to go over the North of the roundabout in the original version of the Mottram Bypass. Still in the "motorway age" it would have enabled the motorway to continue without roundabouts toward Sheffield.

In the 1990s there was a study on the traffic issue in Mottram where they eventually decided not to build a Bypass because it was found that there were many local female drivers who were making short journeys of less than a mile to do shopping and school runs. I seem to remember that instead of spending millions on a new bypass there were going to spend hundreds on a campaign to stop the local women from being lazy.
 

·
E = MC²
Joined
·
5,453 Posts
In summary, many people feel you can't build your way out of traffic congestion, but in my view this particular scheme should resolve a unique bottleneck. It should make life for the local population as well as through traffic much better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Do you mean "continue the dual carriageway north-EAST"?
.
Yes. Yes I do :lol:


https://www.transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/trans-pennine-tunnel-strategic-study-stage-3-report.pdf

Mostly taken from the Transport for the North Report, but although it would be a congestion reduction scheme, you are right that you can't really build your way out of traffic problems. It would likely increase traffic, as do all major road schemes.

The other benefits would be providing a much safer route that isn't as affected by weather and removing more traffic from Snakes Pass and Woodhead.

I think it's something like a 50 mile gap between the A50 and M62 dual carriageway/motorways so would provide an alternative route if either of those two are closed.

But the big challenge, which as you say has probably been the main obstacle, is the national park, which is definitely worth protecting.

It might be the more vehicles go electric, the more chance the tunnels has. I'm guessing a tunnel at the moment would require several ventilation towers which the National park would rightly object too? (If it ever got funding)
 

·
E = MC²
Joined
·
5,453 Posts
.... I'm guessing a tunnel at the moment would require several ventilation towers which the National park would rightly object too? (If it ever got funding)
I doubt you would require "towers" unless the tunnel was near the surface for a very long section.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
By towers do you mean shafts?

Not just ventilation shafts but some form of drop shaft for emergencies and a separate tunnel just for a fire escape route.

With the predicted slow down in UK growth post Brexit, never a better time to invest in the countries infrastructure to stimulate growth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
We are desperate for at least a dual carriageway to Manchester. I have to go to Stockport every month and manchester and Liverpool occasionally- the amount of my life I have wasted at the end of the m67 where it goes from 3 to 1 lanes is incredible. A big improvement here would mean a massive potential for more business between sheffield and manchester and more access to the great jobs there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
The detailed map is on here,

What I can't figure out is how to the western side could be linked into a new transpennine dual carriageway (probably as it won't be for a long time).

You would have thought this would have been designed so it's atleast possible to continue to the dual carriageway part north-west?

https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/trans-pennine-upgrade/supporting_documents/Route map 1.pdf


It’s the first part of the mottram bypass minus the section that goes behind Hollingworth.
Hopefully when the first bit is built, there will be pressure to build the rest... IMG_2292.JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Cheers Rugster,
I think that probably makes more sense that what i've seen previously.

The only other image I could find was on the 'Pathetic Motorways' Website with a much older image of the original motorway plans.

The older route goes through more houses between Hollingworth and Tintwistle which seems incredibly unlikely in the present day



(source https://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m67_manchester_to_sheffield_motorway/maps/)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Cheers Rugster,
I think that probably makes more sense that what i've seen previously.

The only other image I could find was on the 'Pathetic Motorways' Website with a much older image of the original motorway plans.

The older route goes through more houses between Hollingworth and Tintwistle which seems incredibly unlikely in the present day



(source https://pathetic.org.uk/unbuilt/m67_manchester_to_sheffield_motorway/maps/)


It looks like that route goes on the trans Penine trail. - the old woodhead train route. I took the kids there over Christmas - great views up there.
Hopefully the tunnel plan comes to fruition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
We are desperate for at least a dual carriageway to Manchester. I have to go to Stockport every month and manchester and Liverpool occasionally- the amount of my life I have wasted at the end of the m67 where it goes from 3 to 1 lanes is incredible. A big improvement here would mean a massive potential for more business between sheffield and manchester and more access to the great jobs there
Out of interest why don't you get the train?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Out of interest why don't you get the train?
The time it takes me to get to the train station from my house - difficult in a morning to get to Sheffield station (I'd probably be well past stockbridge by the time my car was parked in the expensive car park next to the station The cost of the train compared to my petrol wouldn't stack up, plus the meetings I have arn't next to train stations, so it would be the hassle of ordering uber or getting piss wet through walking to where I need to get to (and time).
The trains are poor in any event when I have used them - take too long - if it was a 30 minute journey, I might consider.....
I mainly use the train on long trips - London / Dundee / Southampton, even Birmingham and arrange meetings around New Street. Longer jpurney's I can work on the laptop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,125 Posts
Message from High Peak MP - Jonathon Reynolds -
YPASS UPDATE- PLEASE SHARE: 2020 will be a very important year for the Bypass. After nearly fifty years we are finally on the brink this key piece of local infrastructure being built.

Already this year the Secretary of State for Transport has confirmed to me, both in writing and in the House of Commons, that the Development Consent Order will be submitted at the end of this year. This is effectively the planning application for the scheme.

In addition, I met recently with the Highways England project team who informed me they will shortly be publishing the traffic and air quality figures showing the impact on the surrounding area of the Bypass being built. I believe these will show substantial traffic reductions on key local roads and there will be a chance for residents to formally respond to this information.

The vast majority of the properties that need to be purchased for the scheme to go ahead are already in the ownership of Highways England. This is due to the progress made the last time the Bypass was being developed and the work done by myself and the former MP for High Peak, Andrew Bingham, when we prevented these properties being sold back in 2010. Of the 28 properties that need to purchased only two transactions are outstanding.

Once the Development Consent Order is submitted a Planning Inspector will be appointed to carry out an examination and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. They have up to six months to carry out their examination, and a further three months to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. I have a meeting with the Roads Minister shortly to encourage this process to be done as soon as possible.

You can read more about it here if you are interested: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/…/the-p…/

As soon as the Secretary of State approves the scheme construction can begin, which will take approximately two and half years.

Throughout this time, I will also be making the case for the second phase of the bypass to be approved by the Government. This will require them supporting it as part of the next phase of the Road Investment Strategy, known as ‘RIS2’ in transport jargon. We will know more about this after the Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review.

So, whilst I know most people will only believe it when they can see it and drive on it, we are getting there. I told you I would never give up on this and I won’t.

https://www.facebook.com/Jonathanreynoldsmp/photos/a.426455637554817/1306027962930909/?type=3&eid=ARDDrIx8byIE9fckfFTA4yP_wYTDlx2IYu080zedvwCDUfM2yJf5KskW7q6q9k5soLiDLIGON3Yial5d&__xts__[0]=68.ARAw4Gs3ktpggIFOqUhK8AmnDzT7o_yCiEqzcH5Jw7nuN0kGoV-lqHAHLWu7533mn5B2qWE3866x7nylFpI7mG8Bl0FfX-icaIW3j92Kh-O5uoo2KVS-8-Ym2xnXS-5UzSTfSo9UHng9cXiTWPH3u0JOySocm54oNDgWUQ41ry2l0PVVss4EfFuOcQf-q9IzFCyUI9TE1BRkAv_fUcyTZEvGWvBjqUfu8yYd5whn7cLrzre67cSRL_5I8ir979krsFmJ-RrZLP1BWnmwlr8L6WjomF1liqHTqGjnoybLRSGe7rN5mxRgzzCGeY1Fx5OVeGGPncy93vSDa9NjCD8rDya656-vcaPEJSzpkIkQS4SzxFj9&__tn__=EHH-R
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,233 Posts
^^ Good update Rugster, but what ever happened to the 'proper' Trans-Pennine M60 to M1 (Gtr Mcr to S Yorks) dual carriageway I wonder?
The history was that a couple of years and stages of desk study were done on a very long 'base tunnel' version, but that was ultimately dropped as found not to offer good value for money (potebtially a 22 mile long tunnel - basically too expensive; though I note Boris is quite content to promote study into a rural Scotland to NI crossing). Then Highways England commissoned further studies into an upgraded Woodhead Pass route with a shorter summit tunnel (which I think they said might still be several miles long), and TfN has become involved and were mooting the TP road being complemented at its eastern end with a potential new dual carriageway joining the M1 with either the M18 or A1 (near M18 Jcn). Rothbiz posted an article about the potential routes at the time.

But all I can find on the web now are old reports and articles which state the Outline Strategic Business Case for the new road would be with TfN in the summer of 2019 (presumably for them to lobby DfT to take the study to the next stage). Nowt since. What's happening???!
Optimistically maybe the case was convincingly made and there may be a funding announcement in the March budget - would certainly be a project that could be presented as part of the 'levelling up' agenda; but realistically I think we would have had to have seen precise costed route maps published and consulted on by the public before Treasury would agree to fund such an undertaking..maybe even a DCO application and approval from the Planning Inspectorate...so I suspect we're years away from securing funding. But why the info vacuum for over a year?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
I notice tonight that the Woodhead pass is closed to high sided vehicles due to strong winds.

There surely has to be a solution for 2 major cities in such close proximity to be properly connected by both road and rail.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top