This is to allow evidence to be re-submitted by the Highways Agency .
The proposed 3.5-mile road would take traffic from the congested roads of Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle, and link Tameside with the A628 Woodhead Pass to Yorkshire.
But the public inquiry has been hit by delays due to evidence submitted by the Highways Agency.
On the opening day, it produced 'substantial' new evidence that forced the hearing in Stalybridge to be adjourned. And the inquiry was dramatically halted last week when 'a significant error' in the Highways Agency evidence came to light.
It had miscalculated how much traffic would use the A616 trunk road.
When the hearing resumed yesterday, it was adjourned for several hours after the Highways Agency failed to produce a clear timetable of when it would submit its revised evidence.
After the delay, the Highways Agency's Stephen Greenhalgh said the evidence will now be submitted on three different dates, with the final batch - a revision of air quality evidence and environmental statement - on November 30.
Audenshaw
John Hall, who represents the people of Denton and Audenshaw, who are against the scheme, called for the inquiry to be stopped and for it to start afresh next year.
He described the Highways Agency's actions as an 'abuse of the inquiry'.
Mr Hall said: "Objectors have been shuffled about since February this year. It is now proposed to go on with this stuttering, drunken road again, receiving evidence in piecemeal form, which is not conducive with a public inquiry."
Inspector John Watson rejected the call for the inquiry to be stopped.
He said once the new evidence was submitted it would be scrutinised.
The inquiry was originally due to start in June and last for 10 weeks. Once it got under way, it was then thought it would finish in mid November, but the hearing is now expected to run into next year.
The inquiry has been adjourned until November 6.
Residents of Mottram, Tintwistle and Hollingworth have begged for a bypass since the 1970s as lorries have switched from the M62 across the Pennines to Sheffield and the south.
What do you think? Have your say.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
460
275
Octd4oMvLv4
false
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Tameside Ted (20/09/2007 at 09:07)
John Hall, Tameside (20/09/2007 at 09:19)
most people understand press
unreliability in its press releases,perhaps you will establish facts first.
I have been vigorously campaigning for 15 years on environmental issues concerning the Tameside region,because I know the extent of the environmental degradation caused by TMBC which is a FACT.
John Hall
Denton
Chris, Irlam (20/09/2007 at 09:38)
Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 09:56)
From my perspective, when a bypass is constructed, it draws new development and increases the total amount of traffic in an area. Making the bypass a toll road would offset this to some degree and would allow the public funds spent to build it to be recouped.
Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 11:25)
Building an un-tolled bypass would be a stupid idea. People would see improved commuting opportunities between Sheffield and Manchester, so traffic would increase. Developers would see opportunities to build houses, retail units and offices by the new road, so traffic would increase further. Eventually, traffic will begin to build up on the original road once again, as people begin to view it as an alternative to the snarled up bypass, so then you need to build a bypass for the bypass and the whole cycle begins again.
Fiona Bates (20/09/2007 at 13:20)
Chris, Irlam (20/09/2007 at 13:31)
Now imagine it was untolled - chances are both sections of the M6 would carry equal volumes of traffic and everything would run along much smoother.
And your argument about a new bypass filling up does not hold water - the first section of the Irlam & Cadishead bypass was completed well over a decade ago and it is nowhere near full yet....it can get busy during peak periods (doing it's job!) but during the middle of the day it can be 5 minutes between cars passing my house. Besides, where do all these extra cars you envisage actually come from & where are they going to?
If you are going to blame the road for encouraging development then that is the wrong target - blame the local council for trying to make a quick buck.
As I have said many times people do not drive round for fun these days - we are all going somewhere!
Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 13:36)
Try reading the comments before you respond to them.
Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 14:31)
As for where the extra traffic on the new road would come from, that's quite simple. Some people would stop using public transport (I often take the train to Sheffield, but if the new road was built, I'd be more likely to drive). More people would commute (Sheffield has cheaper housing than Manchester and more countryside around it. It would form a very attractive commuter location for Manchester with the new road). That's before you even allow for people travelling to use any new developments. I don't know the Irlam & Cadishead bypass, but I do know that an internal bypass was built in the centre of Bury which now has a large retail park built by the side of it.
If you want to blame the council for allowing any future development, that's fine, but then, they are supporting the development of the road, so that smacks of double standards.
Black Sabbath (20/09/2007 at 15:28)
Cars commuting = economic activity = job creation = wealth creation = happy people = high standard of living = buoyant economy.
Why anyone would want to discourage that I do not know. The last place I saw with empty roads was 1980's East Germany, do we want to be more like them? The difference between East & West back than was mostly down to wealth & private car ownership (THE AMERICAN WAY!). Mind you with this socialist dictatorship of a government we may not be all that far away from that sort of life! Stasi anyone?
Black Flag (20/09/2007 at 16:12)
In general, few people support the building of anything near them, so letting the locals decide what gets built would leave us at a standstill, so planning rules have to be fair and one obvious way of deciding where things should be allowed to be built is where there is spare road capacity, which will sometimes be next to roads that were built as bypasses.
You might not like the idea of the bypass being a toll road, but at least that way it would serve the dual purpose of increasing road capacity in the area, while discouraging further development and thus restricting traffic growth.
John Hall, Tameside (20/09/2007 at 20:45)
11,000 people live in a compact location ie Denton West,homes are as close to the M60/M67/A57 Junction 24 interchange,like myself who lives 65 metres from the 220,000 daily traffic volumes which are stop started at Junction 24.Now whats wrong in recognising our serious problems which are vastly more critical than the Longendale area,and an extra 35,000 daily volume of traffic along the M67 into Junction 24 would be a national disgrace.
Imagine the air WE breathe,imagine living on an Airport Runway 24 hours with the associated nois close by from thousands,and thousands of vehicles each day.The need is for an HGV ban and increased improved road conditions in the 3 villages,but you are missing the point which I assure you is correct.The plans are for a M62Mk2 with access from Humberside.Yorkshire and all points NE to access the M60/M6for all points South including Ringway.
The villagers have been made to create a head of steam to enable the DfT to create the M62Mk2 because without the rhetoric put out what benefits will result for the villages,the ByPass proposals
would never have been submitted,the entire region would be at war with the Government.
I have considerable knowledge associated with political devious deceptions
and either understand what I claim from first hand sources,or further demolish our already degraded environment which is the largest Air Quality Management Area in All Greater Manchester,which will never attain Government targets and thats their words not mine.
Cheers
John
link_road_17/7, Derbyshire (20/09/2007 at 20:48)
Irlam and Cadishead were originally bypassed in the 1970's, when the M62 was completed between Liverpool - Manchester via Warrington. M62 took away the traffic, but then the A57 became more attractive for car-based local journeys. So it has just been bypassed AGAIN just recently. How long until a THIRD bypass is needed?
Bury has been bypassed by the A58 Peel Way/Angloueme Way (Inner Relief) and the M66 Bury Easterley Bypass.
New roads = More capacity = More traffic = More new roads (again!)
Cars commuting = jobs/work brought in from outside areas = globalised economy = jobs created elsewhere (China) = happy people until they have to pay back the debt they spent buying all these wonderful consumer goods and the vehicle to take them home in = wealth creation for large companies but increased debt for individuals = worsening health (asthma, lack of exercise, obeseity) = economy based on SFA but nothing because everything has GONE!!!!
Last place I saw with empty roads was Venice! Copenhagen too. Rather popular tourist destinations!
I certainly DO NOT want "THE Amercian Way! I WANT THE BRITISH WAY! Even the Dutch way, they have a reasonable balance between lots of motorways, lots of excellent public transport and lots of segregated cycleways. But most importantly, keeping things (ie shops, schools, lifes essentials, with 5 minutes walking/cycling distance).
the signalman (21/09/2007 at 00:32)
Simon (21/09/2007 at 09:09)
Also more roads = more cars = more pollution = climate change = economic / human disasters = no people
Chris, Irlam (21/09/2007 at 09:50)
I can assure you this will be a very long time away – most likely never (I live there remember!). The old A57 through the centre of Irlam & Cadishead was primarily bypassed as a lot of HGV’s were using it to access the Northbank industrial estate – now the bypass is in place a HGV is a virtually unseen site in the centre of town....the bypass has done it’s job admirably (just as the Mottram one will!).
“Last place I saw with empty roads was Venice! Copenhagen too. Rather popular tourist destinations!”
How did you get to those destinations then....did you walk? If not you are a fine one to talk about pollution!
You talk of balance between motorways and public transport....did you know that the UK has one of the LOWEST motorway densities in Western Europe – much lower than that of the Netherlands? So surely to satisfy your utopian continental vision 'link_road_17/7, Derbyshire' we need to build MORE motorways and MORE roads then!
And to signalman – very well said!
“More roads = less countryside = poor human environment and unhappy people.
Also more roads = more cars = more pollution = climate change = economic / human disasters = no people”
All unproven claptrap, but we’ll save that for another story....ask people a simple question – do you want a decent job with a decent wage and a bit less countryside or a poor job with a poor wage and preserved countryside? A 21st century lifestyle or a 19th century lifestyle? When it comes to people’s standard of living versus the countryside there will only ever be one winner my friend.
And to John – if you don’t like living near a major road junction then there is a very simple solution. I myself live within half a mile of the M62, a mile and a half of the M60 and fifty yards from the A57 and do not have a problem with it. If I did then I would move away, simple as that.
jamie1 (21/09/2007 at 10:24)
The proposed route will run just as close to us as the A628 does and it will replace what is currently untouched woodland and national park with tarmac! Currently with just a 5 minute walk you can be in fabulous countryside and away from civilisation and this is why we love living there.
If you actually live on the A57 or A628 then I can sympathise with the road noise although that's what you get when you live on an A road. I agree that the lorries are the major factor, as at weekends the area is relatively quiet. I would suggest other measures such as opening the old railway as a freight line and banning HGVs rather than making our village an island surrounded by tarmac.
Woodhead, Woodhead Pass (21/09/2007 at 10:25)
I sympathise with those in Mottram with the lorries passing the window at 4am as they also pass mine on the Yorkshire side and I do not particularly like them either. Yes those in Mottram need a solution but its not a bypass. What you need is a lorry ban.
Building this bypass will ultimately put more traffic and lorries on the road across the pass. Lorries are not going to crawl up the hill any faster than they do now and there is going to be more of them. Nut-job Nellies are going to be doing more insane overtaking and more people are going to cop for it and end up in situations like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR1NJtX9r-c
The A628 is the fifth most dangerous road in the UK, perhaps with the increased traffic it can make No 1 by 2020.
Lorry Ban and re-open the Woodhead Tunnel for Translink to transport heavy goods vehicles under the Pennines is what we need, not a bypass.
Woodhead, Woodhead Pass (21/09/2007 at 10:28)
I sympathise with those in Mottram with the lorries passing the window at 4am as they also pass mine on the Yorkshire side and I do not particularly like them either. Yes those in Mottram need a solution but its not a bypass. What you need is a lorry ban.
Building this bypass will ultimately put more traffic and lorries on the road across the pass. Lorries are not going to crawl up the hill any faster than they do now and there is going to be more of them. Nut-job Nellies are going to be doing more insane overtaking and more people are going to cop for it and end up in situations like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR1NJtX9r-c
The A628 is the fifth most dangerous road in the UK, perhaps with the increased traffic it can make No 1 by 2020.
Lorry Ban and re-open the Woodhead Tunnel for Translink to transport heavy goods vehicles under the Pennines is what we need, not a bypass.
The Catcher, In The Rye (21/09/2007 at 10:38)
More roads = less congestion = quicker journeys and happy people.
Also more roads = more cars = more development in engine efficiency = reduction climate effects = economic / human growth = happy ever after
Black Flag (21/09/2007 at 10:54)
Presumably black = white!
The Catcher, In The Rye (21/09/2007 at 10:59)
Black Flag (21/09/2007 at 11:06)
Black Flag (21/09/2007 at 12:59)
Simon (21/09/2007 at 20:49)