PLANS for a controversial bypass have already cost a staggering £16m - before any building work has even begun.
The Mottram to Tintwistle scheme has cost another £1m in the last six months, it was revealed in an answer to a Parliamentary question.
Highways Agency officials are currently on their fifth attempt to plan the 3.5-mile bypass, which opponents describe as 'a licence to print money'. The proposed route will divert traffic from the A628 and congested roads in Mottram, Tintwistle and Hollingworth, on the edge of Tameside.
A delay-hit public inquiry was adjourned last December and is unlikely to resume before late 2009.
A spokeswoman for the Highways Agency said: "The cost incurred has been spent on paying consultants working on the revised evidence for the public inquiry.
"The economic and traffic assessment as well as traffic and environmental models are also incurring costs.
"Evidence for the public inquiry will be ready in May next year and exhibitions to explain the differences will follow that. It will be up to the independent inspector to decide when the public inquiry resumes."
A spokesman for the internet blog `No Mottram Bypass' said: "We're here again - six months down the line and costs have risen another £1m, and the inquiry is not due to resume for at least another six months, possibly more.
"Presumably, that means the Highways Agency have permission to ratchet up at least another £1m between now and then.
"In these times of supposed thrift, this scheme seems to be a licence to print money."
Residents of Mottram, Tintwistle and Hollingworth have called for a bypass since the 1970s to reduce the thousands of vehicles using roads through their villages.
Tweet
Unbuilt bypass costs £16m
November 19, 2008
Highways Agency officials are currently on their fifth attempt to plan the 3.5-mile bypass.

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
PW, Manchester (19/11/2008 at 07:46)
Trumpetman21 (19/11/2008 at 08:07)
Black Flag (19/11/2008 at 08:41)
Somebody should have the sense to scrap it now and stop wasting tax on it.
Jay B, oldham (19/11/2008 at 09:06)
especially if the con charge comes. i need a nice direct route to sheffield now manchester will be crossed off my list.
Albert Bino (19/11/2008 at 09:44)
J.Hall, Tameside (19/11/2008 at 10:23)
obviously coming from those who seek a complete removal of democracy in the UK,and such opinions relate to Dictators.Considerable numbers of objectors,plus responsible organisations all of who have submitted vast amounts of evidence yet to be heard,yet here on the MEN website,those without full knowledge of what really the ByPass is intended for, spout rhetoric not facts.
I want to get to Sheffield quick comments also refer to personal wants and this sums up our present society,
Me first,and sod the rest.
Buzz, Moston (19/11/2008 at 10:43)
Trumpetman21 (19/11/2008 at 10:52)
STAND AND DELIVER THE BYPASS NOW!
Ace Shakespeare , manchester (19/11/2008 at 11:22)
Albert J Beancounter, At Home (19/11/2008 at 11:31)
Would you like to comment on how the locals are stymied by the traffic?
Black Flag (19/11/2008 at 11:37)
Is this the real world where traffic levels are said to be falling, which is used to argue against the need for a congestion charge, or do you inhabit an alternate real world when it's road building rather than road pricing that's on the table?
Jay B, oldham (19/11/2008 at 11:52)
thats what you call a prime example of Me first,and sod the rest!
lewin, www.nomottrambypass.blogspot.com (19/11/2008 at 11:56)
This scheme is about facilitating a Trans-European Transport Network for freight, not saving journey times for numpties.
J.Hall, Tameside (19/11/2008 at 12:25)
I regard to slow moving peak traffic volumes get out a bit and see it all over Greater Manchester.
At present the cocked up number of road works are creating definate problems like they would anywhere.
a 24/7 issue is false re Mottram Moor etc and large numbers of photographs and DVD film prove it.
60 % of that on Mottram Moor traffic comes and goes to the Glossop area whivj is being re-generated ?? to cause even more traffic.
I have visited the locality 150 times at various times and days to witness the reality,and its single lane slow moving traffic at peak periods which cause problems,most on the Mottram Moor near side traffic lane.
Now tell me where single lane traffic in peak times is not held up,especially when its full of HGV`s doing a rat run instead of the M62.
Put the lorries on the designated Motorways not running through rural National Park valleys.
Is anyone submitting pro bypass comments here actually going to the PI standing up giving their evidence,and fighting their corner.
Come on own up to spouting flawed rhetoric without in-depth knowledge
Gary SK13 (19/11/2008 at 13:07)
Trumpetman21 (19/11/2008 at 13:20)
The only roads in GM that have increased traffic using them are the motorways. Don't believe me? Ask AGMA.
And Glossop isn't in GM last time I looked BF.
And as for your much-peddled myths regarding road building read this (J Hall needs to read this as well):
www.racfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=597&Itemid=35
Black Flag (19/11/2008 at 13:38)
Fine, so long as you pay for it out of your Council Tax.
If you expect it to be paid for out of general taxation, then everybody is entitled to express an opinion.
Black Flag (19/11/2008 at 13:48)
So building more roads when demand for them is falling is a waste of money. We'd be better off spending it on something useful or reducing income tax.
"And Glossop isn't in GM last time I looked BF"
Who mentioned Glossop? The road itself would be in Tameside.
"And as for your much-peddled myths regarding road building..."
There's no doubt that building the road would bring more traffic into the area. We've already discussed this and you had no counter-argument to offer.
Trumpetman21 (19/11/2008 at 14:22)
Is it really. Check the proposals again.
"There's no doubt that building the road would bring more traffic into the area. We've already discussed this and you had no counter-argument to offer."
Really? Prove it.
lewin, www.nomottrambypass.blogspot.com (19/11/2008 at 19:38)
As things stand, the road is at capacity - i.e. it can't get worse.
lewin, www.nomottrambypass.blogspot.com (19/11/2008 at 19:44)
Brookfield (A57) - an 18% increase by 2010 (rising to 21% by 2025).
M67 - a 17% increase by 2010 (rising to 24% by 2025).
Back Moor (A6018) - a 9% increase by 2010 (rising to 23% by 2025).
Ashworth Lane (B6174) - a 6% increase by 2010 (rising to 36% by 2025).
Roe Cross Road (A6018) - a 6% increase by 2010 (rising to 36% by 2025)
Obviously the dates will no longer apply because there's no chance of it sticking to the old time targets, and we're not going away.
Black Flag (19/11/2008 at 20:12)
Yes it is. If you can find a way to get a road from the end of the M67 (Tameside) to go past Mottram (Tameside) and Hollingworth (Tameside) without going through Tameside, I'd like to know how.
"Really? Prove it."
I already have.
Ace Shakespeare , manchester (20/11/2008 at 13:10)
Black Flag (20/11/2008 at 13:24)
So, at a time when people who work in construction and infrastructure are already struggling to find work, you want to make it even harder for them by using the unemployed to do their work instead. Of course, many of the unemployed will be people who were working in construction previously, so you would be using experienced labour, but instead of paying them the going rate, you'd be paying them slave rates.
Of course, in boom times, there may not be many construction works on the dole, in which case, you'd be using lots of unskilled and inexperienced workers to do the job, in which case it would probably done to a very poor standard.
I assume you would excuse yourself from the obligation to work for your benefits.
Gary SK13 (20/11/2008 at 13:27)