£20 million.... shame on you highways agencys " this money could've gone to a retiring banker or to some mp for second home exspenses, what is this country turning into... i dont know eh beggers belife"

Is this was the south of England then the bypass would have been a priority and would have built by now. The past actions of the Highways agency have been a farce, which in turn leant itself to the NYIMB blinkered approach of a small percentage of residents who see fit to put their own self interest before that of the much larger majority. This bypass is sorely needed and hopefully those opponents who seemed hell bent on stopping it, may have time to reflect when congestion levels get even worse and they are stuck in the daily one hour long Glossop crawl, shame on the Highways agency and even bigger shame to the NIMBY's.

Sound decision. This bypass has been a dead duck for some time and throwing more money at it would have just been wasteful.

ah well! after wasting all that money buying up the land and preperation works its still shelved! in 7 years it'll cost a lot more again! just like the continually shelved metrolink expansions!

while the people of mottram have to still endure the traffic chaos!

at least if it'd gone ahead it'd give the construction industry a little boost! which it needs desperately!

Twenty years ago I lived in Hadfield for a short time and there was talk then about building a bypass. I used to travel to and from Manchester on a daily basis and the traffic was horrendous then so I should imagine its a nightmare now with increased vehicle volume over the past twenty years. I agree with the Voice of Reason that this bypass is badly needed and that the needs of the majority should be paramount.

If they spent the money on a by-pass there would be no funds for MP’s second homes, some MP’s would have to travel more than 8 miles to work!

The Voice of Reason has certainly lost credibility with reality,especially referring to small percentage of residents etc and NIMBY`s.
Its rhetoric being quoted without FACTS which has been the regular approach in comments.
Facts: 1 The Highways Agency after spending £20 million miminum on documents to prove the ByPass was needed,could after 5 seperate attempts over a two year period with dozens of outside helpers,could not supply the Public Inquiry with accurate and detailed evidence.
Fact 2. In the entire Longendale region which TMBC for convenience include Hattersley have a total of 9,000 people living in a widespread rural area,with 60% of the single lane slow moving traffic on Mottram Moor coming from Glossop back and forward.
Fact 3 The main severely detrimental effects of a ByPass would be an impact on Junction 24 of the M60 M67/M60/A57 which already has 260,000 daily traffic volumes with many HGV`s and is the worst congested locality in Greater Manchester with the largest area of pollution,
Fact 4 the ByPass would have stuffed a further 35,000 to 45,000 daily traffic volumes into this M67/M60/A57 interchange which is already grid locked and at capacity.
Fact 5 A HGV`ban on the present route which is used as a rat run by HGV`s instead of the M62
would greatly assist Tintwistle especially.
Fact 6 The numbers objecting were certainly not in the minority,you should check the Public Inquiry documents.
Fact 7. The real intention was for a major route through the National Park to link Europe and Humberside Ports with the Greater Manchester Ring Road and Manchester Airport and all regions South,and NOT as suggested to help Tintwistle and Hollingworth.
Fact 8 Unless you can prove otherwise single lane slow moving traffic is not just in Longendale its
in every region of Greater Manchester where people live in compavcted urban locations and get their lungs stuffed with toxins every day.
Fact 9. The 11,000 Tamesiders in Denton West compacted into approx 10% of the entire Longendale population large rural area,are as close as 50 metres from 260,000 daily vehicles from volumes of traffic 5 times more than in the Longendale region.
Fact 10 Tom Levitt MP wants Glossop to become a Holiday Area site location,and if he had the marbles he would notice Glossop is already grid-locked,yet unable to see reality.
Now I could provide at least 50 more FACTS not rhetoric,so please let the penny drop,learn the facts,read all the Public Inquiry Evidence,and get rid of your blinkered and biased views.

J.Hall, Tameside
24/03/2009 at 17:04

Your facts are all very well but you fail to miss the biggest and most obvious fact of all which goes against all of them... Take a look at the picture in the article.. It proves that bypass was needed.. FACT.

j hall tameside? sure your not mr benitez in disguise? fact! fact! fact!

J. Hall. I agree with you 100% but you forgot one thing.
Fact 11, the road will cut into the Peak District National Park, the U.K's first and most visited National Park.

Dear J Hall, Many thanks for your 'take' on the bypass, plenty of facts but very little honest comment or credibility, please look at the picture supplied, you can't just hide behind a smoke screen of statistics which are so heavily biased to your point of view, many problems exist and the bypass would have alleviated a large proportion of them. If the Highways agency had got its act together, then I am quite sure it would have been able to put together a real and viable solution, unfortunately it appears that someone within the Highways Agency underestimated the professionalism of the opposition. However the 'chosen few' of Glossop and other road users are in the majority whereas you appear to be very much in the minority. Just knock on a few stationary car windows in the never ending gridlock of Mottram and ask the occupants their views on your 50 or so facts. ' Their views will not just be rhetoric, more like realism and concern that a very well organized minority pressure group was able to ride rough shod over a much needed improvement to the present situation and outwit everyone including a Govt body. Clear fact ...... NIMBY's are a force to be reckoned with.

J. Hall - Fact lives near the M60 junction 24 - fact - NIMBY? As for the numbers objecting to the bypass I suggest he tries to knock on doors along the A57 and A628 and see what response he gets for his stance. I have done it and know what people really think. The inquiry response was no indication on the strength of feeling amongst residents of the villages. Try this for a fact - the playground of Hollingworth Primary School has twice the recommended levels of nitrogen dioxide due to the slow moving traffic outside its gates.

Thank goodness. Its been a mad scheme since inception - I live in Mottram and the cross pennine traffic should use the M62. Especially the HGVs. That way we keep and improve our environment.

I know all about the perpetual media pictures,but lets get down to facts again.
The Longendale Seige Committee claimed the Mottram Moor situation was 24/7 situation which is absolute tosh.
Having for 2 years travelled up to the locality several times each week to observe reality all at varying times and days,24/7 is absolute rubbish,so to present some reality I filmed the areas of Tintwistle,Hollingworth and Mottram each area 5 times at varying times and days between 8-0am to 6-30 pm.I have known the area extremely well for 45 years,so I also took over 120 photographs of rerality situations and yes there IS slow moving single lane traffic at various times each day,with 60% on Mottram Moor originating from Glossop (see Highways evidence).
The Longendale route with a ByPass would have carried vast more traffic through the valley as the HA confirm so unless you have read all the evidence,and sat listening each of the 15 days of evidence by the HA you really need to absorb all the facts in detail.
The PP is a protected area,and we have to many regions of the UK buried under concrete,hence the Peak Park Authorities and Natural England highly professional outfits objecting to the scheme.
Regarding Air Pollution which was commented on,let me explain how TMBC rigged the actual pollution levels,they stuch their Real Time Air Pollution Monitoring Site on Mottram Moor 8 feet from vehicle exhausts exactly at the slowest moving traffic area approaching Mottram lights,so that they can maximise any levels,but remember and Air Pollution and Epidemiology are two of the subjects I have researched for 13 years in depth.Because the area is generally open and rural especially on Mottram Moor any pollution is far more easily dispersed than in a compact urban location,anyway this is just one method created to distort reality.
This claim for Hollingworth School,Ive heard before so please someone what were the Nitrogen Dioxide actual levels,where were the monitors situated,because monitoring to be evidence has to be carried out over a period of weeks/months at all times to attain credible evidence not the rhetoric put out by the Longendale Seige Group whose spokesperson made no attempt to visit the Public Inquiry and learn all the facts but simply ensured he was quoted in the press/tv yet without knowing the debates and evidence being expressed at the PI.
If you want to compare pollution yes visit the M67/M60/M57 location and fill your lungs with the
toxins produced from 260,000 daily minimum traffic as close as 50 metres from family homes.and yes I do live in the area,and use my actual name everywhere I submit comments,because after studing these subjects for many years I would not waste my time giving you or anyone undiluted crap.
So yes we have a school in the district,but hows about this stunt by TMBC to hide the facts because they are horrendous," for 12 years from the very top to the departments concerned they have refused to monitor pollution from the 260,000 vehicles in this locality because they want the facts burying,yetstick their monitors on Mottram Moor where a very few homes are,and surrounded by open fields, almost up the exhausts of vehicles." so they can provide distorted evidence,as my 400 page Public Inquiry dossier
explained.So if you think thats comparing situations in a correct and appropriate manner as professional evidence then perhaps thats why the Highways Agency got found out with their error strewn evidence.So yes alternatives were suggested to the ByPass but the Highways Agency refused to consider ANY ALTERNATIVE,because they knew like TMBC and the Politicians that Tintwistle,Hollingworth,and Mottram was a red herring and they wanted this large NETA/Northern Route
creating ie the M62Mk11 bang through the Longendale Valley.
I do respect others problems and the need to solve situations if possible but this Public Inquiry was being held under false premises,by using Tintwistle/Hollingworth folk as pawns with drummed in rhetoric from local Politicians,yet who want this new large vehicle route M62Mk11,with vastly increased traffic thundering through your Longendale Valley,if you cannot swalloiw this check the background to
what they intended.

News of this broke weeks ago, its seems only now it has been published!?

Yet again, (most of) the people of Longdendale (of which I am a former resident) seem to think the bypass will magically solve all their problems. Instead, it will make them much worse, proven by the HA's own (under-stated!) figures.

Local people are just as much to blame as cross-Pennine traffic, but really, I think the fault should be put at High Peak BC, who approved (car-based) developments in Glossop/Woolley Bridge, and Tameside MBC, who are set to build a massive supermarket at Mottram Roundabout, making it even worse!

Simple, cheap solutions:

Weight limit/HGV ban on Nine Holes Bridge (A628, Woodhead).
Remove 'Manchester, A628' signage from M1 Junction 34A.
Metrolink/tram-train service to Glossop/Hadfield.
No more car-based development (Mottram!).
Reopen Woodhead railway to Sheffield.

Just read the article again - it's not all over look what they say "After careful consideration we therefore feel it is appropriate to withdraw from the current adjourned inquiry and re-start statutory processes, subject to further advice to ministers by 4NW."

J Hall - Tameside, your location says it all, you do not have to endure the daily grind of getting in and out of the Glossop area, i LIVE here and i certainly dont have to look at figures on a public enquiry document to gauge the local opinion. Thanks to the incompetence of the highways agency( hindered greatly i may add by the anti bypass protestors who have continually disrupted every effort made to kick start this project) the people of this area will now have to put up with at least another 20 years of traffic hell. So congratulations Mr Hall and the rest of the NIMBYS, from a majority of the people in this area in making our journey to work just that little bit worse than it was before.

There is a problem with J Hall's 'FACT 8' (amongst others), He/She is quite right, Mottram isnt on its own with heavy traffic near schools, however, the rest of Manchester doesnt have an option, hasnt been screaming for a solution nor have been offered one only to be scrapped because of the 'tree huggers', what is your argument, "its ok to kill our children because Longsight are killing thiers"? What about 'the greater good for the greater number', we have killed more than 300,000 iraqi's for thier greater good, thats 300,000 people, not frogs!

J Hall - I live in this area and i do not need to look at a public enquiry document to gauge local opinion, you do not live around here and therefore do not have to endure the daily grind of getting in and out of the glossop area. Thanks to the anti bypass campaigners and the incompetence of the highways agency the people of this area will now have to put up with at least another 20 years of traffic hell - THANKS

paul: "What about the greater good for the greater number"

The bypass would have been paid for by increasing the tax burden on everybody in the country, in order to deliver a benefit to a comparatively small number of people. Even if you accept that the bypass would have achieved its aims, which I don't, the greater good for the greater number is achieved by not building it.

The Mr John Hall, who frequents 'The Tameside Advertiser' on his views doesn't even live in the area (try a little further down the M67)

I suspect that by the time the public inquiry restarts, fuel prices will be such that there will no longer be enough traffic to justify this bypass or any other new roadbuilding scheme.

Despite sustained high oil prices, global oil production has stagnated for the last four years, and we are not finding anything like the amount of oil we need to sustain it. China and India (each of which has a population at least as large as the currently industrialised countries) are signing up to long-term oil supply contracts, so we will get a progressively smaller slice of this shrinking cake. It's not difficult to predict the consequences for this car-dependent country.

Perhaps we should be planning for this future of expensive energy by investing in electrified public transport (trains, trams and trolleybuses) instead, and reducing the need to travel in the first place, not building yet more monuments to our short-sightedness?

How interesting to read rhetoric whilst not knowing the facts.
I have just received a letter from the DfT which copies the letter sent to them from Glossop Councillors,in which they don`t mention once the 3 villages as being the need for the ByPass,but their reason for lobbying the Secretary of State is for Business regeneration of Glossopdale,and East Manchester to allow transport and business to expand.
Its time the public in Longendale knew the absoluter facts that they were used in a Political scam to back a ByPass which was not the real objective for them,but to concrete over every inch of Hadfierld,Padfield,Hollingworth/Hattersley etc etc to create many Rossington Park style developments for warehouses,units and storage facilities,as a drop of/on facility for Yorkshire/ Humberside large increases in traffic through Longendale where as I repeat the Highways acknowledge in their evidence,traffic volumes,pollution and noise would definately increase in Longendale.
It really helps if people commenting in a snide way related to ALL THE FACTS (not their selected bits)
How many actual houses are adjacent to Mottram Moor,Hollingworth and Tintwistle High Streets,and if you were so interested and intent to see the ByPass built,did "you" attend the Public Inquiry,did "you" submit pages of evidence,or were "you" interested in cross examining any of the many Objectors at the Public Inquiry.Enough said I think because with all these disguised names perpetuating in these comments it seems no-one wants to be known and simply slag off one of the numerous objectors,or perhaps you don`t know the many hundreds in Longendale who signed not to have a ByPass,because they knew what was really coming their way all along the highway surrounding area`s.

.

Mr J Hall, it appears that as the self elected spoke person for the NIMBY's, you have now had more than fair share of expressing your point of view on this 'comments' section of the MEN. Another diatribe in excess of some 3,000 words, would have sufficed........FACT. All in favour say 'I'

The Voice of Reason: "Mr J Hall, it appears that as the self elected spoke person for the NIMBY's"

That's a strange choice of phrase considering the main pressure to build the bypass is coming from people who want traffic moved away from their houses.