Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Newbie1 on June 25, 2019, 12:58:58 PM
-
I feel we have been overlooked here in Marple again. There is no direct link proposed from Marple to Stockport via tram or rail over the next decade as far as I can see. I've written to Andy Burnham just now. Please do the same.
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/future-transport-network/
-
Somewhere there's someone who has just typed something in a Bolton forum about how they've been overlooked. And someone very upset about the fact that Port Salford won't have links to Leigh or something.
It is going to be impossible to please everyone with announcements like this.
And equally it will be impossible to do everything that needs to be done in the next ten years. It takes years to build infrastructure. Take a look at the Trafford Park extension of Metrolink. Consultation started on that in 2014. Two years was the time it took to get permission from Central Government to start building it. That came in October 2016. Construction started impressively quickly within months, starting in January 2017. The line is expected to start running in 2020. That's six years to do one line from scratch. With a relatively pliant central government.
The Metrolink plans they announced yesterday were for lines to Port Salford, Middleton and the Airport Loop. That's three schemes to progress out of lots of known schemes, including Stockport to Marple. I note as well that the tram-train plans they're progressing also strongly link to the existing Metrolink network.
Why did they pick them? I don't know. I am not party to that decision making. But I presume a lot of analysis was done. And at a guess, someone created some success criteria and tried to rank each of the schemes against each other to work out what the priorities would be. There were probably factors like how easy it would be, what benefits would be derived, and so on. Maybe it's not the easiest of proposals. Maybe it needs more time to work it all out. Maybe the ones they picked are more straightforward and offer a similar (or greater) bang for the buck? Maybe it's important to work it all out properly so it goes smoother.
What I do note is that the Metrolink schemes they're progressing are essentially extensions of existing lines. They're building out from what they have already.
And I think that's what stops a Marple-Stockport link. There's nothing at all to build out from. My suspicion - based on what they have selected already - is that we need that connection in some form. There's two obvious connectors. 1) Tram-train to Marple/Rose Hill. or 2) Metrolink route from Stockport to Didsbury.
Build one of them and you suddenly have something you can extend outwards. A Didsbury/Stockport route could go (somehow) to Marple. A Rose Hill train-tram could be extended to Stockport. But you need those foundations first. And I think we have to be realistic.
For one simple truth remains. Rome wasn't built in a day.
-
I take Andrew's point about the common sense of extending new rail links from existing lines. If a Marple - Stockport rail link were to be 'heavy rail' only (as opposed to metrolink tram or tram-train) then it would of course fulfil that criterion, linking up existing rail lines, either by a new curve at Reddish Vale, or by laying new track from Rose Hill along the Middlewood Way to link with the existing rail line at the west end of Disley Tunnel.
Otherwise, we need the Piccadilly - Rose Hill tram-train first, and then lobby to link that to the rail line between Denton and Reddish South, making a tram-train branch linking Marple and Stockport.
As Andrew says this will take many years - so we need to start arguing for it now!
-
I take Andrew's point about the common sense of extending new rail links from existing lines. If a Marple - Stockport rail link were to be 'heavy rail' only (as opposed to metrolink tram or tram-train) then it would of course fulfil that criterion, linking up existing rail lines, either by a new curve at Reddish Vale, or by laying new track from Rose Hill along the Middlewood Way to link with the existing rail line at the west end of Disley Tunnel.
One notable thing from the plan, or rather absent from the plan - new heavy rail lines that sit wholly within Greater Manchester. It's all tram-train. It doesn't surprise me. With no control over Northern Rail's operations in the area, it's almost impossible to bring services up to a good standard. No way on earth is our government Westminster going to tell Northern Rail to run services down to Rose Hill or Marple every 12 minutes. It will never happen. But Metrolink is controlled locally. The power is unlocked to actually do more stuff.
-
There is more to Transport than Rail Links. If you look at the GMCA web site you will see a side panel saying “Empower us to do our Jobs say Cycling Commissioners”. Obviously it is not just Stockport that is failing to cater for cyclists, and although you may think that Chris Boardman and Co. may be able to change the Government’s attitude, the Government only makes recommendations - such as the width of cycle lanes - but then leaves it up to the local authorities to do as they please. Which is why Stockport generally ignores cyclists’ requirements and frequently wastes money on useless if not potentially dangerous cycle lanes assuming they are benefiting society but generally don’t.
It has long been known that cycling is, in most instances, the quickest form of transport in an urban environment. This and its health and environmental benefits are verbally ignored by Stockport Council and who often make things worse for cyclists.
It is is time Stockport recognised that cycling is of equal importance to other forms of transport. So while a new rail line would be welcome, it would be expensive, whereas a proper cycle link between Stockport and Marple and then Marple to the new Airport Ring Road would, by comparison, cost virtually nothing and yet benefit just as many people as would a new rail link .
-
One notable thing from the plan, or rather absent from the plan - new heavy rail lines that sit wholly within Greater Manchester. It's all tram-train.
There is a not small issue of no space at Stockport station for more services with the junction system being near capacity already. Train-tram normally results in services being diverted from the main stations hence avoiding this problem.
-
I would like to see a case put forward for a new "express" bus from Marple to the Hazel Grove P&R site, with minimal stops once the bus have left Marple. Such a bus could greatly reduce the time to get to Stepping Hilll hopital for exmaple, and benfit from the bus lane improvements that are often talked about for the A6.
A expressed bus from the Hazel Grove P&R site to the airport should also be considered.
Clearly it would have to be "on raod" at present, but if such a bus got good use, then a guilded busway could be considerred to get down to the A6.
-
There is a not small issue of no space at Stockport station for more services with the junction system being near capacity already. Train-tram normally results in services being diverted from the main stations hence avoiding this problem.
Totally. It would be very difficult to get a new line coming into Stockport station. But the new Stockport bus station plans have been designed to fit Metrolink into it, as well as trying to improve connections with the railway station.
-
For one simple truth remains. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Another simple truth remains: Manchester needed a train tunnel from Piccadilly to Victoria for a north-south railway system under Manchester centre but a tunnel which was a mile and a bit long was deemed to be too expensive and instead we received a second rate tram link across the city centre. London Crossrail needed 13 miles of tunnels and £16billion was provided to build it. Could there be a more manifest example of the North-South divide when it comes to government expenditure on public transport?
-
Another simple truth remains: Manchester needed a train tunnel from Piccadilly to Victoria for a north-south railway system under Manchester centre but a tunnel which was a mile and a bit long was deemed to be too expensive and instead we received a second rate tram link across the city centre. London Crossrail needed 13 miles of tunnels and £16billion was provided to build it. Could there be a more manifest example of the North-South divide when it comes to government expenditure on public transport?
Marplerambler - you raise an interesting point that deserves greater exploration. Cos it's not as clear cut.
Manchester tried to get the Picc-Vic tunnel built in the 1970s. The plan was abandoned in 1977. And Metrolink build started in the 1990s.
The very first proposals for Crossrail are a little older. In fact the idea of an underground train line between Paddington and Liverpool Street was first mooted in 1941. Admittedly though, the push really started in 1974. And then it was abandoned. Then it was picked up again in 1989. And got nowhere. And in 1991. And 1994. And 2001. And 2002. And 2004.
Don't forget that the 1980s and early 1990s, the belief was that public transport would basically wither and die as being unnecessary!
Crossrail didn't get approval until 2008. And it's still not open for business.
By the way, Crossrail 2 was first mooted in the 1970s too...
Which means London has spent decades battling to get Crossrail built, where as Manchester got its (cheaper) solution through decades earlier. And is now running so successfully that the goal is to build a tunnel because there's only so many trams you can squeeze on Manchester's streets.
Yes it would have been better (and cheaper no doubt) to have built the Picc-Vic tunnel in the 1970s. But it was changing plans that meant we got something far earlier. And I strongly suspect we got a far bigger system out of it too. How many new railway lines have been opened in the UK in the last few decades? Not many. But the Metrolink's built several brand new lines, and building more now.
-
There is more to Transport than Rail Links. If you look at the GMCA web site you will see a side panel saying “Empower us to do our Jobs say Cycling Commissioners”. Obviously it is not just Stockport that is failing to cater for cyclists, and although you may think that Chris Boardman and Co. may be able to change the Government’s attitude, the Government only makes recommendations - such as the width of cycle lanes - but then leaves it up to the local authorities to do as they please. Which is why Stockport generally ignores cyclists’ requirements and frequently wastes money on useless if not potentially dangerous cycle lanes assuming they are benefiting society but generally don’t.
It has long been known that cycling is, in most instances, the quickest form of transport in an urban environment. This and its health and environmental benefits are verbally ignored by Stockport Council and who often make things worse for cyclists.
It is is time Stockport recognised that cycling is of equal importance to other forms of transport. So while a new rail line would be welcome, it would be expensive, whereas a proper cycle link between Stockport and Marple and then Marple to the new Airport Ring Road would, by comparison, cost virtually nothing and yet benefit just as many people as would a new rail link .
I’d love this kind of cycle route to be built but where would it go, I can see the route to the relief road could utilise the middlewood way but is there a potential off road route to Stockport? A cycle lane on existing roads seems non ideal and wouldn’t encourage me to cycle.
-
Hello Newbie. You said I’d love this kind of cycle route to be built but where would it go, I can see the route to the relief road could utilise the middlewood way but is there a potential off road route to Stockport? A cycle lane on existing roads seems non ideal and wouldn’t encourage me to cycle.
Well yes there is - sort-of. About 10 years ago Stockport MBC supported Sustrans in a Nationwide Bid for Lottery Money in order to create the new track down from Marple Hall Rd and the new bridge over the River Goyt at Chadkirk, and which Stockport MBC would part fund. (Sustrans generally try to improve disused railway lines etc to provide off road cycling and walking routes).
Those of us who were involved in campaigning for this fully expected the route to continue from Chadkirk across Otterspool Rd and onward into Mill Lane and Dark Lane to head for Bredbury Hall and Stockport Town Centre. The pedestrian crossing on Otterspool Rd is evidence that this was part of the scheme.
Stockport MBC put off creating the scheme for several years until, it is said, Sustrans said they would remove their portion of the Lottery Money and give it to some other Council. So the first section was put in, but now Stockport MBC say the remainder of the route is an "aspirational route depending on there being another new bridge closer to Stockport", which in the present climate will never happen. The part of the route requiring a new bridge is one suggested by Stockport Council and many cyclists consider it an unnecessary deviation.
From Otterspool Rd the track from Dark Lane to Bredbury Hall was in very poor condition and, after more campaigning, was improved slightly, making it just about usable for cycle commuting, and then we heard there was money available to improve it still more.
Great, we thought, but the money was spent on resurfacing Mill Lane ( we were told motorists were complaining about the pot holes ). The result was a horse rider rode up Mill Lane to the junction with the busy Otterspool Rd and claimed the road was too slippery as the horse lost its footing and the rider was dismounted.
Immediately a short section of the newly surfaced road by the junction was dug up and replaced by cobbles - a surface disliked by cyclists - and a strip of anti-skid surface put down for the length of Mill Lane. Why?
There has been some improvement since then but as has been shown elsewhere catering for Cyclists in Stockport is the last thing Stockport MBC consider.
-
Another simple truth remains: Manchester needed a train tunnel from Piccadilly to Victoria for a north-south railway system under Manchester centre but a tunnel which was a mile and a bit long was deemed to be too expensive and instead we received a second rate tram link across the city centre. London Crossrail needed 13 miles of tunnels and £16billion was provided to build it. Could there be a more manifest example of the North-South divide when it comes to government expenditure on public transport?
Has not the linking of Piccadilly to Victoria been resolved by by the building of the Castlefield Curve, opened in the last 18 months?
-
Has not the linking of Piccadilly to Victoria been resolved by by the building of the Castlefield Curve, opened in the last 18 months?
Yes, but there isn't the platform capacity at Piccadilly to use it effectively. That's thanks to the Department for Transport not agreeing to build two new platforms there.
-
It takes about 10 minutes to walk between the two stations. Alternatively jump on a tram to Piccadilly Gardens or St Peters Sq and change. Nothing else is required.
-
But the new Stockport bus station plans have been designed to fit Metrolink into it, as well as trying to improve connections with the railway station.
A bit late to pick this up, but better late than never.......
Yes, there is a plan for Metrolink to reach the new Stockport bus station, but that will not be from Marple. AFAIK it will be linked in some way to the airport line. Jolly good for Stockport, but no use to us.
As for this: I would like to see a case put forward for a new "express" bus from Marple to the Hazel Grove P&R site, with minimal stops once the bus have left Marple.
'Express bus' is a classic oxymoron. 'Minimal stops' makes no difference if the bus is stuck in traffic.
I admire CTREP's dogged advocacy of cycle routes, but they will not solve our traffic congestion. This is not Cambridge or Amsterdam (which are dry and flat), it's Manchester, and it's wet and hilly - we have neither the climate not the topography for mass cycling!
It's simple - we need a rail link of some sort to Stockport. Nothing else will do.
-
Dave has promoted the local motorists' argument that Stockport is too hilly and has poor weather conditions, and says that enabling people, and particularly school children, to cycle to work of school will not reduce congestion. There is no logic in those arguments. A cycle takes up less than a quarter of the space a motor vehicle does.
There is no reason for not supporting a plea for well designed cycle paths just because of the perceived weather and the occasional hill. Until you have tried riding regularly you will not realise that neither are a problem. Just consider how many days have you really needed a raincoat, and although you may have to walk up Dan Bank you freewheel down going the other way.
As I have said before, a well designed and maintained cycle path costs virtually nothing compared to any other transport improvement, certainly considerably less than a rail link and yet will benefit as many people if not more. With a rail link you are confined to specific stations in order to get on and off, and it is very unlikely it will be close to your home and your final destination, whereas by cycling you go direct to your destination.
If you really cannot ride up Dan Bank then buy an electric bike, you will still have a more healthy life style and you will not jam up the roads nor destroy them, nor find your train journey has been delayed because of leaves on the line.
However, although I would support the unlikely rail link, more realistically I would sincerely hope others would join me in calling for an inexpensive and easily provided cycle link. Cycling should be considered as vital part of Transport planning.
-
Dave has promoted the local motorists' argument that Stockport is too hilly and has poor weather conditions, and says that enabling people, and particularly school children, to cycle to work of school will not reduce congestion. There is no logic in those arguments.
Some confusion here, I think. I didn't mention schoolchildren, and I entirely agree that the more children that cycle to school here in Marple the better.
My point is not about traffic and transport within Marple itself, but about the traffic congestion that besets commuters from Marple to Stockport and Manchester, especially in the Offerton and Bredbury areas.
CTREP writes: a well designed and maintained cycle path costs considerably less than a rail link and yet will benefit as many people if not more.
Where is the evidence that a new cycle path would benefit as many people as a rail line? Or that people driving to work in Stockport, Manchester and other parts of the north west would be prepared to get up even earlier than they do already, get on their bikes and cycle miles to and from work every day. I know someone who used to cycle to and from work in Manchester city centre sometimes - when the weather was fine. It took him about 90 minutes each way. That's three hours a day commuting, and you need a change of clothes and a shower when you get there! For most people that's just not practical.
-
When I don't have to drive to work and am not in our main office I sometimes run or cycle.
It takes about 1.20 to run from Marple to City Centre Manchester and I can do door to door Rose Hill to Piccadilly in 35 minutes on a bike - beating the train. I like to say a cheery hello to the commuters as they trundle along the Middlewood way knowing i'll see them at the other end - to be fair train or cycle you need a shower!!
On my weekly trip to London I run to Stockport station which takes about 35 mins and then hop off at Macc on the way home and come down the MWW. on a summer evening after a day in the smoke and 2 hours on a train it's ace.
I have once done my full commute, 30 miles Marple to Horwich, by bike. You can manage about 85% traffic free if you give it a bit of thought and use the various loop lines. That takes about 2 hours each way and is pretty exhausting. A colleague does it every other day from Reddish to Horwich.
All of this is do-able. But isn't enjoyable in the winter, rain, excessive heat or when you have something to do in the evening!
As a society we do need to rethink how we move around, work has a massive role to play in it - i'm currently sat at a desk the other side on Manchester - i'd be much better off doing it from Marple and it'd save a load of CO2. The boss isn't all too keen and we are a very progressive organisation with good green policies!
Andy
Some confusion here, I think. I didn't mention schoolchildren, and I entirely agree that the more children that cycle to school here in Marple the better.
My point is not about traffic and transport within Marple itself, but about the traffic congestion that besets commuters from Marple to Stockport and Manchester, especially in the Offerton and Bredbury areas.
CTREP writes:
Where is the evidence that a new cycle path would benefit as many people as a rail line? Or that people driving to work in Stockport, Manchester and other parts of the north west would be prepared to get up even earlier than they do already, get on their bikes and cycle miles to and from work every day. I know someone who used to cycle to and from work in Manchester city centre sometimes - when the weather was fine. It took him about 90 minutes each way. That's three hours a day commuting, and you need a change of clothes and a shower when you get there! For most people that's just not practical.
-
Rather than working from home you could move and live nearer to work.
-
Then my wife would need to commute to her job in Marple.
I chose to work where I work, the point I was making was that with a bit of effort you don't have to use the car to get somewhere as far away as Bolton or London.
Andy
Rather than working from home you could move and live nearer to work.
-
When I don't have to drive to work and am not in our main office I sometimes run or cycle.
It takes about 1.20 to run from Marple to City Centre Manchester and I can do door to door Rose Hill to Piccadilly in 35 minutes on a bike - beating the train. I like to say a cheery hello to the commuters as they trundle along the Middlewood way knowing i'll see them at the other end - to be fair train or cycle you need a shower!!
On my weekly trip to London I run to Stockport station which takes about 35 mins and then hop off at Macc on the way home and come down the MWW. on a summer evening after a day in the smoke and 2 hours on a train it's ace.
I have once done my full commute, 30 miles Marple to Horwich, by bike. You can manage about 85% traffic free if you give it a bit of thought and use the various loop lines. That takes about 2 hours each way and is pretty exhausting. A colleague does it every other day from Reddish to Horwich.
All of this is do-able. But isn't enjoyable in the winter, rain, excessive heat or when you have something to do in the evening!
As a society we do need to rethink how we move around, work has a massive role to play in it - i'm currently sat at a desk the other side on Manchester - i'd be much better off doing it from Marple and it'd save a load of CO2. The boss isn't all too keen and we are a very progressive organisation with good green policies!
Andy
You must be youngish cant see a lot of people doing that .
-
Then my wife would need to commute to her job in Marple.
I chose to work where I work, the point I was making was that with a bit of effort you don't have to use the car to get somewhere as far away as Bolton or London.
Andy
I understand the difficulty moving might present my real and serious point was that it should not always be the employer who has to be flexible perhaps we should be encouraging people not to apply for jobs which involved so much travel. A job you can walk to is always preferably and if you can't get your ideal job or or career advancement without travelling perhaps that's the price one should pay for being unwilling to move.
-
You must be youngish cant see a lot of people doing that .
I'm with you there amazon it used to take me 30 mins to cycle to The Pryamid.
-
The evidence that well designed and constructed cycle paths benefit many people is clearly shown in Europe and now in London. Granted people in London have been forced to give up their cars but they were heading for a log jam plus excessive pollution anyway.
Much nearer to home I suspect most motorists welcome the school holidays when the school run isn’t functioning. If many of those school children could cycle to school then there would be less congestion and less pollution.
Wheels says he could cycle from home to the Pyramid in 30 minutes, and Andy says he can cycle from Rosehill to Manchester Piccadilly in 35 minutes, although he admits he could do with a shower. For the majority of people who ride regularly, and aren’t trying to beat the train, there is no need to work up a sweat any more than for running for the bus.
Dave says he is more concerned with the congestion in the Bredbury and Offerton area. Well, blame Stockport’s Transport Department for this. When the Marple to Chadkirk cycle path was first discussed it was intended to go all the way into Stockport, but the Council failed to complete the original plan, and now, if it hasn’t been forgotten altogether, it is considered an “aspirational” route dependent on another (in my view unnecessary) bridge. You can imagine when Stockport MBC will say they have enough money for another bridge for the benefit of cyclists.
Countrywide there is recognition that we need to get more people cycling but it will only occur in those areas where the Council actually caters for cycling, which up till now, it has been considered of least of importance in Stockport and will not change without more pressure from people who actually cycle, and others who would do so when Stockport MBC makes it priority in their plans.