Stockport News

A Town in Greater Manchester

10 10 / 10 from 1 Review

Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls

 

This thread was submitted to Hazel Grove

<< 1 2 3 >>
 
sundave
Drifter
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
2nd August 2007 at 7:18AM
road tolls, by-pass, public transport! and the debate goes on and on and on and all that happens is, the powers that be roll over or are removed from power by someone else who's ideas the electorate (thats you and me folks!) like more.(rant about to start)does anybody out there agree with me that taking away a lay-by where a bus stops and then making the bus stop and block one lane of a busy highway causes more congestion? does opening a large supermarket on one of the busiest routes in the country and then building an inadequate set of lights to cope with the increase in traffic cause congestion? does allowing a large purveyor of greasy burgers and chips to build an outlet on the same busy road and put in yet another set of lights on a road that already has an abundance of them cause congestion?YES IT DOES!!!! one of the above has been responsible for killing off decent sandwich shops and increasing the amount of rubbish rhat flies around the grove on a windy day, another has sorted out the grocers and butchers and the other has given us wider footpaths so that stupid ignorant scroats can ride their bikes side by side as fast as possible while eating their burgers and drinking their alcopops and generally making life as miserable as hell for those of us who are old enough to remember when the grove was a VILLAGE.rant over for now. seriously though, i love the grove and its diversity and i can't see why we need a metrolink to manchester? spend your money in your own town, support your local shops! get the place back on it's feet and maybe we can restore a little bit of pride to the old place. who know's maybe someone important might take notice and do something for us but if not lets do it ourselves, why dont we all try the local butchers for a change or the greengrocers or the bakers, why not try the ladies clothes shop on the boulevard friends wives rattle on about it all the time, see! you dont need big town shopping all the time cos its all here in THE GROVE! USE IT OR LOSE IT!!!!
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
Adora
Good Citizen

Adora
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
2nd August 2007 at 10:14AM
Agreed! Would I dare to argue?!!

Especially agree with point about moving bus stops out of lay-bys thus making the A6 a single track! Never could get my head around the thinking behind that!

Local shops and a move away from supermarkets is starting to take favour in some quarters - local farmer's/producers markets increasing in popularity, airmiles on food, excess packaging and all that.

Can't comment on the ladies clothes shop - no money to buy my clothes, hence, walk around looking like a refugee most days. Children's clothes on the other hand - can't beat the supermarkets for value there - sorry :(

Use it or Lose it - good slogan for the Save Our Tip campaign!

Adora
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
JohnEllis
Citizen

JohnEllis
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
13th August 2007 at 12:35PM, Edit: 14th August 2007 at 11:39AM by JohnEllis
I think I can answer at least one of Sundave's queries - which seems to be his main one! - though it's only a guess; I've never seen anything official to confirm it.

I think that they got rid of laybys for buses for the same reason that they introduced bus lanes - to speed up flow for buses, even if the result is to slow other traffic. Every time a peak time bus pulls away from a bus stop in a layby, it has to wait until some kind driver gives way to it. Doing that over and over again at bus stops along congested roads like the A6 meant that buses were significantly delayed, over and above the general effect of congestion. Optimizing the speed of the journey is an essential if people are going to be attracted away from the car on to public transport for their daily journeys.

If you get rid of the layby, the bus then stops in the main flow of traffic; unless they can squeeze into the outside lane, the vehicles behind have to wait, and the bus doesn't get locked out of the flow; it can move off as soon as it has loaded.

As to the need for better public transport, and the Metrolink in particular, I've no idea as to actual statistics, but my assumption is that:

1. only a minority of Grovers in employment work in the Grove; and

2. of those who do work outside the Grove, a majority need to travel northwards towards Stockport and Manchester in ordsr to get to their workplace.

If we're not going to hit total gridlock, as more and more motor vehicles crowd on to finite roads, then there has to be available, attractive and affordable public transport alternatives to get people where they need to go - and especially to get them to work. The only alternative, I suppose, is to attract industry and commerce here so that there are lots of job opportunities within a short distance. But then, presumably, the fields and woods around the Grove would be transformed into factory and business parks, and a lot of us would think it was a less attractive area in consequence! On the whole, as Sundave says, we can shop locally, and a lot probably do. But the transport systems are needed for the majority who don't, and can't, work locally.

I agree totally that arresting the decline of small local shops in the village - assuming it's not already too late to do it! - is a nice idea, but the fact is that shops like that have closed down largely because we ordinary folks haven't used them: in the context of busy lives, or maybe just because we don't want to spend too long trailing round shops, we've preferred to go and get all of what we normally need for the week at Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury's and suchlike, who are canny enough to see the marketing opportunity of offering a huge range of household necessities at reasonable prices, all under one roof - so you only have to trog your stuff from one shop to the car in the adjacent car park that they thoughtfully provide! Little shops can't flourish if most of us just drive past them on the way to Sainsbury's, which is what has tended to happen.

From the reference to traffic lights, I gather that the particular fast food purveyor that Sundave has in mind is the one that advertises itself with golden arches! Perhaps he and I should be particularly careful, as the firm concerned has a record of being extraordinarily sensitive to negative views expressed in public arenas, and he, I and the website may well find ourselves recipients of solemn mcletters from a corporate mcsolicitor!

But that itself explains the reasons behind some of the things that Sundave criticizes. He feels that big supermarkets and international fast food outlets add to congestion (and grot!), and drive small local traders out of business. But the law, in general, is on their side. Mrs Thatcher embraced the free market, and people voted for her for years - with such effect that New Labour was converted too. The big national and international businesses have enormous wealth, and permanently retain teams of corporate lawyers. If they apply for planning permission to open up in the Grove, they'll have done their homework. The local council can only refuse an application on clear planning grounds, which have been decided, not locally, but by central government.

If the corporate giant gets knocked back by a council, and their lawyers think they're in with a chance, they can appeal against the decision to a central government-appointed inspector, who, if he upholds their appeal, is quite likely to require the council to pay the firm's legal costs - which may be very considerable. It would be no defence whatever - even in the unlikely event of it being ever true! - for the local council to say that 100% of local people had expressed opposition to the development. Nor would it be a defence, as such, to argue that the coming of the new business would have a negative effect on local small traders. What you, or they, or the councillors think won't be allowed to buck the free market! So don't blame your councillors for developments you don't like - often their hands are tied by London politicians and bureaucrats.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
sundave
Drifter
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
14th August 2007 at 8:04AM
metrolink!! if it gets the thumbs up and is paid for by the transport authorities and it comes as far as hazel grove how much money in real terms will businesses have lost during the creation of this super fast efficient form of transport that has been put in place just so a few hundred people, mainly office workers (and i'm not knocking them) can get to manchester.does anyone realise just how much disruption goes on when you install tramways. they wont use existing railways because people need the trams on the main road, so you face years of upheaval, frustration,higher taxes and the closure of even more small outlets just for a dozen trams to troll up and down to m/cr and back and how much is a journey going to cost?. if it takes three years to fit it youre probably looking at £1billion a year and that can't be guaranteed, how is it going to make money!.serious homework needs to be done!. BUILD THE BYPASS, PUT A BUS LANE UP AND DOWN THE A6,and let people get on with their lives minus the disruption. metrolink is an expensive dream that will turn into a living nightmare but not for the planners because they don't live on or work on the A6.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
JohnEllis
Citizen

JohnEllis
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
14th August 2007 at 11:17AM
Don't fret, sundave - no one in authority's proposing Metrolink to Hazel Grove, and I'd be amazed if it were to actually happen. It was just an idea that I came up with when the congestion charge proposals were announced.

I was arguing that, if people are going to be hammered by a congestion charge of up to £5 a day (doubtless with increases to follow!) for taking their cars to work, they should at least be given better and more affordable public transport alternatives than those currently available in the Grove. The congestion charge is after all aimed at peak time commuters travelling beyond Stockport, not at people driving locally.

And the reason why I mentioned Metrolink, if you look back on the thread, was that we have an already existing railway line which links the Grove to Cheadle Heath, close to the point where they're proposing to run the Metrolink into Stockport town centre from Manchester. So, if the will was there, it could be built relatively cheaply, and without any of the chaos and disruption that you worry about - with no impact on those who live or work on the A6 at all, in fact. Obviously there's no way that it could run along the A6 - apart from the impossible disruption, the road's not wide enough.

I don't know what makes you think that tramways have to run along main roads. Apart from in central Manchester, and on the Eccles line through Salford where redevelopment meant that they could plan for it, none of the other existing Metrolink services do so; the services to Altrincham and Bury run along former railway lines for their whole length. So would the planned line into Stockport, apart from the last mile where it would follow the Mersey valley into the bus station. No need for "living nightmares" of disruption on the main road at all!
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
sundave
Drifter
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
15th August 2007 at 9:12AM
i wasn't fretting john i was trying to stir up a debate about the pro's and con's of spending public money on things the public don't need, metrolink is one of those things.people who work in m/cr and travel from the south of the city in cars are the ones who will suffer the charges, those who just want to shop will travel in the time zones that are FREE!. where is the sense in spending huge amounts of money on another form of transport when what we have just needs fine tuning. as for existing lines, they stopped being used because they didn't make any money, and they are now in such a state they would have to be replaced anyway thus incurring huge rate rises for those people who didn't want them in the first place.another rant over!
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
JohnEllis
Citizen

JohnEllis
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
15th August 2007 at 1:50PM
Looks like it's something we'll have to disagree on, Dave. Until I retired last autumn, I was doing a daily commute into Lower Broughton, which, in effect, is just the same as going into Manchester. I worked there nine years, and saw the congestion build a lot during that time, so much that the journey became a long-drawn out stop/start bind - and as we were living in Didsbury then, I only had half the distance to travel that Manchester-bound commuters from Hazel Grove have to undertake. I had no choice but to use the car, as I needed it for work.

I just don't see how we can carry on with traffic growth as we are without hitting gridlock - and that's without taking likely global warming and future oil shortages into account. To that extent, I think the congestion charge enthusiasts are right. But it's not enough just to slap charges on motorists. Which is why I suggest cheaper fares, and the alternative of the Metrolink - and that we need to forget the idea of public transport having to turn a profit for shareholders.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
nedsram
Townsperson

nedsram
Re: possible Metrolink route
19th August 2007 at 6:05AM, Edit: 19th August 2007 at 6:05AM by nedsram
Guest Wrote:

Please could you maybe explain/tell me a little more about the possible Metrolink idea! I don't know any of the details about it but in principle it sounds like a great idea to extend it from Manchester through to HG.

The route John had in mind would follow the route of the old Midland line, leaving the proposed Metrolink extension via Didsbury to Stockport in Heaton Mersey, crossing the river (a new bridge would need to be constructed), and joining the existing railway line at Cheadle Heath. From there to Hazel Grove, the line is single track, so it's just about possible to run a tram line alongside it (as is done for a short stretch at Navigation Road). It's the line that crosses Macclesfield Road next to the Rising Sun, and goes over Chester Road near the station.

However it's not going to happen, as too much additional infrastructure would be required, and there would be too many issues south of Cheadle Heath.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
JohnEllis
Citizen

JohnEllis
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
19th August 2007 at 7:21AM
I agree with that analysis, Nedsram, as you can see - I'm sure it won't happen, and the infrastructure's one part of the reason why - especially another bridge over the Mersey, and the fact that frequency would have to be limited, given the availability of only one track between Hazel Grove and Cheadle Heath. But what "issues south of Cheadle Heath" do you have in mind?
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
nedsram
Townsperson

nedsram
Re: Stockport says ’no’ to road tolls
19th August 2007 at 11:01AM
Well, the same issues you refer to really. Namely sharing three miles of track with Network Rail. Plus if you look at the track layout, it isn't entirely on the same side, so even if agreement could be reached to have trams as well, the existing track would have to be relayed.
0 Likes 0 Dislikes Reply Reply Quote Quote Report Report  
<< 1 2 3 >>
 

Related Discussions

No related discussions found.

Tagged With..

No tags added