Stockport Council News

“In the 2011 MTRU report, the need for an update was set out, and the following elements were listed as requiring attention:

1. Highway network and accompanying zones better suited to sustainable modes and town centres

2. Full consideration of trip generation from different employment and housing locations

3. Incorporation of travel plans (Smarter Choices) in the demand management effects

4. Recognition of the growing public transport role and its competition with travel by car

5. Understanding of how traffic growth has slowed down (even before the recession) and what the implications are for any future schemes

6. Understanding of the residual traffic generation, either by changing destination (redistribution) or making more trips (generation).

As far as can be seen from the documentation so far, some additional work has been undertaken under items 2 and 6. The rest are still not represented in the appraisal published to date.”

Keith Buchan’s critique

“Rather, it is recommended that the study area local authorities develop smaller and more appropriate scale road proposals along the protected alignments. These should be designed to provide relief for the study area communities affected by inappropriate through traffic, but not to provide a new strategic route of regional and potentially national significance.”

The proposed bypass provides most benefits for long distance traffic.

If SMBC take this Schweinerei of a roadscheme as far as public inquiry, they risk losing a further circa £25 million. Can Stockport afford to lose such huge sums on the vanities of not too bright panjandrums and local councillors?

“New forecasts and model runs should be undertaken to reflect the lack of traffic growth and the availability of new policy instruments since 2001.

The consultation should be withdrawn until this work is complete.

The work should be undertaken in a transparent manner to ensure that any future consultation is on a sound basis.”

Professor Wenban-Smith

“For these reasons the statement that this scheme is the only solution to local problems is not accurate and has no recent evidence which supports this claim.

Thus the current consultation is misleading and premature.”

Professor Wenban-Smith

“The Business Case is not yet finalised and the material which should underpin the consultation is subject to change.

An initial analysis of the Business Case shows serious problems, including:

 Inconsistency between stability and decline in traffic locally, pre-dating the recession

 Serious inaccuracies in the public transport model used to show the impact of the current road scheme including mode share and total number of trips

 A majority of benefits accrue to longer distance traffic, not local traffic as is the stated purpose of the scheme

 No account appears to have been taken of the Northern Hub initiative and the impact this, and electrification schemes, will have on longer distance journeys

 Unanswered questions over how the new developments have been included in the model, especially in relation to TEMPRO

 Lack of genuine sensitivity testing, including assumptions on land use, policies including limiting parking and Smarter Choices, and a traffic stability forecast

 Questions over whether the Area of Influence is too small and fails to pick up longer distance impacts.”

Professor Wenban-Smith

“As the economic assessment, done in parallel with this transport report, shows, the majority of benefits are in the far distant future,”

Professor Wenban-Smith