The object will be to provide efficient and safe access both to/from and within the Borough and to stimulate investment and employment, in so far as this can be achieved without large scale blight and disruption and with the minimum of adverse environmental effects.

The Department of Transport's National Road Traffic Forecasts, issued in 1989, envisaged traffic growth ranging between 83% and 142% over 1988 levels by the year 2025, if demand was satisfied. It is recognised in the Government's Green Paper "This Common Inheritance" that it is neither financially feasible nor environmentally desirable to increase road capacity in congested urban areas, simply to increase car commuting.  This point has also been made by local transport pressure groups, in respect of all traffic.

At present, the achievement of the Borough's economic and environmental objectives will depend very much on the extension of the M66 through Tameside, and associated improvements within the main transportation corridors, to redress previous under investment in the network. However, traffic growth and its daily distribution will continue to be monitored, in order to consider whether restraint, management or further infrastructure measures will subsequently be necessary, to ensure that the Borough's economic and environmental improvement objectives are achieved. Development of road pricing techniques, and evolving public attitudes to the unrestrained use of private cars in urban areas, are likely to be among the factors in this increasingly important debate.

This policy acts as the starting point and background for most of the more specific transportation policies and proposals contained in both Parts 1 and 2 of the Plan. The Council is supportive of the approach advocated by A.G.M.A. although it will not be able on its own to directly influence some of the elements involved in a balanced strategy. Management and small scale improvement of the existing systems seem likely to be the principal methods of achieving progress at least in the short term, reinforced by certain larger schemes which address the implications of historic under-investment in certain areas. Underlying any scheme, large or small, will be the need to minimise undesirable effects on the environment.

These objectives will also be taken into account in assessing the impact on the highway network and its users, of proposals which may be submitted for new development, and in assessing the suitability of the highway elements of new developments themselves.

(a) Improving road safety for all users of the highway.

(b) Creating a more pedestrian and cycle friendly environment, especially at major road junctions.

(c) Alleviating residential area problems caused by vehicles "rat-running" to avoid congested points, with due regard to the needs of buses.

(d) Improving accessibility to older industrial areas and other areas with development potential.

(e) Effective management of congestion problems.

(f) Improving the efficiency of public transport and convenience to the passenger.

(g) Incorporating the needs of the elderly and disabled, mothers with young children and people with sensory impairment or restricted mobility.

(h) Minimising impact on adjoining areas due to noise, severance of pedestrian routes and effects on townscape and landscape character.

(i) Improving the appearance of the immediate roadside and the major road corridors.

There are, nonetheless, a variety of problems on the existing highway network in Tameside, and the list (a) to (i) indicates the range of aims which will underlie traffic management and improvement proposals of all kinds.  Management of congestion is just one of these many aims, which generally reflect environmental and economic concerns rather than meeting traffic growth. Implicit in this policy is the concept that traffic management and minor improvements will normally be examined as lower cost, and in most cases more environmentally friendly, solutions before a new highway scheme is contemplated.

(a) Enhancing accessibility by all modes of transport.

(b) Improving the environment and alleviating damaging effects of through traffic.

(c) Providing better conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and people with sensory impairment or restricted mobility.

(d) Encouraging new investment.

(e) Contributing to a safer environment.

The Council will anticipate such improvements in formulating transportation policies and proposals within the Borough.

The route currently caters for very significant commercial vehicle flows, 27% of its daily flow comprising commercial vehicles, which is higher than the 20% recorded for the M62 motorway across the Pennines.  The role which this route performs and the character of the traffic flows indicates the need for improvement, not least to relieve communities such as Mottram and Hollingworth of the environmental and safety problems which have grown considerably over the past few years. Connecting routes must also be provided which have suitable capacity to feed this strategic link. Total trans-Pennine needs on all routes will require joint evaluation of the contribution which can be made by the various travel modes.

Following the D.o.T. sponsored study of trans-Pennine road traffic movement published in June 1992, and the consideration of strategic transport issues in connection with the approval of the Peak Park Structure Plan, several authorities with an interest in the future of the Woodhead corridor are co-operating in pressing for further investigations of options which may exist for dealing sensitively with the expected continued increase in demand for movement in this area.

The Council will strongly support the implementation of the scheme at the earliest possible date.

This "preferred route" is being protected from development
and up until late 1995 the design of the road was being developed in greater detail, to enable draft orders to be published in the relatively near future. A link road to connect the bypass to the existing A57 at Mottram Moor is also part of the preferred route, although this is subject to on-going discussions with the Council in relation to its extension to the A57 in the vicinity of Woolley Bridge, as part of the need to consider the requirements of local traffic.

However, in its November 1995 review of the trunk road programme, the Department of Transport announced that the Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle bypass scheme was likely to be put on hold until such time as it could be moved forward to construction.  Implementation is therefore likely to be delayed, although the Council will press the D.o.T.. not to put the bypass on hold and will urge the Highways Agency to retain a positive commitment to the scheme by continuing to progress the design and order preparation.  The scheme is needed as quickly as possible to relieve the appalling conditions experienced by people living alongside the existing A57/A628 route used by many heavy vehicles through the villages of Mottram and Hollingworth.

The objectives will be to assist the movement of strategic traffic through the Borough, improve the efficiency of circulating traffic within the Borough and provide adequate access to both existing and proposed development locations. In this respect, the Borough has to bring itself to a similar level of road provision as other areas of Greater Manchester which have been on the motorway network for a considerably longer period.

Where particular schemes can be reliably indicated, as within and to the west of Ashton town centre, they are included in Part 2 of the Plan and shown on the Proposals Map. In other areas such as Hyde and Stalybridge town centres, further appraisal of the problems and possible solutions is still required and schemes will have to be introduced at a later date. It is also the Council's intention to ensure the provision of suitable local links to the proposed Mottram, Hollingworth and Tintwistle Bypass, to deal with traffic problems in the Mottram Moor and Woolley Bridge areas. In all cases, the Council's ability to carry out the necessary work will be dependent on the financial resources made available, principally through the annual Transport Policies and Programme submission to the Government and their award of Transport Supplementary Grant.

Where lines for road schemes are being protected, a high priority needs to be given to the proper maintenance and management of buildings and land, so as to minimise blight and unsightliness. Although this Plan contains relatively few specific proposals for new or improved roads, protection of road lines can sometimes stretch over several years due to acquisition and financing delays. If not properly managed, the effects of road line protection could impair the confidence of local residents and businesses and create a poor image for the Borough. Any surplus land remaining after the construction of highway schemes should be developed or landscaped as soon as possible.

(a) Upgrading of links into and around Ashton town centre.

(b) Additional relief for through traffic and local circulation in Hyde and Stalybridge town centres, by means of on-line improvements and/or other measures.

Environmental improvements will also be incorporated in these transportation corridors.

The Council will protect the alignment of all highway schemes contained in Proposals in Part 2 of this Plan and shown on the Proposals Map.

This will be to ensure that the local transportation needs of those without access to private cars can be adequately met, and that public transport can develop as a co-ordinated and energy efficient alternative to private road transport and as a means of containing the increase in traffic congestion and vehicle emissions.

Whilst the actual operation of public transport is outside direct local authority control, the Council can exert some influence on its effectiveness through the use of its own highway and planning powers.  Public transport can face various practical difficulties which restrict its effectiveness, such as delays to buses at particular points on the highway network, lack of penetration of shopping and business areas, and inadequate interchange arrangements. It is therefore important for the Council to seek to provide suitable conditions for efficient operation wherever possible. This general policy is expanded in several subsequent policies which deal with particular modes.

This will be achieved by measures including the provision of new stations, improved facilities at existing stations including attention to special needs, and additional local station car parking and cycle storage facilities. High priority will be given to station parking where it can reduce pressure on the highway system.

The Council believes that the rail system will have an increasingly important role in meeting travel demands in the future, not just in the peak hour, as required by Strategic Guidance, but also at other times when congestion will increase. Three new local stations, at Droylsden, Ashton Moss and Dewsnap, are proposed in Part 2 of this Plan. Access to local stations is seen as especially important, with support for the provision of park and ride facilities at stations where this does not entail increased travel over congested parts of the highway network. Priority for park and ride is endorsed by motoring organisations. Attractive local rail services will also need to be operated by good quality rolling stock, and this is a vital part of the upgrading concept. Existing rail corridors should be protected for long-term transportation needs, even though part of the alignment may in some instances be surplus to current requirements.

The provision of small scale park and ride facilities at local rail stations will also be supported and facilitated.

However, access to the route from Tameside and east Manchester needs to be improved in terms of additional train stops, which the Council would wish to support, both at Stalybridge, which is the area's traditional inter-regional railhead, and at a more strategically located station in the Ashton and Audenshaw area. On completion of the M66 Manchester Outer Ring Road, the Audenshaw Link Road and the proposed Ashton Moss Link, such a location would be well placed for a parkway station for inter-regional services for the whole of eastern Greater Manchester, with a catchment of over 1 million people within 20 minutes' journey time. It would also be more convenient to Tameside as a whole and to Ashton which is the Borough's largest centre.

In the case of commuting and shopping / leisure trips into central Manchester from the east side of the conurbation, it is considered that the needs of the Borough would be best served by developing small scale park and ride at a number of local stations, rather than possibly concentrating on one single point of access.

Transportation, traffic management and planning design studies will be required prior to any final decision on the route and precise layout of the scheme.

This will be achieved by the provision of suitably designed and integrated bus terminal and interchange facilities, the introduction of schemes which give priority or assistance to buses within the highway network, and the adoption of other measures to improve the quality of bus travel.

New or reconstructed bus stations at Ashton, Stalybridge and Hyde are required during the plan period and these are the subject of specific proposals in Part 2 of the Plan. Where, as in Hyde and Stalybridge, the scheme is not associated with a major private development project, implementation will depend on the availability of P.T.A. financial resources.

Increasing highway congestion will cause delays to the operation of bus services as well as to private cars, which will only further the cycle of their decline unless measures can be taken to give buses priority and more direct routing, such as at key intersections or on the approaches to town centres. Such measures if effective could provide more positive reasons for using buses in preference to cars.  The Greater Manchester P.T.A. and transport pressure groups are particularly concerned to see such measures as part of increasing the attractiveness of public transport relative to the private car. Opportunities created by reductions in traffic on certain routes as a result of the extension of M66 will need to be examined.

Where possible, physical and other traffic management measures will be used to prevent the use of unsuitable roads by heavy lorries, particularly within residential areas.

As regards overnight lorry parking, the Traffic Commissioners are obliged, when considering operator licence applications, to take into account the provision for parking H.G.V.'s at the operating base, and there is consequently no justification for these vehicles being parked overnight elsewhere. There is currently no funding available for publicly provided h.g.v. off-street parking, although some on-street spaces are available under the Greater Manchester Urban Core Scheme. It is however the Council's intention to attempt to provide lorry parks as and when this is feasible. The Council will therefore continue to monitor the position regarding the overnight parking of vehicles, having regard to the proposed completion of the Manchester Outer Ring Road (M66).

Nevertheless, the Dewsnap and Brookside sites remain strategically placed to serve a large proportion of those activities which might use containerised loads for transport of their products, and the onward rail links both to the south and east of the country are excellent. There is therefore still potential for a privately operated rail terminal at this location. Although the Brookside site is currently occupied by a British Rail engineering depot, the Dewsnap site is vacant and awaiting development. An alternative to a freight depot on this site could therefore be inclusion of actual or potential rail connections within a more general industrial and warehousing estate.

A Borough-wide network of cycle routes will be defined in consultation with landowners and other interested parties, utilising off-highway tracks wherever possible. The provision of cycle storage or parking facilities will be encouraged, particularly in town and local centres and at rail and bus stations, and the needs of cyclists will be considered in highway design, traffic management and maintenance
schemes.

Free standing employment, retail and leisure developments will be expected to include provision for cycle parking or storage.

The measures listed in these policies are required in parallel to the definition of a network of cycle routes, if a worthwhile stimulus is to be given to cycling in the Tameside area. The two principal aspects which need attention are safety for cyclists on the highway and facilities for parking or storage of cycles at popular destination points. The second of these is perhaps rather easier to achieve, requiring relatively little extra space and modest investment. However, focusing on problems for cyclists at particular points on the highway system could help to suggest ways and means of reducing conflict, which may be practical either on their own or only as part of a later reconstruction.

Public rights of way will be protected where they fall within sites proposed for development, subject to consideration of the opportunities which may be available in appropriate cases for local re-routing.

Whilst footpath organisations have drawn attention to the importance of the definitive network and of maintaining its signposting and freedom from obstruction, which is acknowledged, the Map is concerned with mostly short individual links, rather than medium distance routes connecting points of interest. Policy L17 in the Recreation and Leisure chapter deals however with priorities for improvement and promotion of certain key routes as a defined Tameside Recreational Access Network

The Council will also wish to ensure that priority is given to pedestrians and their needs when they use the highway network. This should be capable of achievement under the Council's policies on inspection and maintenance, traffic management and highway improvement.