Manchester to Sheffield road tunnel plans

[andyofborg 11]

havent been through the who 7 pages of posts so apologies if this has been posted before

 

here is the initial feasibiility study

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/409011/trans-pennine-summary.pdf

[geared 319]

i imagine that a lot will go on geological surveys to make sure that the rock is stable enough to be tunnelled through and driven through

 

Isn't that already available, the area has been studied quite extensively, and we are one of the most mined regions in the country.

[andyofborg 11]

Isn't that already available, the area has been studied quite extensively, and we are one of the most mined regions in the country.

 

haven't got a clue tbh

 

i dont think the route over the snake/woodhead has been mined if it was then probably not during a period when people would do what we would now class a proper survey.

 

in the good old days people just dug a hole and hoped for the best...

[bassett one 452]

its another white elephant,,just to keep the voters thinking what good ideas they have,trust me its a non starter ,they cant afford to pay the debts owed ,nevermind a road.

[geared 319]

haven't got a clue tbh

 

i dont think the route over the snake/woodhead has been mined if it was then probably not during a period when people would do what we would now class a proper survey.

 

in the good old days people just dug a hole and hoped for the best...

 

True, although if the route was originally planned as a motorway in the 1960's then surely the geological survey was done then, not for a tunnel but you'd have to shift alot of material to fit a motorway in there so they'd need to know what the ground was like.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

ISo any cross Pennine road in this area would need to be far more substantial than a dual carriageway which would cope with the present A6, Snake and Woodhead traffic.

It would not need to do so. Nobody is suggesting removing the A57 and A628 links from Sheffield towards Manchester, are they?

[Annie Bynnol 612]

It would not need to do so. Nobody is suggesting removing the A57 and A628 links from Sheffield towards Manchester, are they?

 

No one is suggesting closing anything.

The suggestion is opening a link between the Sheffield Region and the Manchester region currently inadequately provided by the A6, A57 and A628 and variants.

The assumption is that the new route would be faster, more reliable and more economic for its prospective users and the two regions it connects.

In doing it will "mop up" the traffic it is designed for between the Sheffield Region and the Manchester region.

 

but

 

a significant amount of traffic currently using the A6 and A628 has its origins well outside the Sheffield region. They choose to use these routes for various reasons some of which will be marginal- others use other routes and variations.

A new build would change the balance in the decision and attract more traffic to the new Pennine crossing.

Examples of new traffic flows could be:

A1(M) traffic south of Doncaster going to south/central Manchester and Lancashire may find it the new crossing a better choice, particularly heavy freight in winter.

East Anglia ports traffic wanting to avoid the M6 to get to south/central Manchester and Lancashire.

Humberside ports wanting to avoid the M62 congestion and weather to get to south/central Manchester and Lancashire.

M1 East Midlands traffic to Manchester and Lancashire.

If it does what it says on the tin the new connection will generate economic growth leading to more traffic.

It will be more "weather proof" than other Pennine crossings.

 

A new road will have to be big enough to cope with demand and have suitable link roads built.

or

in order to reduce demand be it could limited to freight/business only. A toll road. A rail tunnel that carries vehicles. A direct point to point road with no intermediate junctions.

 

Every new major road or bypass or crossing built in the UK has generated far more traffic flow than what it was intended to help alleviate.

In modern times planning a new surface route has been objected to successfully on the grounds that a "nice" road over the Pennines would soon need to be doubled trebled in size.

So build it big-build it deep.

 

Safety, environment and technical design issues are also equally important.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Annie Bynnol

[geared 319]

Is that a bad thing though, it will take alot of strain off several other roads, you'll see a traffic reduction on quite a few routes.

 

less congestion, less pollution.

Yes it shifts alot of that traffic and pollution over the new route, but if a tunnel was fitted with filtered ventilation you'd take alot of the pollution out of the air.

 

It will be interesting to see if the report makes mention of the environmental impact on other areas of the country.

[dutch 68]

George Osborne and many who believe in him have got tunnel vision.

[Guest busdriver1]

Is that a bad thing though, it will take alot of strain off several other roads, you'll see a traffic reduction on quite a few routes.

 

less congestion, less pollution.

Yes it shifts alot of that traffic and pollution over the new route, but if a tunnel was fitted with filtered ventilation you'd take alot of the pollution out of the air.

 

It will be interesting to see if the report makes mention of the environmental impact on other areas of the country.

 

It is also a fact that moving traffic pollutes less then stationary traffic.

[geared 319]

Something that alot of politicians can't seem to get their head around.

 

Instead of going to war against the motorist why not fix the broken and poorly planned road system this country has???

[the fonz 10]

Something that alot of politicians can't seem to get their head around.

 

Instead of going to war against the motorist why not fix the broken and poorly planned road system this country has???

 

Its not quite as simple as that though, suppressed demand means that building more roads creates more traffic.