Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Cheadle and Gatley Liberal Democrats
Demand more Learn more
Graham reports back from Friends of Scholes Park meeting
Gatley's Lucy Boxes
Sign up for weekly emails
Lib Dems challenge TfGM on transport strategy for Cheadle
by Lib Dem Team on 9 February, 2017
Following the news of reduced bus services, the Lib Dems asked TfGM boss Jon Lamonte to explain the transport strategy for Cheadle.
“The Lib Dems have been calling for a proper tram/train service for Cheadle and Gatley along with a wider study to look at traffic problems, and answer the question of how to sort out the Gatley lights junction,” said Cllr Iain Roberts.
“It’s positive that TfGM say they are committed to both the Lib Dem schemes,” Iain added, “but there are serious questions to be answered. Plans and studies are only useful if they turn into real action and real changes and we need to keep on pressing for that.”
Here’s his reply:
Well that is as clear as mud.
So basically so many people are using their motor vehicles that they’re having to reduce public transport options… There’s nothing like progress eh?
So, if I’m understanding this correctly, the bus services have reduced because of the congestion.
This congestion is or course related to the housing development this Council has and continues to approve in the area.
Therefore, congestion will increase ( as more of these development come on line) and public transport will reduce as a consequence.
Some weeks ago the LibDems, on this forum, were boasting that they were the only Party with a coherent plan for the county – They clearly don’t even have a coherent plan for this area.
The exact opposite, Halifaix. Look at any city in the world: public transport works better, and can be justified economically, when you have more housing and jobs. If you spread them out, or have very few – as in rural areas – then you get very poor public transport. As you get more houses, you can justify spending more money on buses, trams and trains.
So yes, we do have a coherent plan for both the country and this area.
Iain – when you were in office you sanctioned the development of the Barnes site with 150 homes. Once the site is fully occupied, what provisions will be in place to ease the increased congestion in the area – notably the infamous junction and the entrance/exit to the site itself?
I seem to recall that on many occasions you have mentioned the proposed East Cheshire development – and all the chaos that will befall Gatley – but you never mention Barnes.
Iain – Well, the evidence, according to the response TfGM, and what I can see with my own eyes, appears to contradict your ‘coherent plan’
Until reliable and affordable public transport options are in place no one will get out of their cars. Why don’t policy makers seem to get this? The transport has to come first before you penalise people for driving through traffic calming, higher taxation etc.
Part of the reason the roads are so congested is because the public transport offering in Cheadle in particular is beyond poor, and until that improves you’re just not going to get people out of their private cars. And why do the council give planning permission for new homes (e.g. Barnes, new flats on Stockport Rd Cheadle) when the transport links to Manchester are so poor. Can’t you make developers fund bus routes as part of the planning conditions?
Out of interest, will Stockport council be joining the car club that Manchester council backs? I’m a member but right now I have to get down to Didsbury to pick up a vehicle, which isn’t really convenient. These schemes have been successful in cities across Britain and Europe and it would be great to see the Manchester scheme come out to Stockport. As I’ve just sold my car you can even paint one of the bays outside my house…
Iain Roberts so you have your reply What now is your views on this and what are you going to do about getting better transport for us. No point in just posting things without what is your plan. This is why we voted for you.
We’ve set out our plan and we continue to press for it. We continue to report on progress.
The LibDems definition of progress in this instance would appear to mean more congestion and poorer public transport
Iain Roberts, isn’t it about you and your cronies resigned? You’ve madeva right mess of things over the past few years in and around Cheadle and now only seem to want to proportion blame on the Labour controlled council or Mary Robinson. Where is your backbone? So many comments on this blog over the years from constituents which are ignored. Same old story … you looking at, working on, on the agenda but very little action. A very poor and weak commitment to Cheadle residents. It’s clear to see that the larger Stockport related issues are your priority. It’s about time you either put up or shut up.
Cathy, you are spot on.
No doubt when the Barnes development comes on line, there will be further hand wringing, consultations, meetings, reports etc concerning how the junction can’t cope with the additional traffic
No Cathy – we’ve had lots of achievements for Cheadle and Gatley which we’ve reported on, but we’re also honest with people that some issues can’t be solved overnight, and some issues can’t be solved just by people really wanting them to happen.
There will always be issues we are working on, always be things still to be done. That’s absolutely right. I think people would get pretty bored if our website just reported our achievements over and over again!
The thing is Iain, the LibDems have been going on about the Kingsway Junction for at least 20 years – I know that for a fact as I went to a meeting at Kingsway school about the junction shortly after moving here.
In all that time you have a had further consultations, meeting etc, and all you have done in the last 20 years is make the problem worse with the housing developments you have approved.
To paraphrase Einstein, a sign of madness is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result
Well, that’s not true it is Halifaix. There have been a number of improvements to the junction over the last few years and we’re working on more (as we’ve consistently reported over the last few years).
As for the housing developments, you’ve still never explained how you would override the Government’s planning inspector if you were in my position.
Iain – I am not aware that you have campaigned or refused any of the major developments.
It doesn’t need the Planning Directorate to over rule you if you don’t even oppose them in the first place
Interesting – so you don’t have an answer to the question.
Your ‘improvements’ to the Kingsway junction is akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The junction is worse now than it was 20 years ago (and it was bad then) – so hardly a resounding success.
Except that it takes a lot more traffic than it did 20 years ago – because we’re all driving more.
The answer is simple stop paying a subsidy TFGM for which we the residents of Stockport receive little if any beneficial service. Instead let’s compete by starting Stockport Bourogh Council Bus Company, in doing so we can provide services where we the tax payers and Councillors of Stockport see a need, it work successfully for many years at all councils up and down the country, in this business model and profits are recycled and don’t go to make multi Millionaires (such and the owners of Stagecoach). Please remind all interested parties of the subsidies Stagecoach and other providers presently receive,and yet despite these subsidies they are then allowed to cherry pick what routes and schedules they want to provide, creaming the student routes etc.
I am disturbed that you accept that due to traffic congestion Bus Services won’t run, less buses more traffic this must lead to more congestion and more reductions of bus services this cycle will continue until we don’t have bus services if it is allowed to go on unchallenged.
Roy the answer to that one, the bus companies can, as all bus services are unregulated and can only be regulated by central government.
St. Anne’s Road is an example of unplanned planning. Now we have empty buses further jamming residential roads which were never designed to be commuter routes and car parks (for the adjoining industrial estate) but now are a major “rat route” to the congestion at the Gatley Road junction. When the Tory government frees The Green Belt for the thousands of “planned” house (please do not believe statements – only actions count) there will be reactions by local residents to try to save their community. This used to be England`s Green & Pleasant land!
When it states, boldly, that LibDems ‘challenge TfGM’ – what it really means is that the LibDems have asked them a few questions and then…………well nothing.
Well, since it’s something we’ve been working on and reporting on for eight years, I’m going to say no, that’s complete nonsense Halifaix.
But Iain, what have you achieved in those eight years?
You yourself acknowledge that the bus service has deteriorated in that time – hence your ‘challenge’ to TfGM
Further to my previous response:
Ask the residents these two questions:
1) In the last eight years has traffic congestion in the area got: a) Better or b) Worse
2) In the last eight years has public transport in the area got: a) Better or b) Worse
If the answers to those two questions are (b), then perhaps what you’ve been doing for the last eight years hasn’t been particularly successful. But no doubt you’ll carry on doing it
Ah yes, your belief that Cheadle and Gatley is a closed environment only affected by what the councillors do – nothing at all to do with the Government, residents, the wider area etc. etc. etc. It’s not true, I’m afraid. If – due to things happening totally out of our control – traffic increases and we work really hard, the result of that work is mostly likely limiting the effect of the increase.
On some issues that’s how it is.
The present transport chaos is a direct result of the deregulation demanded by the Thatcher government. This happened nationwide apart from the london area. Thatcher knew that it was a massive vote loser so she excluded the London area from this scheme. London was provided with transport funding that the rest of the country could only dream about. Ken Livingston made major innovations in the Transport arrangements for London because the National Government provided adequate funding and a joined-up system. if Greater Manchester had been financed in this way, almost any political party you could name would have provided us with a transport system to be proud of.
I think that the comment in the letter about the 44, 45 bus service is a bit ‘weak’. I’m not sure of the age demographic, but there is a large elderley population around Heald Green, Gatley, Cheadle. Perhaps if the service alternated between Manchester picadilly, and Stockport as end points it may have been better used. Personally, I only became aware of the 44/45 service a month or so before the service was changed/removed so would seem to be poorly advertised.
Also, propulsion technology is readily available now (eg hybrid, stop-start, electric), such that congestion is not really an issue concerning engineering reliability and emissions. Congestion would only really affect the timetable which could be adapted based on return from experience after a few months.
It’s a bit disappointing that in the UK there does not seem to be the same take up of ‘new’ but established technologies as in other countries eg electric cars and led streetlighting are well established in many parts of the US based on some general journals which I regularly read. I think that connecting issues eg involving electric cars, trams, e-ticketing, stations would become more important in the future, but need support from large companies / government incentives.
I think the lib dem team are doing a good/great job in tabling/pursuing the issues relating to the bus routes eg 44/45 in and around the Gatley area.