A roundabout for the Kingsway junction? Have your say

by Lib Dem team on 28 May, 2018

We finally have the proposals on improving transport across our area. They’ve been drawn up by transport consultants on behalf of Stockport and Cheshire East councils. Now they are consulting on the draft report.

We don’t have detailed, worked-up schemes but this is an important step towards that so we need to get this right.

The consultants are recommending replacing the current crossroads at the Kingsway/Gatley Road junction with a roundabout and we want to know your thoughts.

Please come along to one of the consultation sessions (Cheadle is this Thursday, 4-8 in the Upper Rooms) or have your say in the online consultation (as usual with these things, the free text box at the end is the place to put down your views on the specifics).

A roundabout for the Kingsway junction?

The consultants are replacing the current crossroads with a roundabout, which they say would mean demolishing some of the buildings on the junction to create more space. In common with most large/busy roundabouts, it would be traffic light-controlled to make sure every side got its fair share of time.

The roundabout fits with their other suggestions which should reduce traffic on the A34 and in Cheadle: a new station at Stanley Green (on the Cheadle Hulme line), a new station at Cheadle and a Bus Rapid Transit service along Kingsway into East Didsbury.

We can see some pros and cons with this approach.

The positives are:

  • sorts out the right-turn issue from Cheadle and Gatley
  • gives people less reason to go onto the South Park Road estate to get onto Kingsway northbound, or to do u-turns at Torkington and Delamere. Going round the roundabout should be easier, quicker and safer.
  • Allows people to turn right from Kingsway northbound into Cheadle – taking traffic off the Cheadle Royal roundabout, Schools Hill and Wilmslow Road.
  • costs a lot less than some of the other solutions, which means its more likely to get funding

Our concerns include:

  • what does the modelling show about the capacity of the roundabout? What effect would it have in traffic queues?
  • how big will it have to be – what would need to be demolished?
  • how will cyclists and pedestrians be catered for?
  • which alternatives have been looked at and why have they been rejected?

We are at a very early stage. We’re glad that all our pressure has paid off and, for the first time, a proper solution has been proposed rather than just vague promises. But now we need to make sure that the solution is the right one.

 

   63 Comments

63 Responses

  1. Wendy Hardie says:

    I have major concerns about replacing the crossroads traffic lights with a roundabout.
    – this could cause at busy times of the day the motorway to back up.
    – busy traffic down the Kingsway would mean it would be difficult for anyone else to move once they have started on the roundabout.
    – consider the conjestion that the roundabout causes at the top of Kingsway the sainsburys roundabout. this is major conjestion at busy times of the day and would only get worse by a further roundabout.
    – this would be like putting a roundabout on a motorway.

  2. Natalie Rowe-Eyres says:

    Can guarantee that if a round about goes in, within a few years there will be plans for traffic lights (just how it is now), round about will end up back out and roads back to normal. In my opinion worse descion to put a round about in. It will cause more problems that it’s worth.

  3. John Hartley says:

    As mentioned, a roundabout involves demolition of houses and, probably, the synagogue. That obviously means that other properties – like mine – become adjacent to the road. I might as well try and sell it now and move away – it’ll become nigh impossible to sell afterwards.

    • DR C says:

      Any one who has bought a property within touching distance of Kingsway at any time in the last forty years must have been desperate or in denial!

      • John Hartley says:

        Entitled to your opinion , of course – however offensive I might find it.

        • DR C says:

          Nothing to be offended about…
          Thirty odd years, when my ‘old man’s was looking for a property in Gatley, he saw a picture of a fine one – he then realized where it was (Broadway) and quickly forgot about it!
          Even though it was about half way along the road – it was still too close for comfort! AND as he and many other more expert minds predicted – traffic levels would only go one way = ⬆.
          The congestion, pollution and ‘rat-runs’ have only worsened since!

          • John Hartley says:

            So, when you describe people like me as “desperate or in denial”, you weren’t being offensive? Pull the other one, matey.

  4. Lucas says:

    Previous posters please note: the plan is for a roundabout with traffic lights. If configured properly these will prevent traffic from backing up on the motorway, and give traffic from each direction a chance to get onto the roundabout.

    It feels to me like the least bad option. I hope at the same time pedestrian underpasses can be included so that crossing Kingsway becomes a lot less dangerous.

  5. Gh says:

    Seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

    We are talking at the most 10mins delays in all directions as it is now. Is it really worth it ?

    What does need sorting is bus service from Gatley (possibly via northernden) which goes down the Oxford road corridor without going round the houses as it does now.

    • Chris says:

      So maybe we should wait until the delay is 20 minutes and then lambast the powers that be for not acting sooner?

  6. Dc says:

    Resequence the lights so right turns from Gatley and Cheadle go together and the other traffic is held worth try before any construction

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Unfortunately, that’s been looked at and rejected on safety grounds (the junction is too small for it to operate safety in that way, and where it’s been tried elsewhere it has caused accidents). I make no claims to be a safety engineer or have expertise in this area, but I can understand the authorities refusing to put in a junction that they have good reason to think is going to make the junction less safe.

      • John Hartley says:

        Iain – I have said this before but I will keep saying it until someone produces actual evidence to back it up – but rejecting it on “safety grounds” is a nonsense and defies any logic.

        Firstly, there is plenty of space. It already exists. Vehicles do turn right in that space. No more space is needed. But the nonsense and logic defying comes from anyone suggesting that a right turn controlled by lights is less safe than the present system where there is a dangerous free-for-all.

        As you know, the suggestion that I have made before and that Dc makes now is the one proposal which the “powers that be” failed to model in their last exercise. That failure to model the obvious solution undermines anything they may now say about it. It is only recently that, on your blog entry of 16 April, you noted the failure and said you would push for the modelling to take place.

        This is, as Dc suggests, an obvious and cheap solution without throwing millions at building a roundabout and compensating those who are going to either lose their homes or have their homes blighted.

        • Iain Roberts says:

          Hi John – we did follow that through, but they didn’t model it because they felt there was no point investing money in modelling an option which has been shown to be unsafe elsewhere.

          I’m not a transport engineer, but I will try again to get an explanation of why it’s more dangerous than the current situation.

          (To be absolutely honest, I think it was it explained to me, and it did make sense at the time, but for the life of me I can’t remember what the explanation was, and that’s my bad).

  7. John Allwork says:

    If the work at the Stanley Green roundabout is anything to go by, we’re in for years of chaos while this is built.

  8. John says:

    A roundabout at the Gatley – A34 junction would not work, with or without traffic lights, with the present traffic numbers on the A34.
    I believe that the only way this would work would to include an underpass under the roundabout. Of course, this would be much more expensive and so is unlikely to happen.
    The other option, which others have suggested, is to introduce right-turn filters for the A560 traffic. Also, as others have said, I cannot see why this should be ‘dangerous’, as traffic already does turn right (when they get the chance!). My suspicion is that the authorities are determined not to hold up the A34 traffic even for only a few seconds.
    Call me a cynic, but I think it is unlikely that I shall ever see anything substantial and adventurous at that junction, and I’m a young 66 years old.

  9. Alan says:

    Hmmm

    How about some right turn filters, play around with the lane width/lanes on the Gatley side to minimise cars going straight on blocking those turning left and consolidate the two bus stops (within about 15m of each other) and possible make a dedicated lay-by for buses (and the ever frequent rail replacement buses) that doesn’t impinge on traffic flow.

    Probably cheaper than a roundabout as well.

    Knock the savings off my council tax bill please.

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi Alan – we think we’ve gone about as far as we can with those improvements. We’re not going to get right filters, we’ve made changes to the lane widths. We can look at bus lay-by etc.. The problem is that we can make small improvements but it really needs something bigger. Whether a roundabout will deliver that, I don’t yet know.

  10. Robert Cohen says:

    Is it possible that the “consultants” are a) not local b) not car drivers and c) getting well paid whatever they say without any comebacks?

    I think it is a preposterous idea. The cost to do this – and I’m assuming it would have to be a large roundabout to take the huge juggernauts and buses – would take out numerous residential and other buildings. The compensation cost alone would run into several multiples of millions. And if the same contractors who are working on the bypass are employed, it could take years to complete!

  11. Anthony Berg says:

    On the face of it sounds like a good idea.
    Something needs to be done. The traffic situation at present is intolerable.
    There will need to be further details as to which buildings will need to be demolished.

  12. David Shonfield says:

    There have been plenty of times when queuing to turn right from Cheadle onto Kingsway, there has been relatively little traffic on Kingsway.

    Perhaps having linked dynamic traffic lights at Kingway jct and M60 exit sliproad that adjust according to realtime traffic flow, together with increased capacity on M60 exit slip should improve the situation for Gatley Road users and avoid tailbacks on M60.

  13. DR C says:

    I AND others have said many times before…
    Nothing less than an underpass, preferably, or even a flyover for Kingsway will suffice in the long term.

  14. Chris G says:

    Can someone please advise where the Upper Rooms are. Mamy thanks.

  15. Chris says:

    In my humble opinion, we have yet another ludicrous idea. One that has now reached new heights in the lunacy stakes. As usual, it oppresses those residents that will be directly affected by this ill thought proposal. People’s homes (of many years), established gardens and way of life will be altered for ever. Not easy when one reaches a certain age. If the proposed roundabout is going to be as big as the one at Sainsbury’s, many residents will be affected and will need to be compensated, this would include the Synagogue. I am all for progress but this mindless when other solutions are available if only “outside of the box thinking” was applied. How many times is the Kingsway going to be torn up, widened, yellow lined? It appears previous planners can only look as far as their noses with each proposal. Take the last example of widening Gatley Road in order to accommodate vehicles turning left towards the M60 (northbound). What was that about if a roundabout is now being proposed. If it was not going to ease some of the congestion in the long term why even bother going ahead with widening the road?

    Why is it fair to ease congestion on Schools Hill and surrounding areas (with the proposal of this new roundabout) yet it’s ok to create a maelstrom and disruption for years to come to people in Gatley that would be directly affected. What of the civic amenity such as the Synagogue. What would it cost nowadays, to rebuild the Synagogue in another location? Perhaps I am not aware of the facts and Stockport Council have £millions upon £millions to squander without justification.

    All that has been proposed so far is to solve ONE issue. The rest is a smoke screen of reasons and justifications.

    The issue to be solved is traffic turning right from Cheadle to the M60. Very easy to solve without the disruption being proposed.

    1. The right turn from Cheadle to the M60 should be made into a NO RIGHT TURN
    (This is already in place where there is no right turn into Cheadle from the Kingsway Northbound)

    2. Adequate Signage to be placed in Cheadle forcing drivers that need to be on the M60 to make their way to Junction 2 in Cheadle, rather than making their way onto the A34. The facility already exists. Those drivers that refuse have a choice to wait at the right turn the A34 for however long it takes. Their choice. All it needs is re-education.

    To the planners and any champions of this lunacy, I say: Publish the Business Case/Justification, the Requirements, the Risk, The Impact, CPO and compensation guides so that residents affected are informed.

  16. Ruth Levy says:

    Apologies, can’t attend meeting. Of course there should be filters at the lights for turning north from Cheadle or south from Gatley. Pedestrian lights should be added on the north part. Also add a yellow box for traffic coming out of the South Park Road estate under the bridge so that it is possible to cross to the furthest lane in order to be in the correct lane to go south or turn towards Cheadle. At the moment, the cars just stop blocking this.

  17. Laurence Chernick says:

    Twelve years ago, in June 2006, our then local MP Mark Hunter opened a debate in Parliament by stating “Following the Government’s roads review in 1998, long-held plans for three new road schemes in the south-east Manchester area were reconsidered as part of the Government’s multi-modal study for the north-west region. The three schemes are: the completion of the Manchester airport link road, west; a new Poynton bypass; and an A6 Hazel Grove bypass. The three roads are all interlinked and together make up what is commonly referred to as the south-east Manchester multi-modal study area—SEMMMS—or the A555 relief road.” He went on say, “There are many roads in the Cheadle constituency that simply were not designed to carry the weight of traffic that currently passes over them, which has such a negative impact on the quality of life locally. They include, to name just a few: Finney lane and Wilmslow road in Heald Green; Jackson’s lane, Bramhall lane south and Woodford road in Bramhall; and the A34 at Gatley.”
    Ten years later, in July 2016, our current MP Mary Robinson spoke in Parliament as follows, “One of the most pressing issues for my constituents is indeed the junction of the A34 and the A560 at Gatley. Unfortunately, well-intentioned but small-scale interventions over the past 20 years have not been enough to tackle the problems of this junction and to make it fit for the future.” She went on to agree with Hazel Grove MP William Wragg, who said,” one of the main causes of road congestion in Stockport is the lack of an A6 bypass from Hazel Grove to Bredbury, which would join with the M60.”
    It has long been recognised by the powers that be that the root cause of the traffic problems locally is the sheer volume of traffic using the A34 Kingsway and that fundamental to the solution is the A6 Hazel Grove bypass, which is the link between A6MARR and the M60 at Bredbury. It is an integral and essential part of the transport scheme. I fail to understand why consultants, at this stage, are recommending replacing the current crossroads at the Kingsway/Gatley Road junction with a roundabout, or indeed recommend any other major scheme, without first waiting to see the actual impact of the A6MARR on the A34 traffic volumes once it is finally opened, as well as factoring in the essential final link to the M60 at Bredbury. No amount of money spent on major changes to the Kingsway/Gatley Road (A34/A560) junction will provide any long-term solution to our traffic problems. Only completing the long-delayed section of the A6MARR to the M60 at Bredbury will bring the traffic on the A34 and A560 to more acceptable levels, especially considering the proposed further residential developments along the A34 corridor.
    That’s not to say we shouldn’t be looking at minor improvements to the junction. The right turn from the Cheadle side of Gatley Road onto Kingsway can be problematic at certain times of day, but the proposal of a lights-controlled roundabout can only interfere further with the traffic flow on the A34 and would likely create massive additional problems that don’t exist now. For many years we’ve been told that staggering the lights to create a filter allowing more vehicles to turn right can’t be done, as it would take time away from the north/south Kingsway traffic flow causing the traffic to back up on the A34 excessively. This may or may not be the case, but to now say that it would create a safety issue seems to me to be implausible. This needs to be looked at again, especially the possibility of improving the visibility of oncoming traffic for drivers on the A560 waiting to turn right, which would allow more cars through each time the lights changed. In the meantime, drivers ought to be prepared to put up with the relatively minor inconvenience of delays or find an alternative route. The problems caused by vehicles doing U-turns at the Torkington/Delamere Road junctions and even more dangerously on the A34 itself, as well as the South Park estate cut through, should be dealt with by way of rigorous enforcement of existing traffic regulations.

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi Laurence,

      As far as I know, the line from TfGM and others has always been consistent: to have a right filter one direction at a time would lead to much longer queues, while to have two running at the same time would lead to safety issues. That may or may not be true (I don’t have professional skills as a transport planner or engineer) but it has been consistent.

      We’re open to suggestions on enforcing traffic regulations more rigourously. The Police are the ones with the legal duty and power to enforce them, and they say they just don’t have the resource these days.

  18. Bruce says:

    We need to see what effect the new road has when it opens. As I have said on many occasions new roads engender new journeys.

  19. Rizwan says:

    Iain and Team I have already submitted my views on this proposal to the requisite Facebook post. I am sadly away for the face to face meetings but ask that my views be noted too please.
    They are in line with comments above. I cannot see any benefit for us A560 users and this seems designed to simply further keep the A34 moving at our expense.
    There are 3 lanes on the north bound A34 and traffic manages to simultaneously turn right from Cheadle and left from Gatley when we are able even without filter lights (at red) so safety rationales seem illogical especially when we can properly map it out with the filter lights – as of course we would only be able to turn right at peak times with lights anyway which would make it less flexible than it is now (if that is even possible)

  20. Rizwan says:

    Regarding more rigorous policing – that’s fine IF there are sensible options for these poor commuters. Otherwise it’s like detention every day for not doing your homework but not having been given it to do beyond “homework tonight is so your homework “

  21. Jane says:

    As someone who uses this junction in morning & evening rush hour, I’m interested in how the current volume of traffic will be managed while this was being built. Also, as someone said above, let’s not underestimate the devastating effect this could have on people having their lives turned upside down & being forced out of their own homes.

  22. david dryden says:

    Great to see such passionate responses. It’s a major issue. no matter what or if anything happens it will only get worse before it gets better! Once the Barnes hospital site is fully “open” I dread to think what effect that will have. i have great sympathy for anyone who uses the junction regularly I gave up using it years ago an underpass is the only way to solve this issue long term as our love affair with motor vehicles seems to be increasing year on year.

    • Bruce says:

      David – agree with you regarding the Barnes development as I see this as a potential accident hotspot – in particular with cars turning right into the estate from the north bound lanes and cars exiting right from the estate.

      Travelling north the entrance to the state is over the brow of an incline and I cycle up there regularly and cars are whizzing past me at well over 40.

  23. Ian says:

    Personally, I think the underpass idea is a good one but thinking Logically and being involved in Major Construction works the idea of constructing an underpass on to a live major junction is impossible.

  24. Roy says:

    Stop Take a Breath no further thought should be given to this problem junction until the A555 relief road is open.
    Once this road Finally Opens traffic up and down Kingsway will decrease, we also look at previous traffic improvements (bus lanes A6 etc) have displaced traffic onto the A34 .
    The Council / Government should be pressurising the contractors the finish the A555 link road ASAP,
    These contractors should have personal working 7 days a week until it’s Opened.

  25. Simon says:

    The owners of the Synagogue and corner houses will profit handsomely from this proposal…

  26. Daniel says:

    Unfortunate I cannot attend the meeting on Thursday. Putting it simply, a roundabout is the STUPIDEST idea anyone could think of for this junction. Agree with what others have said. First put MUCH more pressure (enforced fines) on the A555 contractors. Just get the damned thing done!! then let us observe what traffic reductions on A34 MIGHT happen. In addition, the thought that some idiot planner has said that putting in right hand filters is MORE dangerous than the free for all that currently exists. Well to call these people experts redfines the meaning of that word.

  27. John in Gatley says:

    35 responses in just 6 days says a lot about local feeling on this issue. But our replies won’t make the slightest different to what will be decided. It’s probably already been decided.

    Now the solution is a roundabout – Unbelievable. What’s your experience of smooth undelayed traffic flow at roundabouts? What on earth is our council doing giving our money to companies that can only come up with that?

    I used to make a weekly trip from Gatley over to Cheadle but i haven’t been since Christmas purely because of that junction. Getting out of Springfield, Delamere or Torkington Roads to go to Cheadle is virtually impossible, so stressfull. So instead i go somewhere else – westward instead. The A34 is like the Berlin Wall of old – dividing us locally.

    I’m pleased to see some people here suggesting radical ideas – underpasses for example. It needs real vision to make all our lives better around here. I’ll throw in the idea of elevating the A34 from somewhere around Wilmslow/Handforth all the way into Manchester. Just thinking 25+ years ahead what the housing density and the traffic will be like then. Other cities around the world have done similar.

    Does anyone listen to us, really?

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi John – yes we do listen. That’s why we’re asking the questions and why we’re encouraging people to have their say. No decisions have been made yet.

  28. Laurence says:

    This suggestion will have a minor but nevertheless positive effect on safety and traffic flow and would cost almost nothing. At busy times traffic heading towards Cheadle along Gatley Road must stop behind any car trying to turn right into High Grove Road causing traffic to back up, sometimes as far as the Kingsway lights. The width of High Grove Road at its junction with Gatley Road prevents cars turning in whilst another one is waiting to get out. Also, on-coming traffic from Cheadle often blocks the junction. Why not make High Grove Road one-way at its junction with Gatley Road so cars can come out onto Gatley Road but are prevented turning in from Gatley Road? This would complement the arrangement at Chadvil Road which already has this restriction the other way round.

    • Rizwan says:

      Ive suggested the same thing multiple times as a resident of said road but it’s been vetoed by others around due to increasing traffic into the surrounding roads – can’t win.

    • Louise says:

      Completely agree that High Grove Road is a major sticking point. Coming from Cheadle in the morning, drivers try to take turns to let cars out. But cars from Gatley also turning right block the route for cars from Cheadle. So 2 or 3 cars from High Grove turn left reducing the flow of cars from Cheadle. Sometimes, the only way to ensure you can catch your train is to be very assertive.

  29. JB says:

    I agree that no drastic action should be taken until the A555 road to Hazel Grove and the final missing link to Bredbury is completed. What is the timescale for completion of this vital major road improvement?

  30. Harry Bull says:

    Underpass or/and flyover is the only long term solution.
    Are any current decision makers able to take that decision?
    If not, start replacing them until we have a forum able to make that decision.

  31. David Johnson says:

    “Roundabout” is the word that describes itself and every other suggestion to fiddle with subsidiary roads in the locality of the junction! Already local residential roads are blighted with noise & air pollution plus rat-running speeders due to A34 hold-ups. Even if no changes are made at the junction these problems will worsen. In addition the areas to the South will soon be adding severely to traffic density as new housing is being added to open spaces – even if protected by Green Belt regulation. And those houses will add construction traffic and service provision for the new residents. Planning is not only about road/rail/air transport it must be about humanity in general. Tunnelling has been cited as an option and would be the best answer for the junction but the time taken will not solve the current crisis. The only odd option is to divert A34 traffic away from the junction – perhaps by closing rail lines and surfacing them as one-way roads – it seems that may be better than the current rail commuter transport!

  32. David Tussie says:

    I’ve written to our MP couple of times about this junction.Why is this junction different to millions around the world that have filters ? Whats so special about it. a right turn filter northbound from Cheadle for just 10/20 seconds would solve most of the problems. Every time i suggest it, you get the same answer ”safety concerns, Full stop. Its the same as in the old Yes Minister programmes on the BEEB ,where awkward questions had the usual respone”Security concerns dear Boy, Or National Security at stake..
    Why dont we trial a 10/20 second filter for a few months. If thit doesnt work out then we’ll know wont we?

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi David, as I understand it this junction is smaller than ones that meet modern safety standards for right filters operating at the same time. I believe that’s based on actual accident data from other junctions. We did so some trials to see what would happen if even a few seconds was taken off the north/south time and we saw a very quick and significant lengthening of queues, and had to stop it after a few minutes to stop the queues getting too long.

      • John Hartley says:

        Iain

        You wouldnt take the 10 seconds or so off the north/south time but from the east/west. The right filters would be designed to help the east/west flow, without impacting on north/south. If that particular flow is improved, allowing a few more cars to turn, then the general east/west flow will be improved as, at present, the queue to turn right quckly backs up to where it is a single lane, thereby blocking all through and left turn traffic. It is, almost certainly, a major cause of the continued “Gatley crawl”.

        An assertion by the “powers that be” that the junction is too small to support right filters is, frankly, as silly as their assertion that it would be less safe than the current free-for-all. The space exists – cars turn at present. I am not a conspiracy theorist but am starting to wonder what their actual agenda is when their assertions fly in the face of logic and commonsense. As you know, it is the one bit of modelling that they have failed to undertake, without any explanation to the public. Let us at least push them to do this brief and cheap exercise to provide actual evidence one way or the other. Better, let’s push them to actually trial right filters to see what impact it has on overall traffic flow, before any roundabout proposal gets much further.

        Needless to say, we have included these points in our response to the consultation.

  33. Milton resident says:

    Overwhelming response for a right filter light system… we must all be wrong… it’s not safe we are told… so I’ll carry on taking my life and others into my own hands taking the right turn out of Cheadle onto the M60!!
    The cynical side of me says this may have something to do with a large housing building site (Barnes Hospital) whose current options are to take a left out of their site… and give them a nice roundabout to swing back on themselves towards the M60….

    • Iain Roberts says:

      There’s certainly been a real problem for years with vehicles using dangerous or illegal means to get from the A34 southbound to the A34 northbound (e.g. u-turn at the lights, using the South Park Road Estate) which a roundabout would help with.

  34. Caroline A says:

    How can we find out which buildings are earmarked for demolition?

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi Caroline – no buildings are earmarked for demolition at the moment. If they progressed with the roundabout proposal, more detailed plans would have to be worked up and at that stage we’d see what was proposed.

  35. Mike George says:

    Is it a cast of “it’s not broken, so we’ll fix it” syndrome. Concerned on the effect it will have getting out of South Park onto Kingsway if there are no gaps in the flow of traffic. Also, the news Barnes Estate may cause flow problems….

  36. Chris says:

    Hi Ian,

    the message being received from a number of your responses on this matter is loud and clear. Lib Dems are very much in favour of the proposed roundabout at any cost to local residents. Saying “no buildings are earmarked for demolition at the moment” is a cop out and a blatant untruth. This is how any project works:

    – Together with the business case, plans/drawings have to be submitted with costings.
    – Those costings would have included costs for CPOs.

    Projects don’t usually go ahead at any cost, unless it’s different when it comes to spending public money. In my opinion, the information being asked and causing so much concern, is being purposefully withheld. The problem is, this proposal is now in the public domain and thus any properties near to the proposed roundabout have already been blighted. Any chance of promptly selling and moving on, have now been thwarted. Shame on the Lib Dems for showing absolutely no transparency or honesty towards those residents who may be affected. My understanding from various talks with the council is that from the current cross roads, heading north, properties up to Coniston Road will be affected. It stands to reason that the same distance would apply to the South, East and West bound routes of the junction, and on both sides of the road. It would, include some if not all of the Synagogue. The properties that remained would not only be blighted, they would have a roundabout as their back garden. Good Job!!! NOT. but… after all, it’s only politics. Please demonstrate transparency and honesty by providing the information being sought. Which properties are likely to be affected.

  37. Chris G says:

    Hi Ian

    as uncomfortable my previous post is to you, can you please at least make an attempt to reply.

    Many thanks

  38. Mark H says:

    What (if any) are the current problems?
    Is it the accident rate too high compared to other major intersections in a bustling intercity area.
    Is it too much congestion during rush hour.

    Are roundabout magic solutions?
    I have witnessed horrendous accidents on roundabouts due to drivers taking them at speed.
    I have been many times stuck in traffic on the approach to roundabouts due to drivers in front being overly cautious. Especially when most of the traffic is approaching from the junction to my right (thus the one before) and exiting to my left.

    When roundabouts are dual lanes this causes confusion. For example, when taking the second exit, do you use the six o’clock rule. Schools Hill roundabout has this problem.

    I am also against a roundabout for it will make it much more difficult for walkers, cyclists, disabled and blind people with guide dogs whom I have seen numerous times in the mornings walk pass.

    Like other commentators have stated, filters are the best solution. If the road / junction is not wide enough then widen it. Far quicker and cheaper to do so than demolishing peoples houses and a place of worship

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Thanks for the comments Mark. Making the junction larger is certainly one option, though of course that would require demolition of houses in the same way as a roundabout would – though possibly more demolition as you would need to widen the roads approaching the junction too.

      The problems include:
      – general congestion with the junction being too small for the volume of traffic
      – long waits for anyone turning right from Cheadle or Gatley
      – people either making illegal u-turns or going through South Park Road Estate to avoid going round Cheadle Royal roundabout to get from A34 southbound to A34 northbound
      – no access to Cheadle from A34 northbound, so people have to come off at Cheadle Royal and go along Schools Hill/Wilmslow Road
      – access across the junction for pedestrians and cyclists worse than it should be
      – more accidents than we would like

  39. Mark Hoffman says:

    Hi Iain, thank you for the quick reply.

    Congestion should be examined on the whole routes that people take rather than at a certain crossroads. It is no use alleviating traffic at one spot to find it grows in another.

    I fail to understand without seeing the plans, how widening the road slightly will cause more homes to be demolished than constructing a roundabout. Surely a loss of some pavement will suffice?

    Perhaps you could post an artistic impression of the planned roundabout, showing its size and the properties caught in the demolition zone. Otherwise it will be left for fellow commentators to speculate.

    For the families who will lose their homes what support will they receive? What about families whose homes will border the new roundabout? Have you considered the safety risks involved for them when driving in and out?

    • Iain Roberts says:

      Hi Mark,

      First, these are not my plans. They are proposals from the consultants employed by the Council and we’re encouraging residents to comment on them. As you rightly point out, we don’t currently have detailed plans (not that I’ve seen, anyway).

      You are right about considering the whole road network. That’s always the starting point for this sort of exercise.

      You ask about “families who lose their homes”. There are no firm proposals here, but of course this happens everywhere or few new roads or railway lines would ever be built. Councils have Compulsory Purchase powers, and properties are purchased at a fair (independently assessed) market value.

  40. Mark H says:

    Thank you Iain for replying and providing a clearer understanding. Have you visited the local synagogue yet, to discuss matters with their congregation? Many of whom will only walk on Saturdays and other holy days.

  41. Iain Roberts says:

    Hi Mark, a good number of the Yeshurun congregation read this website, get our weekly email and hopefully will be putting in their comments along with everyone else.

    When there are firm plans to discuss, we would need to have detailed conversations with the Synagogue in addition to any other debates.

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>