It's all in the 88-page Atkins Report, GM, but it takes some reading, and I don't envy our hard-working councillors having to digest it in time for tomorrow's meeting...... 
Good to have a well considered and informative post
@Dave The WalkRide Marple Group has given me permission to post their comments on this as follows:WalkRide Marple - comments on Marple Transport Study briefing WalkRide Marple is a group of local people covering in wider Marple area including Marple Bridge, High Lane, Compstall, Mellor and other communities formed in 2019 to promote the health, environment and economic benefits of walking and riding in all its forms including scooters, cycling and horse riding. We are non-party political.
We were pleased to be briefed on the Marple Transport Study in November 2021. We appreciate the amount of effort that has gone into the study. We have comments on the specific options, but first would like to raise some points of principle. We must be clear on the issues, aims and objectives before choosing how to solve them.
We still have not been allowed to see the Mini Holland grant application for Marple to know what area wide mitigation is proposed that would impact the design of the Marple centre scheme.
General principles
Firstly, the study has been carried out with too general objectives and has then tried to fit in all the traffic plus assumed ‘required’ features (such as two-way cycle lane on Stockport Road), rather than an analyse the function of various roads, followed by a placemaking exercise to make sure the public realm created meets those needs (including of course the need for servicing, the need for people to move in vehicles, and to park). As a result, the options are
heavily engineered (and expensive) and
fail to provide the placemaking required to make Marple a good place for people, or for business. Methodology and results are significantly inferior to comparable schemes in Greater London.
Secondly, we are
not convinced that a two-way cycle lane on Stockport Road is needed, desirable or feasible for a range of reasons:
- The most pressing need is to improve conditions for pedestrians and for businesses along Stockport Road. While a cycle lane is desirable, this should not be at the expense of other objectives such as public realm improvements or pedestrian movement.
- The proposed cycle lane doesn’t link to other cycle routes – the more pressing need for cycle facilities is, for instance a direct route along Stockport Road to Marple Hall School.
- A cycle route along Stockport Road is not needed if traffic is slow moving, predictable, and courteous. (We do appreciate this road is above the LTN1/20 levels of 3-4,000 vehicles).
- Generally cycle lanes are not provided in comparable best-practice situations in London (such as Waltham Forest)
- The cycle lane occupies space that could be used for public realm improvement to the benefit of Marple economy and quality of life.
- It is not clear if the gyratory option gives Station Road and Hollins Lane two-way cycle lanes – probably not, in which case overall cycling may become less convenient and safe by reducing cycling options overall.
- The gyratory would make public transport less convenient and would increase car mileage.
- It may be difficult to build a consensus that a gyratory is right for Marple given their track record of becoming racetracks elsewhere, and the perception that it was ‘only to provide a cycle lane’.
We do not think a gyratory could create decent conditions for people or business in Marple - we do not know of, and so far no-one has suggested a single example in the UK where this had been achieved. We would like to keep an open mind, but think it is unlikely it could work.
Thirdly, the active/low traffic neighbourhood elements of any scheme - essentially reducing through-traffic on residential streets including Church Lane and Cross Lane using modal filters - needs to be a high priority and not forgotten amongst the other discussions. Ensuring cars stick to the main roads is essential in the age of Google Maps which routes vehicles along side streets. There is also more that can be done on this in the 'do-minimum' in the short term.
Fourthly, we think that more consideration needs to be given to people with various mobility difficulties. Creation of an inevitably fast moving gyratory, plus a large amount of extra engineering may make it much more difficult overall for people not in cars to move around.
Fifthly, it is hard to comment in detail until we have sight of the report (and the Mini-Holland bid) – we do not wish to comment on detailed layouts until we get the fundamentals right.
Sixthly, the proposals do not appear to take account of the new Pool/Library and the need for sustainable access.
Lastly, the proposals are engineering-led and permanent. For instance, we think there is an opportunity for off -peak or weekend access restrictions to the town centre section of Stockport Road. This could create an attractive place for walking, cycling, accessing public transport and people socialising, without creating peak hour congestion. It could be done on a trial basis and adjusted as needed. The Council only seems to think in terms of expensive, engineering.
Initial general queries - Option 3 states ‘segregated cycleway Stockport Road, Station Road and Hollins Lane’ – but active travel proposals plan only shows cycle track on Stockport Road?
- Active travel proposals plan states ‘two-way cycle track memorial park to Bowden Lane’ but not clear on Option 3 plan that it is two-way, or includes Bowden Lane to Texaco and Hollins junction to Memorial Park?
- Are the cycle tracks for Station Road and Hollins Lane two-way, or just ‘with traffic’ or contraflow? (This is implied by the legend on ‘Option 3: Gyratory Concept’)
- Which movements are possible now by cycle will not be possible in future?
- Was the Phil Jones sketch considered by Atkins/SMBC? This was provided several times.
- Do the gyratory (and other sketch schemes) conform to LTN01/20?
- Is the speed limit in the gyratory 20mph and how far will this be extended? Is enforcement intended to be solely passive (road layout, tables, etc.,) or active?
- Is a crossing planned at Marple Station (as well as at canal/Station Road)?
- Do the overall proposals extend the 20mph area in line with the recent Council resolution?
- Is the Hollins (area outside Greggs/Costa) extended? This would be an important placemaking initiative to make a Marple town square.
- One of the key desire line crossing points is Stockport Road between Hollins junction and Library access Road – more people cross here than use the lights. Isn’t included?
- Assuming the Library/pool are rebuilt in Memorial Park, there will be much more traffic accessing Memorial Park Drive – has this been accounted for in the design?
Detailed comments We do not want to make detailed comments until we can see the main report, however one point we wish to make is that the MACAWs option just feels like an over-engineered extension of the do-minimum option - just a few buildouts and crossings, which won’t be enough to tempt people out of their cars. It doesn't do anything for the significant issues on Church Lane. And it proposes some odd new signalised junctions that may not be justified.
We think the next stage of the study needs to be much more about place-making, urban realm, and pedestrian improvements (probably revisiting the PJA proposals). If a good cycle network can be mapped out that doesn’t involve/require protected cycle lanes on the main road, but perhaps uses a filtered Church Lane for example and good crossings over a street scape/urban realm/pedestrian scheme on the town centre corridors, then this may emerge as the strongest option.
End of note.
(Last updated 10/1/22)
