You Said (Reworded)

We Did

You said these proposals could Increase pollution and congestion.

We have ensured that these proposals aim to encourage more walking, cycling and use of public transport to help reduce car use, to reduce congestion and to lower pollution. The scheme includes junction improvements to benefit all road users. Traffic modelling and analysis have been undertaken at various locations and the results indicate the proposed junction improvements operate within capacity although some operational delays may increase due to the need for vehicles to wait during pedestrian stages where these are not currently present. It is not anticipated that the proposals will increase congestion and they should not have any significant impact on traffic flows.

You said these proposals may decrease the safety of cyclists.

We have increased the safety of cyclists as, the existing cycle lanes on the A6 are signed as being Monday to Friday 7-10 am and 4-7 pm only and do not comply with guidance in LTN 1/20. Where we have removed them, we have replaced them with bus lanes which cyclists can use and which are designed to a width that will require the bus to leave the bus lane to overtake a cyclist.

We have ensured that these proposals include significant investment in the improvement of quiet on-carriageway cycle routes in residential areas and the installation of a number of controlled crossings along busier routes.

You said you are against Vehicle Drop Crossings and would prefer Dutch Kerbs.

We will take into account the preference for Dutch style kerbs while considering acceptable crossfall on footways, existing conditions and the need to maintain access to premises. Ultimately, the layout and kerb types for vehicle drop-crossing arrangements will be determined as part of the detail design.

You said you’re against the proposed one-way on Buckingham Road.

We have omitted Buckingham Rd One-Way from the scheme.

You said that proposals should incorporate more green spaces.

We have, where space allows, provided some additional green spaces. In addition, tree planting has been provided in several other locations. There are also a number of new benches located throughout the scheme extents. Unfortunately, much of the proposed cycle routes are along existing highways where space is limited.

You said the Warwick Road bridge may become too narrow.

We have checked the proposals for vehicle manoeuvrability (vehicle tracking) which are also subject to a Road Safety Audit to check that there is adequate space for vehicle movements in both directions. Further, weight restrictions will restrict the types of vehicles permitted to use the bridge.

You said the speed of vehicles needs to be reduced/controlled.

We are proposing to implement several different measures to help reduce the speed of vehicles, these include traffic calming such as speed humps, raised junction tables and the reduction of corner kerb radii. 20mph speed limits have also been proposed for many residential streets to reduce the speed of vehicles and improve safety for vulnerable road users. These speed limits are proposed to complement the existing and other approved 20mph speed limits within the scheme extents.

You said the proposals are not ambitious enough.

We have, within the available budget and timescale for delivery, made the proposals as ambitious as possible. It will provide new bus lanes, improved junctions, enhanced crossings and upgraded bus stops along the A6 corridor. This is in addition to eastern and western cycle routes connecting the Heatons and Reddish areas to the Town Centre, providing improved pedestrian facilities and off-carriageway and quiet on-carriageway cycling provision.

You said there are not enough cyclists to justify improvements.

We have proposed cycle routes that would use the existing network along with a combination of off-road paths and quiet roads which are already linked to the wider cycle network. The aim is to help encourage people to become more active and make fewer car journeys to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution and to help tackle climate change. Part of this is to make journeys on foot or by bike much easier and more attractive for residents. Consequently, an increased number of cyclists is anticipated.

You said you are against limiting access to Ellesmere Road North.

There are no proposals to limit access to Ellesmere Road North.

You said that signalised crossings need shorter waiting times for pedestrians.

We will take this preference into account although call times for crossings will be considered by the UTC during the detailed design stages.

You said there are not enough improvements for cyclists.

We have proposed two cycling routes to the east and west of the A6 connecting the Heatons and Reddish areas to the Town Centre. There are also improved cycling facilities at a number of junctions on the A6 corridor, providing connections to key locations to the east and west. These proposals include segregated cycleways, shared use facilities, quiet on-carriageway cycle routes and a variety of controlled crossings for cyclists.

You requested for the implementation of cyclops junctions.

We did an in-depth analysis of the possible implementation of Cyclops junctions. Unfortunately, cyclops junctions cannot currently be delivered as part of the Bus Radial (A6 Corridor – Improving Journeys) scheme because either 3rd party land would be required at the junctions, or the junctions would need to be re-designed with considerably reduced capacity.  Unfortunately, the legal and land requirements to provide segregated cycle lanes and ‘CYCLOPS’ type junctions on the A6 would take the project well beyond the March 2027 deadline to build it and would cost a lot more than the money allocated for it.

You said you are against the loss of trees.

We have minimised the loss of trees as much as possible, although the proposals do require some trees to be removed.

The trees along the PROW 162S Bowerfold Lane – Higher Bury Street have been surveyed and assessed and the report indicates that 9 trees can be removed due to poor condition, and another to enable path construction. The trees to be removed are from an overgrown hedge that has not been maintained and the trees are showing signs of decay with potential structural problems. The trees to be removed will be replaced with more suitable species along with a mature native hedge. The 9 trees to be removed from Leegate Road are self-seeded trees which have established themselves on a mound which needs to be removed to enable the construction of a cycle path.  Replacement tree planting will be provided.

You said roads need to be made safer for cyclists.

We have proposed two cycling routes as alternative options to the A6. These routes include traffic calming measures, 20mph speed limits, controlled crossings, shared use facilities and segregated cycleways, which will increase the safety of vulnerable road users.

You said Halesden Road & Ash Grove footway should not be converted to a shared footway/cycleway.

To provide onward connections from the proposed Toucan crossing at Lambs Fold (which provides a link between the eastern cycle route and the A6) it is required that a shared space footway/cycleway on either side be implemented. This will require a short length of footway / cycleway between the junction of Manchester Road / Halesden Rd and the crossing but for the most part, the footway on Halesden Rd will be for pedestrian use only.  We have also omitted the proposed shared space footway/cycleway between Orthes Grove and Ash Grove from the scheme.  On Ash Grove, a new cycleway will be built on what is currently a verge, not a footway.

You said you’re against narrowing of Whitehill Street West at the junction with Manchester Road as this will make it difficult for HGVs turning at the junction heading towards the industrial estate.

We have checked the proposals for vehicle manoeuvrability (vehicle tracking). to confirm that there is adequate space for all vehicle movements at the junction.

You said you’re concerned with the potential loss of parking as this may reduce footfall for local businesses, impacting the viability of traders, particularly around the area of Heaton Chapel village centre.

We have consulted with Local businesses and parking surveys have been undertaken. Comments and results have informed the design. At the Manchester Road / A6 junction a parking bay has had to be removed to provide an additional pedestrian crossing with provision of a loading bay to facilitate servicing of the shops. 

You said you believe that one-way systems are too confusing to be user-friendly.

We have omitted all one-way proposals.

You said you’re against road closures and concerns with additional traffic on Broadstone Hall Road North.

We have omitted the road closure on Carnforth Road from the scheme.

You said the proposed route along Manchester Road is too complicated and does not have enough space for segregated cycling facilities.

This scheme will provide a valuable off-carriageway cycle link connecting quiet streets in Heaton Chapel with those in South Reddish with onward connection via quiet streets to the Town Centre.  We will implement wayfinding signage to prevent confusion to those using the cycle route.

We have used an accurate topographic survey when designing the cycle routes, ensuring there is adequate space for the proposals.

You said that the Eastern cycle route may be too indirect.

We have proposed the parallel cycle routes to offer alternative routes between residential areas of the Heatons and the Town Centre. They provide a north-south link and connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities. From the Northern end of the Eastern cycle route at Nelstrop Rd to the Southern end at Tiviot Dale, the route distance is approx. 3.3km.  Between these two locations the distance is similar via the A6. 

You said the western cycle route is too indirect.

We have proposed the parallel cycle routes to offer alternative routes between residential areas of the Heatons and the Town Centre. They provide a north-south link and connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities. From the Northern end of the route at the junction of Buckingham Road / Peel Moat Road the distance to Mersey Square is similar (2.9km) via the Western cycle route or via the A6.

You said cyclists should have priority on the roundabout.

We have revised the drawings to show both Tiger crossings and Sparrow crossings. Cyclists and pedestrians have priority on Tiger crossings. At Sparrow crossings, the cyclist detection equipment can be used to detect and change signals for approaching cyclists.

You said Warwick Road bridge should be made one way to allow for footway improvements.

We have checked the proposals for vehicle manoeuvrability (vehicle tracking) which are also subject to a Road Safety Audit to check that there is adequate space for vehicle movements in both directions. Further, weight restrictions will restrict the types of vehicles permitted to use the bridge.

You said you are concerned for the safety of cyclists.

The proposals include extensive measures to make cycling safer including lower speed limits on residential streets, traffic calming, off carriageway cycle facilities and a number of new crossings. We will also subject the proposals to a road safety audit.

You said speeding traffic needs to be controlled / slowed.

We have proposed several different measures to help reduce the speed of vehicles. These include traffic calming such as speed humps, raised junction tables and the reduction of corner kerb radii. 20mph speed limits have also been proposed for many residential streets to reduce the speed of vehicles and improve safety for vulnerable road users. These speed limits are proposed to complement the existing and other approved 20mph speed limits within the scheme extents.

You said priority at the Parsonage Road junction with Heaton Road should be reverted to older layout.

We have revised the scheme to include a raised junction table to help reduce the speed of vehicles on the approach to the junction and make the need for vehicles exiting Parsonage Road to give way clearer.

You said the bus stop relocation at Heaton Road junction with Ashburn Road can cause blind spots for drivers driving on Parsonage Road and vice versa south to Heaton Road junction with Parsonage Road.

We have revised the scheme, and the bus stop will now be retained in its existing location.

You said signage warning of cyclists is required on Bridges.

We will implement a signage strategy as the design is developed in more detail.

You said you’re against signalised junction on Heaton Road / Ashburn Road / Alexandra Road.

We have revised the scheme, and the proposed signal junction has been omitted and replaced with a priority junction, including a raised table and uncontrolled pedestrian dropped crossings.

You said pavement parking needs to be stopped.

We have proposed bollards at some specific key locations throughout the scheme extents, to prevent pavement parking. Unfortunately, if there are no physical measures preventing pavement parking and there are no parking restrictions in place (i.e. a double or single yellow line); then Stockport Council does not have the powers to enforce, irrespective of whether the vehicle is parked on or off the pavement. In this case, if the vehicles are considered to be parked in a dangerous position and causing safety issues for other road users this should be reported to the Police. This is then at the discretion of the Police to decide whether a vehicle is deemed to be parked in a dangerous position and causing an obstruction.

You said that proposals are seemingly prioritising cyclists over motorists.

Our objective for this scheme is to encourage more walking, cycling and use of public transport to help reduce car use, to reduce congestion and to lower pollution. In some instances, this will involve reallocating road space currently used by motor vehicles to cyclists.  Where this happens account will be taken of the needs of motor traffic, for example, to ensure that HGV’s can still safely complete manoeuvres at junctions and that essential loading requirements are accounted for.

You requested 20mph be implemented on Mauldeth Road.

Mauldeth Road at its closest is approx. 1.4km from the A6 and as such traffic management measures on Mauldeth Road are beyond the scope of the project.

You requested for a 24hr Bus Lane.

We are unable to change the hours of operation of the bus lanes currently as it is outside the scope of the consultation. Also, any alteration to the current restrictions would need to be considered for the whole route (Stockport and Manchester) at a GM level and would be subject to further consultation and legal process.

You said you’re against shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces.

We have proposed shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces where segregated cycle paths cannot be provided due to limited space. The extents of such shared space are kept to the minimum needed to serve, for example, a Toucan crossing.

You said bus lanes should not be extended.

We have proposed bus lane extensions as they will connect the existing bus lanes to help improve bus journeys by:

• Helping to increase the number of people travelling by bus and thus reducing the amount of car journeys and encouraging more active travel.
• Helping to improve bus journey times on the A6 between Manchester and Stockport.
• Helping to improve the reliability of buses on the A6 between Manchester and Stockport.
• Helping to improve connections with other modes of transport by improving the reliability and bus journey times.

You said the A6 should be made more pedestrian / cycle friendly.

Proposals for this scheme include: 

• Raised tables at junctions with side roads, including footway improvements and uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.
• Widened footways
• Puffin crossings for pedestrians.
• Toucan crossings with shared use cycle/footways.
• Local segregated cycleways.
• Wayfinding signage.

We have also proposed two alternative cycling routes which use the existing network and are designed to provide a safer route by avoiding busy main roads where possible, whilst still trying to have a comparatively direct route. The proposed routes also provide connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities.

You said you think that cyclists may not use the proposed cycle routes.

We have proposed two alternative cycling routes which use the existing network and are designed to provide a safer route by avoiding busy main roads where possible, whilst still trying to have a comparatively direct route. The proposed routes also provide connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities.  The scheme will be subject to activation measures when completed and future usage will be monitored.

You said all roads leading off the A6 should be one-way.

One way streets increase vehicle mileage and can increase vehicle speeds on local streets, hence they are only used were considered essential.  We are not currently proposing to introduce new one-way roads off the A6.

You said you’re against the potential loss of parking.

We are conscious of the need to maintain parking where it can safely be accommodated without detriment to safety, operation, and the needs of vulnerable road users. We have sought to maintain that balance but, in some locations, on-street parking provisions will be removed.  Where this occurs, it will be minimised to that necessary to achieve the aims and objectives of the project.

GM Transport Policy places the needs of pedestrians and cyclists above the need to provide for the parking of private motor vehicles.

You said the Glenfield Road Traffic signals are unnecessary.

We have proposed this crossing to serve pedestrians and cyclists crossing Warwick Rd or Glenfield Rd at the junction itself. The current crossing on the A6 south of the junction is not as direct or convenient for this purpose.

We have carried out a survey and the requirement for a signalised junction with shared pedestrian and cycling facilities has been assessed and the proposal is deemed suitable. The signals will also help vehicles access the A6 from the side roads.

You said you’re against cyclists being encouraged to use Leegate Road.

Currently, Leegate Road is accessible to cyclists and helps connect to the existing network. We are proposing to use the existing network along with a combination of off-road paths and quiet roads which are already linked to the wider cycle network, to create an alternate route to using the A6.

Our aim is to help encourage people to become more active and make fewer car journeys to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution and to help tackle climate change. Part of this is to make it easier and more attractive for residents to make journeys on foot or by bike.

You requested for maintenance on Leegate Road.

We have proposed to improve the existing surface of Leegate Road, subject to agreement with the landowners (as it is a private road).

You said you’re against raised junction tables.

We have proposed raised junction tables to benefit all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. We have found raised junction tables work well as a traffic calming measure to help reduce the speed of traffic as well as improving pedestrian crossings.

You said opening up the gateway between the adopted and unadopted parts of Leegate Road could allow access for motorcyclists.

We have not proposed any access controls other than bollards at 1.5m spacing as those that prevent motorcycle use also prevent access for mobility aids such as disability scooters.

You said the western cycle route should go through Heaton Moor Golf Course.

We have considered adapting the existing PROW for pedestrians which crosses the course for cycle use but there were safety concerns associated with a cycle path on the same route. As Heaton Moor Golf Club is privately owned, any proposals are subject to agreement with the landowner.

You said you’re against cycle route along St James Road.

The cycle markings have been omitted from the scheme.

You said the contra-flow cycle lane needs physical segregation.

Physical segregation at the entrance to the road will be considered when the scheme is subjected to detailed design. Signage and road markings will also be used to inform both drivers and cyclists. Where we propose this, there will also generally be proposals to introduce a 20mph speed limit.

You said you’re against changing the priority of traffic on Broomfield Road / Warwick Road.

We have revised the proposed cycle route and the change in priority has been omitted.

You said that you’re concerned about the safety of the public in shared spaces.

In the past, we have schemes involving shared spaces that have proved safe in operation and the future schemes will be subject to a Road Safety Audit and will be monitored in case any safety issues arise. We are only proposing shared spaces where segregated cycle paths cannot be provided due to limited space.

You said you’re against the crossing on Heaton Moor Road / Peel Moat Road / Broomfield Road.

This signal junction is part of a previously approved scheme that will be implemented in 2025.

You requested no access to motor traffic on Warwick Road.

It is not necessary to close off access to motor traffic on Warwick Road, to support this scheme. We have instead proposed a 3.5-tonne weight limit to facilitate the widening of the footways over the railway bridge.

Any scheme to close Warwick Rd completely to traffic would require separate consultation/approval processes.

You said there is no need for a cycle route down Heaton Road as no one cycles that way.

We have found that Heaton Road is currently used by cyclists. Part of our proposals contain a section of Heaton Road which forms part of the western cycle route, to provide an alternative route to the A6, designed to provide a safer journey by avoiding busy main roads where possible, whilst still providing comparatively direct route. The proposed route also provides connections to local schools, residential areas, and other local amenities.

You requested we add double yellow lines near the greenspace at Heaton Road / Parsonage Road junction.

Parking restrictions (No Waiting At Any Time [NWAAT] / double yellow lines) were not included in the consultation. Any proposed parking restrictions will be subject to an additional consultation process at a later date. NWAAT Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) at this location will be considered.

You asked for segregated cycle lanes running down the A6.

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide segregated cycle lanes running down the A6 as:

1) The project is primarily aimed at the improvement of bus services and facilities on the A6.  As such removal of the current bus lanes to provide segregated cycle facilities was not feasible.

2) Between Crossley Road and Manchester Road, the road corridor is too narrow.

3)Between Manchester Road and Heaton Road the corridor is wider.  However, at busy junctions where a right turn lane is required, at bus stops and in locations where parking is allowed, third-party land would need to be acquired to allow for the provision of a segregated cycleway, which is beyond the scope of this scheme. 

4) A single two-way cycle track was considered but was ultimately deemed unsafe due to possible conflicts at junctions.

5) At signal junctions, provisions would need to be made for ‘CYCLOPS’ type arrangements.  These have been investigated but, in all cases, would need land beyond the Highway boundary to provide them, which is beyond the scope of this scheme.

For the above reasons, the provision of segregated cycleways along the A6 is beyond the budget or timetable. Scheme development, approval, TRO and CPO processes would take the scheme well beyond the March 2027 deadline for completion and the budget would need to be increased to accommodate more changes to kerb lines, statutory undertakers apparatus diversions and land acquisition.