Further Information on A580 Bus Lanes
Dear Transport for Greater Manchester,
I refer to your response to to my last request. Your response ref: 8000039906
1) The traffic modelling exercise carried out by Mott MacDonald showed that there would be no detrimental impact on general traffic on the A580. This differs greatly from what is actually happening. Did TFGM take steps to ensure that the modelling exercise was impartial and accurate. What steps did TFGM take? Was the modelling exercise verified by a third party? What are the reasons for the large discrepancies between the modelling and actual reality.
2) In point 3 of your reply, you say that the East Lancs Road is one of the most congested routes in Greater Manchester. Did the study show that the entire route was congested or just particular sections of the route? Did the study show that a bus lane is required along the entire route in both directions or just along congested sections?:
3) The documents provided do not appear to show a 'process' or 'rationale' for deciding where bus lanes were needed and what changes to junctions were needed. Was the modelling exercise used to decide where the bus lanes would be and what changes to junctions were needed? The 2002 Mott MacDonald report seems to show that the designs were already decided before the modelling exercise was carried out. Was this the case? Were other options considered? If so, what were the other options?
4) Why was the design for Worsley Road junction constrained by the existing highway? Why was widening not considered here, given that this junction, as you say, has historically been busy and has always been the bottleneck? Was the construction of additional lanes and/or refuge islands actually considered as an option as part of the study?
5) Did TFGM consider any crime statistics in or around the subways in the area before discounting the provision of pedestrian crossings at this junction? Did TFGM contact actual users of the subways from surveys or otherwise to ask whether they preferred refurbished subways or pedestrian crossings? Were the nearby schools consulted over this issue?
6) Has the refurbishment programme in the subway increased safety for users of the subway or is the refurbishment merely cosmetic? Has TFGM established whether pedestrians feel safer after the refurbishment program?
7) The reports provided show that the traffic modelling exercise was carried out 14 years ago. Did TFGM consider updating the exercise before starting construction to take into account any changes that have happened in the last 14 years? If not, why not?
Yours faithfully,
David Law
Dear Mr Law
We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 7 March 2016.
As we advised in our previous response, your questions do not constitute a
valid request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(“FOIA”) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIRs”).
Please see below guidance for local authorities from the Information
Commissioners website:
What is an information request?
It is very important to draw a distinction between requests and routine
correspondence. Requests for information that can be provided without any
question – such as recruitment brochures, leaflets, press releases and the
text of public speeches – should be treated as business as usual.
Requests which are not for recorded information, but instead ask
questions, such as ‘please explain your policy on x’ or ‘please explain
your decision to do y’ are not requests for recorded information and
therefore should be treated as routine correspondence.
Your request has therefore been passed to the Bus Priority team to be
dealt with as routine correspondence and you should hear from them
shortly.
Regards.
Melissa Ivinson
Senior Paralegal
Transport for Greater Manchester
2 Piccadilly Place, Manchester M1 3BG
Direct line 0161 244 1117, Extension 701117
Office fax 0161 244 1304
[1]www.tfgm.com
Please consider the environment before printing.
From: [email address] [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 07 March 2016 11:00
To: Melissa Ivinson
Subject: FW: Freedom of Information request - Further Information on A580
Bus Lanes
Original Text
From: [2][FOI #320459 email]
<[3][FOI #320459 email]>
To: [4][TfGM request email] <[5][TfGM request email]>
CC:
Sent: 06.03.16 17:27:54
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Further Information on A580 Bus
Lanes
Dear Transport for Greater Manchester,
I refer to your response to to my last request. Your response ref:
8000039906
1) The traffic modelling exercise carried out by Mott MacDonald
showed that there would be no detrimental impact on general traffic
on the A580. This differs greatly from what is actually happening.
Did TFGM take steps to ensure that the modelling exercise was
impartial and accurate. What steps did TFGM take? Was the modelling
exercise verified by a third party? What are the reasons for the
large discrepancies between the modelling and actual reality.
2) In point 3 of your reply, you say that the East Lancs Road is
one of the most congested routes in Greater Manchester. Did the
study show that the entire route was congested or just particular
sections of the route? Did the study show that a bus lane is
required along the entire route in both directions or just along
congested sections?:
3) The documents provided do not appear to show a 'process' or
'rationale' for deciding where bus lanes were needed and what
changes to junctions were needed. Was the modelling exercise used
to decide where the bus lanes would be and what changes to
junctions were needed? The 2002 Mott MacDonald report seems to show
that the designs were already decided before the modelling exercise
was carried out. Was this the case? Were other options considered?
If so, what were the other options?
4) Why was the design for Worsley Road junction constrained by the
existing highway? Why was widening not considered here, given that
this junction, as you say, has historically been busy and has
always been the bottleneck? Was the construction of additional
lanes and/or refuge islands actually considered as an option as
part of the study?
5) Did TFGM consider any crime statistics in or around the subways
in the area before discounting the provision of pedestrian
crossings at this junction? Did TFGM contact actual users of the
subways from surveys or otherwise to ask whether they preferred
refurbished subways or pedestrian crossings? Were the nearby
schools consulted over this issue?
6) Has the refurbishment programme in the subway increased safety
for users of the subway or is the refurbishment merely cosmetic?
Has TFGM established whether pedestrians feel safer after the
refurbishment program?
7) The reports provided show that the traffic modelling exercise
was carried out 14 years ago. Did TFGM consider updating the
exercise before starting construction to take into account any
changes that have happened in the last 14 years? If not, why not?
Yours faithfully,
David Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[6][FOI #320459 email]
Is [7][TfGM request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Transport for Greater Manchester? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[9]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read
the latest advice from the ICO:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
Dear Mr Law,
Further to the email below from our Legal team, this email is to
acknowledge that your email has been received by the relevant team and
that we will provide a full response to your enquiry as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Anna Atkinson
Communications Officer
From: Melissa Ivinson
Sent: 14 March 2016 12:25
To: '[FOI #320459 email]'
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request - Further Information on A580
Bus Lanes
Dear Mr Law
We acknowledge receipt of your email dated 7 March 2016.
As we advised in our previous response, your questions do not constitute a
valid request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(“FOIA”) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIRs”).
Please see below guidance for local authorities from the Information
Commissioners website:
What is an information request?
It is very important to draw a distinction between requests and routine
correspondence. Requests for information that can be provided without any
question – such as recruitment brochures, leaflets, press releases and the
text of public speeches – should be treated as business as usual.
Requests which are not for recorded information, but instead ask
questions, such as ‘please explain your policy on x’ or ‘please explain
your decision to do y’ are not requests for recorded information and
therefore should be treated as routine correspondence.
Your request has therefore been passed to the Bus Priority team to be
dealt with as routine correspondence and you should hear from them
shortly.
Regards.
Melissa Ivinson
Senior Paralegal
Transport for Greater Manchester
2 Piccadilly Place, Manchester M1 3BG
Direct line 0161 244 1117, Extension 701117
Office fax 0161 244 1304
[1]www.tfgm.com
Please consider the environment before printing.
From: [2][email address] [[3]mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 07 March 2016 11:00
To: Melissa Ivinson
Subject: FW: Freedom of Information request - Further Information on A580
Bus Lanes
Original Text
From: [4][FOI #320459 email]
<[5][FOI #320459 email]>
To: [6][TfGM request email] <[7][TfGM request email]>
CC:
Sent: 06.03.16 17:27:54
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Further Information on A580 Bus
Lanes
Dear Transport for Greater Manchester,
I refer to your response to to my last request. Your response ref:
8000039906
1) The traffic modelling exercise carried out by Mott MacDonald
showed that there would be no detrimental impact on general traffic
on the A580. This differs greatly from what is actually happening.
Did TFGM take steps to ensure that the modelling exercise was
impartial and accurate. What steps did TFGM take? Was the modelling
exercise verified by a third party? What are the reasons for the
large discrepancies between the modelling and actual reality.
2) In point 3 of your reply, you say that the East Lancs Road is
one of the most congested routes in Greater Manchester. Did the
study show that the entire route was congested or just particular
sections of the route? Did the study show that a bus lane is
required along the entire route in both directions or just along
congested sections?:
3) The documents provided do not appear to show a 'process' or
'rationale' for deciding where bus lanes were needed and what
changes to junctions were needed. Was the modelling exercise used
to decide where the bus lanes would be and what changes to
junctions were needed? The 2002 Mott MacDonald report seems to show
that the designs were already decided before the modelling exercise
was carried out. Was this the case? Were other options considered?
If so, what were the other options?
4) Why was the design for Worsley Road junction constrained by the
existing highway? Why was widening not considered here, given that
this junction, as you say, has historically been busy and has
always been the bottleneck? Was the construction of additional
lanes and/or refuge islands actually considered as an option as
part of the study?
5) Did TFGM consider any crime statistics in or around the subways
in the area before discounting the provision of pedestrian
crossings at this junction? Did TFGM contact actual users of the
subways from surveys or otherwise to ask whether they preferred
refurbished subways or pedestrian crossings? Were the nearby
schools consulted over this issue?
6) Has the refurbishment programme in the subway increased safety
for users of the subway or is the refurbishment merely cosmetic?
Has TFGM established whether pedestrians feel safer after the
refurbishment program?
7) The reports provided show that the traffic modelling exercise
was carried out 14 years ago. Did TFGM consider updating the
exercise before starting construction to take into account any
changes that have happened in the last 14 years? If not, why not?
Yours faithfully,
David Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #320459 email]
Is [9][TfGM request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Transport for Greater Manchester? If so, please contact
us using this form:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read
the latest advice from the ICO:
[12]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...
If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Tom Wilson left an annotation ()
Dear Mr. Law
Your questions re the modelling of the impact of the bus priority measures are well founded. I was an active witness at the Public Inquiry in 2002 and my evidence contained queue length predictions based on observation and photograhic support. I believe I proved beyond doubt that the modelling was flawed and that there would be additional congestion particularly between Walkden Road and Worsley Road due to the additional traffic lights at Old Clough Lane and around the M60 flyover together with the loss of the inside lane between Moorside and Worsley Roads.
My submission was rejected byTfGM on the grounds that in 2002 there was extra traffic on the A580 in Worsley and Swinton ' due to the restrictions on the M6 as a result of the Thelwall viaduct bridge widening near Warrington'. Unfortunately the Inspector believed this nonsense.
Of course we must wait for the new bus services to become operational to judge whether the current problems continue. In my opinion the projected increase in bus traffic, along a route with very little adjacent housing, will not materialise and the whole scheme will turn out to be a very costly white elephant.
TfGM have refused to reveal the actual cost of the scheme in response to my Freedom of Information request because it would be 'against the public interest'. I suspect they dare not make this information public.
We must keep plugging away.
Regards
Tom Wilson
tawcrom@yahoo.com