I don’t suppose that I need to remind anyone who lives locally of the recent fight to save Hardy Farm (part of Chorlton Meadows) from a massive sporting complex which would have completely altered the character of this well-loved green space and quite probably have severely damaged its biodiversity? If it weren’t for the fact that the whole community pulled together and opposed this scheme, and were supported in their opposition by all of the local politicians, we would now be saddled with an astro-turf pitch, an ‘all-weather’ pitch and twelve 49 ft floodlights and their attendant light pollution. And no doubt we would also be putting up with lots of swearing, litter and local streets choked with cars and coaches – all of which, unfortunately, seem to go with football these days.
But all of this pales into insignificance compared to the havoc that will be wrought on the whole area if Metrolink is driven through. An article in the South Manchester Reporter last year (May 14, 2009) emphasised that this was a real possibility (as opposed to the talk and rumours that had been flying around for years). The front page article was headlined:
“Two tram lines: No congestion charge”
and stated that:
“Two new Metrolink lines are to be created in south Manchester. The tracks, which will link Chorlton with Didsbury and Withington, as well as Manchester Airport, are part of a £1.4 billion transport bonanza across Greater Manchester.
The package will be brought in without the need for a congestion charge and will finally see the completion of the Big Bang of the Metrolink network.”
Much of the rest of the article appeared to be about various local politicians congratulating themselves on achieving this coup (although, if they achieved it that easily, why did we need the congestion charge?).
Last month (March 11, 2010) another article appeared in the same paper. This time the headline was:
“Trams Cash Is ‘Biggest Boost For A Century’”.
The article went on:
“A funding package for trams to run through south Manchester has been confirmed this week. It’s worth £111m and is being described as the biggest single investment in public transport for hundreds (sic) of years. The package includes £85m for the Chorlton to Didsbury line and £26m for the Manchester Airport spur.” The same article also contains the following ominous paragraph: “Work on the Manchester Airport spur is due to start immediately.” And, yes, I’m as puzzled as you are as to why the Airport spur will cost less than a third of the amount that the ‘Chorlton to Didsbury’ (actually it’s Old Trafford to Didsbury) link will cost – as surely the Airport spur will require major infra-structure works – such as a bridge across the Mersey?
Anyway, I suppose, on balance, the Metrolink is a good thing (although anyone who uses the existing lines at rush hour may not agree with me!). In addition the links between Old Trafford, through Chorlton to Didsbury are being constructed on existing old railway lines. Sadly, though, these old lines had become rich in wildlife since they were abandoned, and much of this has now been lost – at a time when we can’t afford to lose much more wildlife. Nevertheless, as an ardent conservationist and environmentalist it is hard for me to argue against improvements to the local public transport network.
But the line across the Mersey Valley to Wythenshawe and the Airport is a very different matter. To build this new line will require massive and intrusive engineering works which will completely change the character of this central part of the Valley and the surrounding area. Let’s look at some of the implications behind this scheme – although, in the absence of detailed plans, there are more questions than answers. Much of what follows is semi-speculative, but is based on vague maps published with the literature on the TIFF bid (Consultation Brochure, 2008) and even vaguer maps published in local newspapers.
Somewhere around the Hough End area a spur will branch off the Old Trafford to Didsbury line and go down the centre of Mauldeth Road West. Anyone who knows this road will know that it is blessed with dozens of fine, mature trees – but, presumably all of these will need to be felled. It will then cross Barlow Moor Road and proceed down Hardy Lane. It is then supposed to cross the area known as Lower Hardy Farm (that area of semi-mature woodland between Hardy Farm and Chorlton Golf Course). This will represent a really major loss of biodiversity; Lower Hardy Farm is one of the richest areas in the central Mersey Valley and a Site of Biological Importance. Then a bridge across the river will be required and this will need to be a substantial structure. On the other side of the river the line is supposed to proceed on to Sale Water Park. But the burning question is: where will the crossing be, exactly? One possibility is Sale Golf Course – but this is unlikely – golfers tend to be influential people and won’t take kindly to the prospect of losing a chunk of their playground. So, the most likely crossing point is Jackson’s Boat and Rifle Road. And this will be a major tragedy: the footbridge and the Pub are in many ways the focal point for the Mersey Valley and the Metrolink threatens to remove that focus. Next to the pub is a fine grove of beech and sycamore trees and these will be threatened, as will the mature trees along Rifle Road. At Sale Water Park a Park & Ride car park and station are indicated, which implies more loss of open space and more disturbance. According to last year’s Reporter article the line then turns south east, running parallel to the motorway, before eventually crossing it into Northern Moor. According to the TIFF bid literature it then takes a somewhat circuitous route to Wythenshawe centre and the Airport.
I think that there’s no doubt that this is all to do with airport expansion. An article in the Manchester Evening News last month (March 8, 2010) informed us that:
“Manchester Airport will double the number of flights it handles and become as busy as Heathrow is today, the government has predicted.
According to the official forecast, there will be 449,000 take offs and landings at Manchester by 2050 – up from 213,000 in 2005.
It would mean a flight taking off on average every 70 seconds.”
In that light the Metro seems a lot less environmentally friendly, doesn’t it? Although no doubt the Council is eager to boost its ‘green credentials’ by claiming that, at least, transport to and from the airport is ‘sustainable’. I’m sorry, but, ‘sustainable transport’ or not, this is looking to me more and more like the same old, same old trashing of the environment for profit.
And just building the line won’t be an end to the matter. I bet there’ll be lots of juicy development possibilities along the course of the line: All of those little used football pitches at Hough End (is that why West Didsbury and Chorlton FC didn’t want their new ground there, I wonder?); Chorlton Park (We don’t need that, do we? Parks are so terribly old-fashioned!); the Cricket Club ground on Hardy Lane and the old UMIST Halls of Residence. And I just wonder if WDACFC will fare better in their bid for ‘World Domination’ when there’s a Metro stop on Hardy Lane?
And what about the enormous loss of biodiversity implied by all of this. Never mind. No doubt the Council and GMPTE will promise to plant lots and lots of trees for all of those that they chop down. Don’t be fooled, though. Tree planting is pure tokenism and has very little to do with conservation. But more to the point, will there be any open space left to plant the trees on?
In the run-up to the election, now seems as good a time as any to ask the candidates exactly what the implications of this scheme are for the future of the Mersey Valley.
Dave Bishop, April 2010
The prospect of the intervention of a tramway across Mersey valley will bring disruption during its construction, and apart from impacting on the local flora and fauna , when completed will bring with it disturbance, noise, vibration to what currently is an area that is away from the hurly burly, where most come to escape recharge and refresh.
Do we really need this?
What alernative routes, if any , were considered, or is this just another cost benefit analysis solution imposed from high
If this scheme for traversing the valley is so good, where are the drawings and clever graphics to show us how tastefully executed it will be.
Chorlton is fast becoming a less green and leafy place to live, with a recreational river valley that is about to change forever!
Terribly displeased
Chorlton Meadows
Although I do not live locally, I have been visiting Chorlton Meadows since 2001. It has a hauntingly attractive and unspoilt atmosphere, which has drawn me back about once a month on walks through the area, since I first discovered it at that time.
Can I make a plea, however, as a light rail enthusiast, in favour of the proposed Metrolink line, which as well as bringing enormous social benefits, I believe will be very much less intrusive upon the environment than other more recently proposed developments. Some aspects are a matter of opinion, of course, but to many of us its presence would actually be an enhancement rather than a detriment, e.g. in the way that many local rail lines, past and present, have surely added their charm to the aesthetics of the countryside. . .
Admittedly, this particular crossing of the River Mersey and its surrounds, is probably the most environmentally sensitive site on the entire 21 kilometre projected tram route to the Airport. The plans for this line were initially drawn up in 1993, and it then took about 4 years to obtain the necessary planning permissions, and Transport and Works Act authorities, etc. In point of fact, a full 8-week Open Public Inquiry, involving oral hearings, cross-examination of witnesses etc., took place between 13 June and 10 August 1995, conducted by Mr David Bushby of the Planning Inspectorate. The line was finally approved in 1997, and the only reason for the subsequent inactivity, has been a series of political and financial hesitations by the previous government over the years. It was originally expected to be up and running by 2000.
The anxiety, on the part of those of us who have worked to keep the hope of this socially inclusive project alive, is that in an elaborated and essentially linear scheme such as this, the loss of one link in its long chain, would be almost certain to put the whole endeavour back to square one, for easily another 10-20 years. The years of lobbying, demonstrations, and pro-environmental campaigning would therefore be lost, and in any event, given the nature of the hinterlands and other constraints, it would be extremely difficult – if not impossible – to identify an alternative crossing of the river.
Can I mention also that Metrolink is not primarily intended to replace the mass transit of the majority of airport passengers, who are already catered for by express heavy rail services. Its main objectives are to serve the local community in terms of employment opportunities; to create access to a decent transport network for groups such as the elderly and disabled; to have a virtually zero carbon footprint at the point of use; and above all, to get people out of their cars, at which trams have a proven record, a long way in excess of any other system. This particular route will especially benefit areas such as Wythenshawe, which is the home of many airport workers, and has always been desperately lacking in satisfactory transport provision. Currently, the 53 bus to town takes 56 minutes, and the arterial road scheme – of which Hardy Lane was originally planned to be a part (hence its width) – has thankfully never materialised.
Dave, can I try to offer some reassurance on one or two points in your blog :-
• Whilst the havoc wrought by construction is very real, it is also a temporary pain. Light rail is a generally green and unobtrusive system when up and running. Although railcars are not completely silent, their sound is only a fraction of that created by the massive number of equivalent journeys, fuelled by internal combustion on road or rail.
• GMPTE also promised in 1997, that: “Much care has been taken to ensure that wildlife and plants will be disturbed as little as possible and that the bridge will complement the Mersey Valley. People will be able to use the paths in this area both during and after construction.”:-http://www.gmpte.com/upload/library/met_south.pdf So I agree we need to keep them to this promise, observing that they have already strayed from it as shown.
• The £85M mentioned for East Didsbury is to build the actual line, whereas the £26M for the Airport route relates only to preliminary work.
• The current extensions to Metrolink have also justified the purchase of 8 extra vehicles to relieve overcrowding on existing lines. It has been the victim of its own success in replacing the car, and now carries more passengers than all heavy rail lines in GM County, which are also overcrowded.
• Detailed drawings of the plans are available from GMPTE. To examine the environmental impact, the Inspector at the Public Inquiry in 1995 walked the entire route, as I have done myself and taken these photos :- http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1051297&page=19#362
• While Metrolink does indeed stimulate development, and in fact this has already happened, eg at Kerscott Road, Northern Moor, my understanding is that a flood plain is generally unsuitable for building? I am not an expert on this, but a very strong argument against speculative development can surely be made in such a location, as your campaign has already achieved.
• The new bridge itself would be very much less substantial than those needed for roads or standard railways, more akin to a pier. The plans also show it as located at a slight remove to the east of Jackson’s Boat, leaving the existing footbridge, pub, and Rifle Road undisturbed when fully constructed. Hole 3 of Sale Golf Course has already been re-modelled a few years ago, together with relocation of an electricity pylon, to allow for the future passage of the tramline.
Other advanced works already completed on the route, include a 75 yard tunnel under the Airport itself, numerous buildings demolished including relocating industrial premises, and a brand new facility presented to Norbrook Youth Club, to replace the old Nissen hut they have had to make do with for years. It would surely be a great pity if all this pro-social activity and expense has been in vain – and to return to my original point, would a tramline through Chorlton Meadows actually be all that unattractive – might not kids of all ages out for the afternoon, enjoy the uniquely appealing movement of a railcar going by occasionally in the distance . . .?
Thanks for listening. I will gladly support the other campaigns, against anti-social or environmentally destructive plans for the meadows, as detailed elsewhere.
I have to disagree strong with both the original post and with the comment above. Metrolink to the airport is a key piece of social and environmental infrastructure that is needed to link the deprived communities of Wythenshawe to the employment opportunities at the airport and in the city centre and allow the rising population of these areas to avoid car use. The Metrolink won’t be built to get passengers to the airport but workers, and if airport expansion does happen it won’t be because the Metrolink was built.
Chorlton Meadows and the Mersey Valley are very pleasant areas, but a tram isn’t going to change that. Developers still won’t be able to put buildings on the flood plain whether a tram crosses it or not. Although it is sad that some valuable areas will be lost, the considerable amount that remains will be accessible to and valued by a far wider swathe of the Greater Mancunian population. I appreciate that you both value the preservation of nature highly, as we all should; but a focus on the micro scale of the environment shouldn’t be allowed to blind us to the macro scale challenges that Metrolink is a solution to.
Someone has reminded me that the heritage tramway in Heaton Park, North Mcr, (another area subject to similar campaigns) is an absolutely delightful addition to the outdoor leisure environment. Can I suggest that anyone who has anxieties about the impact of a tramway in an open green space, pay a visit to this attraction to make your own assessment. Even accepting that a modern tramway does not of course have the same olde world charm or tourist potential as a vintage one, it nevertheless has its own unique aesthetic, which to many people is not at all unpleasant in any environment.
I live on chelsfield grove next to the tramline thats being constructed at the moment ,and i can tell you they have chopped down every mature tree and made a right mess of our enviroment where we live ,they seem to use far more and heavey machiney than they need ,and they leave a right mess they seem to able to do what they want under the tram/green banner ,my house has been rocked and shaked by there work for the last year the roads been dug up numerous times and my compaints are never taken seriously ,the damage to the enviroment here is serious ,but I fear mauldeth road will be disasterous ,the loss of those trees will change the nature of the enviroment ,I think its too high a price to pay for a tramline to didsbury and the airport ,the railway line to the airport from manchester picc has a train about every 10mins and theres hardly anybody on them ,some running totally empty ,now if I wanted to goto the airport even though I could get a tram in the future ,I’d quite simplily opt for a taxi because it will take me and my heavey suit cases from my door right too a trolly I can use at the airport
Ive been trying to make people aware of the tramline to airport and its route for sometime and noone has taken me serious untill recently when the plans for the removal of trees on mauldeth rd became apparent ,you know there were alot of worthwhile transport plans in greater manchester that needed this money more than the didsbury and airport line ,but gmpte are completely adamant trams are the way forward ,maybe thats because they have complete control of them ,and any worthwhile ,cheaper train transport spending plans arent considered
Chris (Wright) – your complaints seem to relate mainly to the construction process, rather than the beneficial final product of a light rail system itself. I too am experiencing identical disruption, but regard it as a temporary pain leading to very considerable gain.
As stated previously, the tram line is not intended to replace the fast rail line which runs directly to Piccadilly and all over the country, but to provide regeneration, employment creation, improvement of people’s lives by providing a decent transport system where there was none before, and above all to reduce the pollution caused by too many cars.
You mention “cheaper” – well, I have to say Metrolink will get you to the Airport just as conveniently, and much, much cheaper than a diesel guzzling taxi!
Incidentally, there will no longer be a tram stop at Hardy Farm.
I think youre logic is completely flawed mr mcCarthy ,we have busses and trains to the airport why are we dupplicating transport links where we can have new ones
people dont use the train to the airport just like they won’t use the tram because they wanna go completely door to door ,as they usually have alot of luggage ,plus the new tram link isnt exactly direct ,it’ll take alot longer than a taxi and be more expensive if there’s more than one person
and plus you dont have to live right next to the thing once its up and running !