Draft Wigan Transport Strategy

There isn't any mention of extending the Atherleigh bypass to allow motorway traffic to bypass Lowton. This would solve a lot of A580 problems around this area without changing many of the junctions along this stretch. Dedicated left and right hand turn slip lanes can only be so long. Traffic build up for these turns are far longer, especially if long HVGs are blocking the slip lane. If the queue extends beyond the slip lane then there is a higher risk of accidents from stopped vehicles especially with right hand turns. The bypass would also reduce the persistent and illegal air pollution at Lane Head to acceptable levels, unlike the slip lane method.

Is the bus depot information point manned? It would be good to get advice from here about getting to particular locations on public transport. It would also be a reassuring safety feature to have someone in authority there.

Could link the leigh retail park, leigh town centre and leigh spinners mill together. Also there are no buses that I know of that go to the Leigh retail park from Lowton (the bus stop signs at the retail park dont seem to have any buses stopping at them!)

Having a more frequent and reliable guided bus service would be a good second choice. Also why can't we have a bus service all the way along the A580, especially as it is being in filled with housing developments. Some of the current car users might even want to swap out the car for the bus if the price was right. Could have scooter hubs or cycle racks (away from the road, with cctv) at certain bus stops.

'The proposals for Parkside and
Haydock Point employment site remain a
concern to us as a neighbouring highway
authority, with particular issues associated
with heavy goods vehicle traffic on the
A579 Winwick Lane through Lane Head. '
I would agree whole heartedly with this comment especially as the No2 levels are already over the legal limit at Lane Head. Surely this has to be legally addressed and is the joint responsibility of all counties involved?

Can Lowton have some safe method of cycling that considers Lane head, Church Lane and the top of Slag Lane. These are key way points.

Public transport (and traffic in general) is an issue at the edge of the Greater Manchester boundary as there are added problems of communicating with other county transport systems. Getting from Lowton to Warrington for instance is impossible without a car even though it is only 10 miles away. Newton Station is only 3 miles away yet Newton buses dont go through Lowton to Leigh in the evening. It would be good to see this changed.

Putting a question mark at the bottom of each section would prevent scrolling back up to try to find the correct question mark for each section.

'Golborne, Leigh, Atherton, and Hindley are
at greatest risk of transport-related social
exclusion' Lowton should also be in this group as it also has poor public transport and very few Lowton amenities for its expanded population. Not everyone has a car.

It would have been good to signpost the difference in questions between the transport strand in the wigan local plan and this document, and to advise which consultation to tackle first as they are both bulky documents with the same deadline.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Wigan Transport Strategy.
This response to the Wigan Transport Strategy Consultation has been prepared by SLR Consulting Ltd on behalf of Trammell Crow Company. Trammell Crow Company have also submitted representations in respect of the Local Plan consultation (via Gerald Eve on their letterhead).
We acknowledge that there are already a number of transport and planning strategies that have been prepared for the wider Greater Manchester area, we welcome the information, review and assessment work that provides supplementary support specifically for the Wigan Council area.
The Transport Strategy needs to be aligned with Wigans Local Plan (as well as Places for Everyone) so that the ‘ambitious’ growth vision for the Borough to 2040 is coordinated with the transport strategy. Without that alignment, the ambition to deliver jobs and housing within the Borough could be hindered by contrary transport policies. While the Transport Strategy and Local Plan are aligned with the objectives at a high level, the Transport Strategy goes on to identify constraints and issues which would appear to contradict the overall vision.
We agree that the strategy should start with reference to the wider context of climate, environment, carbon, health and wellbeing, rather than simply being a strategy focusing on the protection of peak hour commuter car convenience. While the strategy references the Council’s Emergency Declaration in 2019, and subsequent Outline Climate Change Strategy, which provides a vision for net zero carbon by 2038, the Strategy should make clearer links as to how strategic transport interventions and priorities will contribute to this vision.
We note that transport behaviour has changed significantly since lockdown with 44% of working adults working from home/hybrid working, the increase in online shopping and the drop in demand for car travel by younger people, all shows that travel patterns are evolving, and people are able respond and amend their travel choices depending on external factors.
We note from the GM Transport Strategy that the high-level aim is for 50% of trips to be made by sustainable modes by 2040, with no net increase in motor vehicle traffic as demand grows. That vision is welcomed and should be applied as part of Wigans Transport Strategy.




The 6 Transport Strategy Objectives as shown are welcomed but there appears in some places to be a mismatch between these Objectives and the specific Transport Measures on the Priority initiatives.
The specific identification of constraints and measures as described in the Plan for delivering the Priorities does not at times seem aligned with the Vision.
The delivery plans described in the Strategy, in relation to highways issues, do not match the ambition of the Vision and therefore it needs to look at more strategic options (and mitigation solutions) to ensure they are tapping into growth not restricting it due to congestion.
We would recommend a Vision and Validate approach to dealing with Transport Demands. It is an approach which prioritises local growth in a way which considers accessibility across the day, instead of just the peak commuter period, to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport on the basis that by doing this the impacts of car use are limited, and designing so that there need not be a general reliance on the private car for day-to-day activities.
We recommend that the Transport Strategy is prepared so that it understands that traffic demands are flexible and react to changing conditions. It also understands that local traffic inconvenience is not the ultimate determinant or highest priority when it comes to a well-designed movement network. It starts with the Vision and designs to achieve it, as opposed to Predict and Provide which starts with a forecast and designs to accommodate it.
In the document, the Strategy states that the road network is under pressure, but we feel that this still places too much emphasis on the needs of vehicle drivers. The road network is only one part of the transport and movement network, and there is a danger that although the introduction of the Strategy means well, it may be far too easy to fall back into the ‘old’ way of doing things (i.e. building bigger roads for the wrong reasons) a Predict and Provide approach to transport which meant building more roads for cars.
The Department for Transport’s Decarbonising Transport document clearly identifies the aim of moving away from the Predict and Provide approach to highway capacity to an approach that is more objective led.
There are some references to this approach, but these are lost, and better references should be made to this policy-compliant approach to movement which then underpin the Strategy.
On the matter of road traffic and highway congestion, we understand and appreciate why there may be strategic reasons (i.e. business and economy) why extra road capacity might be needed. Where there are clear and robustly evidenced business and economic reasons, we support this.
However, the strategy as currently drafted still could be interpreted as wanting to provide extra road capacity to protect commuter car convenience in the peak hours.
For example, it is stated that in order to reallocate road space for sustainable travel modes and placemaking, there must be the provision of new strategic road links. The Strategy suggests that you cannot have one without the other, but we would say that is not true.
The performance of a network, and its capacity, should be viewed across the day, within which there are peaks, with a judgement made accordingly. This is an important point we make in the context of the environment, climate and carbon agenda, and deciding to build extra road capacity for the wrong reasons will prevent the Council from achieving its vision set out following the Climate Emergency Declaration, or contributing to the wider Greater Manchester objectives.
Where the Strategy currently makes reference to ‘highway capacity problems’ at specific locations (i.e. A580 at Lane End) they can potentially undermine the growth ambitions of the Local Plan process. It would be better to set out the Vision for the transport solution based on the sustainable objectives rather than fall back on a Predict and Provide approach.
Whilst reference is made to specific areas such as Lane End, it would be wrong to identify just one example and instead all locations with the same perceived ‘problems’ should be identified, or none at all. There are highway constraints at many locations across Wigan which do not appear to be highlighted specifically and there is no evidence available to justify why these roads have been mentioned.
We suggest they are removed and a more detailed assessment of constraints and opportunities across the whole of Wigan is looked at.
Linked to this, there is no evidence base presented as part of the Strategy as drafted to allow these general assertions to be validated and further information should be provided if statements such as these are to be presented.
If the Strategy has not been prepared with this Vision and Validate approach, then time should be taken by the Council to review and revisit before representing a further draft Strategy for consultation.
With respect to the Strategy’s objectives, priorities and delivery plan, clearer links should be made to link the priorities to the six identified objectives, and then link the objectives back to the overarching strategic vision set out in respect of climate, health and well-being. At present, although the priorities appear to have the right intention, for the Strategy to be successful, clearer links should be made to show how they will validate the vision effectively for the Council as a whole.
As a potentially significant investor to the Borough in the coming years, we would very much welcome the opportunity to meet with Officers of the Council to discuss the next steps and further inform the development of the Wigan Transport Strategy.

The Strategy is absent of reference to Manchester Airport and we recommend that this be addressed. Manchester Airport is a fundamental component of the UK’s infrastructure network, serving as the primary international gateway for the North. Annual passenger throughput for 2023 will exceed 28 million, with over 70 airlines operating to over 200 destinations worldwide and offering an extensive mix of full service, charter and low-cost services. Manchester Airport also has significant cargo operations. As such, Manchester Airport provides crucial links with overseas markets and is a key driver of the North West economy. It is estimated that the Airport contributes £918 million in GVA to the UK economy and is one of the largest employment sites in Greater Manchester, supporting the employment of over 20,000 people on site. Manchester Airport is also a major regional transport hub and public transport interchange with air, rail, bus, coach and tram facilities all located on site. This makes the Airport a strategically significant location in terms of its economic contribution, excellent transport connections and opportunities for growth. The Places for Everyone Plan recognises Manchester Airport as a key factor in realising the wider growth agenda for the North and unlocking the economic potential of the region, and that to maximise the Airport’s contribution to the growth agenda it must be well-connected to the key towns and cities that it serves. It would therefore be appropriate to acknowledge the links with Manchester Airport within your Transport Strategy, and the benefits these afford. Recent staff travel surveys show that a significant number of Airport staff reside in the Borough of Wigan, particularly in and around the towns of Ashton-In-Makerfield, Atherton, Golborne, Hindley, Leigh, Orrell, Standish, Tyldsley and Wigan. However, accessibility of the Airport by public transport from across the Borough is poor, with journey times in excess of 60 minutes. Therefore opportunities for improving transport links and connectivity between the Borough and Manchester Airport should also be explored.

Delivery of the east-west link roads and in particular the South of Hindley Link Road is supported by our clients (owners of land within the South Hindley masterplan area). However the lack of a clearly identified (safeguarded) route through the strategic development allocation does not help to promote early opportunities to deliver much needed development. The current development plan policy provides opportunity for individual applications for planning permission for residential development parcels where these would not undermine the overall delivery of the masterplan proposals. However the lack of clarity on the route of the roads can undermine such opportunities. In the absence of a detailed design with precise routing, the strategy should indicate that a flexible approach will be taken and that planning applications for new development will not be prevented due to a lack of certainty about the precise routing of the new highway infrastructure.

el’s representations to the draft Local Plan (Planning for the Future to 2040) identify that the A580 East Lancashire Road corridor has and continues to be overlooked in terms of its role and function within the western part of Greater Manchester. It is a critical transport route, providing an east-west link between Manchester, Salford, Wigan and destinations across Merseyside. It is critical for travel by car, but also has an important role in supporting active travel and bus connectivity, including for the Leigh-Salford-Manchester Guided Busway. It is a driver of economic growth in its own right, with a relatively unique and locationally fixed occupier profile, with evidence of growth in a number of ‘Frontier’ economic sub-sectors.

Despite this, there is only very limited reference to the A580 East Lancashire Road in the draft Transport Plan. Peel acknowledges that it is a ‘larger than local’ piece of infrastructure that is within the control of Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) rather than the Council. Nevertheless, it is critical to the Borough itself, and to its future potential.

The draft Transport Plan identifies that the A580 experiences congestion at peak times, but it does not identify any potential projects which could address this issue or enhance its capacity. There are a number of such opportunities. For example, Park & Ride facilities within Wigan and Salford have had a notable impact in reducing car travel and congestion. Further such facilities will offer additional benefits.

Peel’s representations to the draft Local Plan explain the proposal for Bridgewater West, adjacent to the A580 at the eastern edge of Wigan. This proposal includes the potential for an additional Park & Ride facility before the M60 ring road, which can capture commuter car trips through Wigan into Salford and Manchester, and support a modal shift to increased bus use. Peel would welcome a discussion with the Council and TfGM about its potential, and encourages the Council to consider and include it and other infrastructure projects along the A580 Corridor within the Transport Plan.

The Transport Plan recognises that the Wigan-Bolton Growth Corridor – identified as a strategic policy within the emerging ‘Places for Everyone’ Plan (PfE) – is one of the principal strategic development priorities for Wigan. It identifies the link road that forms the backbone of this Growth Corridor – running from the M6/M58 in Orrell to the M61 in Bolton – as a key priority of the draft Transport Plan.

The delivery of the link road is critical to reducing congestion and improving access across the western part of Greater Manchester, including to Wigan town centre. It will deliver substantial improvements to the quality of life of the Borough’s residents and establish the conditions for regionally-significant economic and housing growth and regeneration. Peel strongly supports its delivery and welcomes its inclusion as a key priority within the Five-Year Delivery Plan (2024-2029).

The link road is an extensive piece of infrastructure that will be delivered in a number of distinct phases and via different funding sources. The link road is integral to a number of new development sites, and in some cases will be facilitated and/or funded in part by new development. This includes the South Hindley and West of Gibfield sites, among others.

Peel has an interest in a number of these sites and is collaborating with the Council and other partners such as TfGM to deliver the link road infrastructure. This includes work to establish the business case for the road and support funding bids for particular phases of it. This work is likely to have progressed before the Transport Plan is finalised and adopted.
Peel considers that the Transport Plan could identifying the current thinking in terms of the phased approach. This would embed the delivery strategy within the Transport Plan, providing clarity to local communities and other stakeholders, and would itself support bids for funding in due course.

Wrightington Parish Council would like to see more consideration given to the links between the Wigan transport system and the bordering Borough of West Lancashire. There are currently many residents living in the West Lancashire Borough, particularly in Appley Bridge and Wrightington, who are registered with service providers in the Wigan Borough eg: doctors, dentists, opticians. In addition to this those residents would like to access supermarkets, leisure amenities and facilities in the Wigan Borough. Throughout the day transport links to and from Wigan are very limited making it very difficult for West Lancashire residents to access the services they are registered with, using public transport. Some careful consideration, and slight alterations in routes on existing bus service provision, would assist our residents greatly in accessing shared service provision. The Parish Council would ask that when considering connections with neighbourhoods, officers re-consider connections with neighbourhoods which, whilst not in the Wigan Borough, provide a number of services which are accessed by non Wigan Borough residents.

M58 link not needed, how does added more lanes change behaviour? Look at Dubai it doesn’t mean more lanes mean less emissions, invest money into public transport and cheaper routes into town centre would be our preference.

Make rail travel cheaper more reliable and affordable meaning cars don’t need to travel across the borough and reducing co2

In Wigan, all local buses go from the centre to the estates or the surrounding townships within the MBC area. Here's a revolutionary idea, why not link estates up by, for example linking estates and areas up to Wigan Infirmary, using only 1 journey rather than at least 2 journeys. Example Orrell, Pemberton, New Town, Worsley Hall, Springfield, Beech Hill, Swinley, Wigan Infirmary, and return.

Bring back the fast trains through to Manchester & Manchester airport. They were always popular and fullish when I used them. They are missed and trips to the airport no require a drive whereas I wold normally have used the train

What are the plans for the town centre of Atherton? We have had no support or investment.

Atherton has no park and ride provision, resulting in our only car park being filled with cars what are not contributing to the local economy & that is of putting to people wanting to shop in the town

Most of the cycling lanes, certainly in the east of the borough, are currently not fit for purpose. They are not wide enough to be considered safe by most cyclists, and end abruptly. Cycling route planners really need to look at the cycling infrastructure in London and other places abroad to see how it can be done properly.
Walking routes and pavements generally need better maintenance and better lighting for this to become a realistic option for people. Also preventing people parking on pavements, by providing better parking provision elsewhere, would be of huge benefit to people with prams or wheelchair users.

It is vital that bus routes Time tables are much more widely advertised to local communities Many people are never aware of bus routes on their doorstep , especially when changes are made to timetables.

I cannot see what advantage linking to the Metro via Eccles can bring to Leigh . The journey time from Leigh to Eccles when added to the 35 minutes from Eccles to Piccadilly would take longer than the existing V1 journey time except at peak times. much cheaper option is to build a single rail track from Leigh to the Atherton Manchester rail line.

Could it be addressed why Wigan trains to London are penalised by £100s with a peak hours restriction when it is cheaper to drive to Lancaster (where there are no peak hour restrictions) and the same train journey is at times £200 cheaper? This makes no sense as it’s the same train and is penalising commuters from Wigan

This aspect needs to be stronger as it only really reflects the neighbouring with Warrington area to the south. The relationship between areas like Standish and Chorley are really poorly serviced for all modes of transport and are generally financially not worth it as transport in greater Manchester is subsidised but not when you go into Lancashire

There is currently no direct bus services from anywhere in the Wigan West Ward to the Robin Park shopping area. I think that the current bus service known as the Beech Hill Circular could have a redirect to travel to and from the Robin Park shopping area. Travelling from Beech Hill Avenue across to Scot Lane on the way to Robin Park could include a service that loops around the trading estate known as the Martland Mill Trading Estate where many of our residents work.”

Currently it would take 2 buses to get to and from Robin Park which leads to folk not bothering with buses and use private vehicles or taxis to bring shopping home, rather than struggle with changing buses at Wigan Bus Station when loaded with shopping. Similarly with Martland Mill, people just want to get home from work as quickly as possible.

In my view, residents would be more likely to use private vehicles (cars, motor cycles, vans) for reasons given. Some do go by cycle, but many do not ride along the roads, they use the pavements putting pedestrians and disabled pedestrians who use mobility scooters or wheelchairs and also families using pushchairs and prams, at considerable risk. And where are the police? Nowhere to be seen - and this is why people complain about these new cycle ways as they seem to be extremely little used.”

Quantifiable Goals: Include measurable goals to transparently showcase the program's success and impact.
Communication of Benefits: Clearly communicate the benefits individuals can expect from participating in the program.
Long-Term Sustainability: Address plans for long-term support, funding, and scalability to ensure sustainability.

EV Charging: Specify standards for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Monitoring and Evaluation: Include mechanisms for ongoing policy assessment.

In October, the Government announced a U-turn over the plans to close the vast majority of railways station ticket offices in England.

1. Measurable Metrics: Lack of specific metrics for success.
2. Implementation Strategies: Needs clearer steps for integrating social value.
3. Stakeholder Involvement: More information on engaging diverse stakeholders.
4. Long-Term Sustainability: Explicit plans for sustained impact are needed.
5. Monitoring and Evaluation: Establishing a robust evaluation framework is essential.

To improve flexibility, consider more frequent meetings for critical milestones, incorporate stakeholder feedback, implement a robust risk management framework, utilize technology for real-time insights, communicate changes transparently, and foster a continuous improvement mindset.

1. Clarify the decision-making process for advancing with measures.
2. Provide concrete examples illustrating the application of flexibility.
3. Include a risk management framework for navigating uncertainties.
4. Consider timeline considerations for decision-making speed.
5. Incorporate a communication strategy for transparent stakeholder engagement.