Bury Local Transport Strategy consultation statement

Consultation commenced on 24 March 2023 and closed 14 weeks later, on 30 June 2023. The questionnaire was developed and hosted on-line on ‘One Community’, the council’s engagement and consultation portal.

The draft strategy was also available to view online on the Council’s website. Hard copies of the questionnaire were made available on request and a dedicated email address was open for emailed comments. There was also the option to submit comments by email. Face to face engagement drop in events were also held as shown below.

• Thursday 1 June 2023, 4.30pm-6.30pm, The Tottington Centre
• Wednesday 7 June 2023, 5.30pm-7pm, Peel Room, Bury Town Hall
• Thursday 8 June 2023, 4.30pm-6.30pm, Ramsbottom Library
• Monday 12 June 2023, 4.30pm-6.30pm, Whitfield Methodist Church, Oasis Centre
• Thursday 15 June 2023, 4.30pm-6.30pm, Radcliffe Library
• Thursday 22 June 2023 , 4.30pm-6.30pm, Prestwich Library

Transport planning officers also attended the Older People’s Forum (7 June), Circles of Influence meeting (6 July) and were available to discuss with Members before full Council (24 May). An online drop-in event was also held for Members.

Hard copies of the documents were also placed in the libraries, Tourist Information Centre and Clarence Park café.

Conversations were held with the Northern Care Alliance and transport officers attended the Bury Care Organisation (BCO) Directors’ meeting to discuss the consultation. Conversations are on-going with BCO as a partner. Discussions also continue with TfGM as a partner organisation.

243 responses were received on-line via One Community, with a further 10 email/letters/testimonies received to the dedicated inbox. The main issues raised by email responses are summarised later in this statement.

The consultation was promoted via the below throughout the duration of the consultation.

• Council social media accounts
• Hub newsletters (hub newsletters are received by community groups/stakeholders/interested individuals within the hub area that have signed up to receive newsletters each week. The newsletters combined reach over 1000 email contacts. The newsletters can also be forwarded on from participants to other they feel may be interested in some of the content.
• VCFA newsletter (received by voluntary, community, faith and some statutory organisations that have signed up or are a member of the VCFA with in Bury)
• The Bury Directory via the scrolling banner and newsletter (which again reaches over 1000 people/groups/organisations/businesses)
• One Community newsletter (a reach of over 2.5k people registered on One Community)
• Community Safety Partnership
• Transport For Greater Manchester newsletters (to GM local authorities and GM health sector)
• Bury College and Holy Cross newsletters
• Council website
• Active travel groups via mailing lists and Facebook pages (via moving more officer)
• Live Well webpage
• Youth Parliament email to attendees and attendance at a face-to-face meeting
• Ageing well newsletter (via Public Health team)
• East Lancs Railway (direct email with link for forwarding on)
• Women and Girls safety groups (via
• Bury Blind Society e-newsletter
• Internal staff communications
• Live leadership briefing (link shared on screen)
• Children’s Partnership newsletter
• Bury BID board and e-newsletter

The survey received responses across all demographics (see graphs below) but no real differences in opinion were found.

Initial questions related to the travelling habits of consultees, asking their connection to the Borough and how often they travel within the Borough by different modes of transport. Consultees were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the Strategy reflects the transport challenges within the Borough and whether they support the Vision and Objectives set out within the Transport Strategy.

Each of the Investment Priorities for each mode of transport (Metrolink, Bus, Walking, Wheeling and Cycling and Highways and Parking) was then addressed in turn, and consultees were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the Investment Priorities set out in each.

Finally, consultees were asked if they disagreed with any of the proposals; whether there is anything missing from the Transport Strategy; and whether they had any further comments. Responses to these questions were open form, allowing respondents to add their own free text.

• I live here, 219 responded
• I work here, 64 responded
• I study here, 7 responded
• I shop here, 130 responded
• I meet family and friends here, 118 responded
• I have a business here, 13 responded
• Other, 9 responded

As the above data shows, the majority of respondents live in the borough (219 respondents) with a further 130 stating that they shop in the borough and 118 responding that they meet friends/family here.

Please note: Respondents were allowed to select more than one answer.

• By Metrolink
  • Daily - 22
  • Weekly - 57
  • Monthly - 46
  • Less often - 83
  • Never - 35
• By bus
  • Daily - 20
  • Weekly - 41
  • Monthly - 
  • Less often - 74
  • Never - 87
• By walking
  • Daily - 112
  • Weekly - 43
  • Monthly - 9
  • Less often - 
  • Never - 41
• By cycling
  • Daily - 8
  • Weekly - 19
  • Monthly - 6
  • Less often - 34
  • Never - 176
• By car
  • Daily - 112
  • Weekly - 78
  • Monthly - 11
  • Less often - 19
  • Never - 23

The data above clearly shows that the majority of journeys to or within Bury on a daily basis are completed by car or on foot. However, journeys by Metrolink and bus are taken on a weekly basis by a considerable number of respondents. Cycling is less used than any other form of transport.

• Don't know - 17 responded (7%)
• Strongly disagree - 46 responded (18.9%)
• Disagree - 38 responded (15.6%)
• Neither agree nor disagree - 45 responded (18.5%)
• Agree - 72 responded (29.6%)
• Strongly agree - 25 responded (10.3%)

This question asked respondents to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the transport strategy reflects the transport challenges faced in the Borough and to provide a reason for their answer. 40% of respondents either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’, while another 18.5% neither agreed nor disagreed. 35% either strongly that the strategy reflects the transport challenges faced in the Borough, 35% either ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’.

Where reasons were provided the focus was as follows:

• The strategy penalises motorists and places too much emphasis on walking and cycling.
• Restricting motor vehicle provision increases congestion and emissions.
• Public transport doesn’t go directly where people need it to go. Services take too long and mainly run to Manchester.
• Personal safety should be a priority. Public transport feels unsafe at various times of the day.
• Many people in the Borough cannot afford to use public transport. Tram and bus tickets to the same location should be the same price.
• Better accessibility on all modes of public transport is required especially for disabled and elderly residents.
• We need to promote safer cycling and walking routes if we are to encourage people to get out of the car.
• A passenger service should run on the existing railway line.
• Reducing Angouleme Way to one lane will cause traffic congestion.
• Bus lanes and cycle lanes add to congestion.
• There is a need for an affordable commuter train link to Rawtenstall.
• NHS community staff should be provided with parking permits and free parking.
• Too much investment being spent on underused cycle lanes and not enough on the roads.
• Highways maintenance needs to be considerably improved. Road conditions within the Borough are below standard.

By 2040, Bury will be an attractive, well connected and innovative Borough where people aspire to live, work and visit

• Strongly agree, 41 responded (17%)
• Agree, 76 responded (31%)
• Neither agree / disagree, 37 responded (15%)
• Disagree, 35 responded (14%)
• Strongly disagree, 47 responded (19%)
• Don’t Know, 7 responded (3%)

There was broad support for the vision as almost half of respondents (48%) either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with it. Fewer respondents ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ (33%). The remaining respondents did not have a view or didn’t know (18%).

There was strong support for all six of the draft strategy’s objectives, with significantly more respondents agreeing/strongly agreeing than disagreeing/strongly disagreeing with them.

• Improve the maintenance and management of the transport network
  • 68% agreed or strongly agreed
  • 17% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• Support sustainable economic growth and regeneration
  • 67% agreed or strongly agreed
  • 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• Improve connectivity
  • 66% agreed or strongly agreed
  • 13% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• Improve road safety
  • 61% agreed or strongly agreed
  • 14% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• Encourage healthy and active lifestyles
  • 59% agreed or strongly agreed
  • 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed
• Reduce carbon emissions
  • 58%  agreed or strongly agreed
  • 26% disagreed or strongly disagreed

Respondents were then asked if there were any important issues that the objectives did not address. Comments were made by 60% (145) of respondents.

The focus of the comments was as follows:

• Bikes being allowed and accommodated for on public transport should be considered.
• The strategy takes no account of topography, weather conditions or demographics.
• It fails to address the lack of public transport to the north of the Borough.
• The strategy does not address anti-social behaviour or personal safety at transport hubs.
• Congestion around Bury Bridge needs to be considered.
• The infrastructure required for fully electric private vehicles needs drastically improving.
• The Strategy doesn’t address how the Council are going to address operational carbon or pollution other than carbon emissions.
• Unreliable buses.
• Night services for shift/hospitality workers.
• The strategy fails to address access on buses for wheelchair users.
• Efficiencies lost in Prestwich High Street area due to poorly timed, non-connected pedestrian crossings.
• It doesn’t address improving roads and widening them to get through Bury.
• Improving the situation for car users.
• It doesn’t address the issue of too much car use.

• Don’t Know, 5 responded (2%)
• Strongly disagree, 25 responded (10%)
• Disagree, 27 responded (11%)
• Neither, 41 (17%)
• Agree, 67 responded (28%)
• Strongly agree, 78 responded (32%)

As the table above shows, 60% of respondents either ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the proposed investment priorities for Metrolink with only 21% of respondents ‘strongly disagreeing or ‘disagreeing’. However, where comments were received the focus was as follows:

• There is no need for a new station at Elton Reservoir
• Overcrowding on the trams needs to be addressed to encourage more people to use them.
• Existing stops are outdated and need upgrading.
• Accessibility for disabled users across the network needs improving.
• Passenger safety needs to be addressed both at the stops and on the tram.
• Connections to Bolton and Heywood/Rochdale/Oldham should be considered.
• If car parking is reduced at stops and people cannot find a parking space, then they will not use the Metrolink.
• Metrolink is too expensive.
• Metrolink is not frequent or reliable enough.
• If somebody uses a tap-in card and trams are cancelled, they have no proof of purchase to show on buses.
• Need to address people parking in Metrolink car parks when they are not actually using the Metrolink station.
• More frequent services required in the evening and at weekends to ensure more options are given to the public working in shift patterns.

• Don’t Know, 7 responded (3%)
• Strongly disagree, 25 responded (10%)
• Disagree, 27 responded (11%)
• Neither, 33 responded (14%)
• Agree, 73  responded (30%)
• Strongly agree, 76  responded (32%)

The largest number of respondents either ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the proposed investment priorities for buses (62%) and only 21% either ‘strongly disagree’ or ‘disagree’.

Where comments were received the focus was as follows:

• Reliability - buses are constantly late and often do not turn up at all. There needs to be a reliable service to entice people out of their cars.
• Buses cause congestion and add to pollution levels.
• Buses are not currently accessible for disabled users or passengers with mobility issues.
• There is a need for more night buses for shift workers.
• There is a lack of bus drivers which leads to an unreliable service.
• Services need to reflect the journeys people want to make.
• Buses fares are too expensive. Cheaper fares are needed.
• Bus routes to the north of the Borough need to be improved.
• Personal safety particularly for elderly passengers and women needs to be addressed at both bus stops and on the bus.
• Orbital links need improvement. Not everyone needs/wants to travel into Manchester City Centre.
• Investment is needed in school bus services.
• It is difficult for trades to use the bus for work purposes (you cannot transport tools or bulky goods etc on a bus).
• Trying to force people to use the bus to the detriment of other transport modes only reduces overall transport efficiency.
• Lack of accurate information about bus timetables. Electronic bus information displays at all/most stops is required.

• Don’t Know, 5 responded (2%)
• Strongly disagree, 52 responded (21%)
• Disagree, 22 responded (9%)
• Neither, 49 responded (20%)
• Agree, 57 responded (23%)
• Strongly agree, 58 responded (24%)

The largest number of respondents (47%) either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the investment proposals priorities for walking, wheeling and cycling. However, 30% of respondents ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’ with the investment priorities for walking, wheeling and cycling.

Where comments were received the focus was as follows:

• Active travel proposals shouldn’t come at the expense of other road users.
• Existing cycle lanes are underused and cause congestion.
• Many pavements in the Borough are unfit for pedestrians and are a danger- uneven paths, cars parked on pavements, bins left on the pavement etc.
• Poor weather conditions mean people do not want to walk or cycle.
• The two new cyclops junctions are badly designed and are a danger to pedestrians.
• People don’t feel safe walking or cycling alone particularly in the evening.
• Dedicated cycle paths and improved canal towpaths with lighting should be installed to encourage more walking and cycling even during the evenings.
• Inadequate cycle parking/storage in accessible locations across the Borough deters people from cycling.
• Not being able to take bikes on the Metrolink often deters cyclists from cycling every day.
• More bike libraries are needed.
• Many pedestrian crossings in Bury town centre do not have rotating cones so sight impaired/blind pedestrians are unable to cross the road safely.
• Future route maintenance needs to be considered. Existing routes and any new routes need to be maintained so that they don’t become usable and unsafe.
• Need to support the PROW network and Village Link routes.
• Protected cycle routes separated from the road are required.
• Walking is unattractive particularly in areas such as Whitefield where there are very heavy traffic levels and narrow pavements.
• Need to invest in the Hawes water tunnel under M60.

• Don’t Know, 9 responded (4%)
• Strongly disagree, 43 responded (18%)
• Disagree, 27 responded (11%)
• Neither, 53 responded (22%)
• Agree, 66 responded (27%)
• Strongly agree, 45 responded (19%)

The largest number of respondents either ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the proposed investment priorities for highways and parking.

Where comments were received the focus was as follows:

• More emphasis is required on safe pedestrian crossings.
• Charging points in better locations that don’t involve double dipping by charging for the parking as well as the charging should be provided.
• Disabled parking spaces need to be increased across the Borough.
• Existing highways need to be improved across the borough e.g. highway maintenance, road markings, pavements and potholes.
• The two new cyclops junctions are badly designed and are confusing and dangerous for motorists.
• Electric cars are too expensive, and charging is too expensive.
• There should be free car parking across the Borough especially in Bury Town Centre.
• Lack of crossing facilities at junctions.
• Insufficient car parking at Fairfield Hospital.
• EV charging for terraced properties.

Where comments were received to this question the focus was as follows:

• The new junction improvements outside the Town Hall are making traffic worse.
• There is an overemphasis on public transport.
• Angouleme Way needs to remain a dual carriageway.
• The plans for Radcliffe focus on the Metrolink and not the wider regeneration of the town.
• Too much emphasis on cycle routes and high frequency buses instead of a better share of regular bus services in all areas.
• Metrolink investment to improve the stations would be better spent on subsidised tickets for those unable to afford the cost of using the Metrolink system.
• The approach to highway repairs requires further consideration. The patch and patch again approach to potholes is not a long-term solution and many roads in the Borough remain in a dangerous condition.
• The Strategy doesn’t go far enough in considering pollution, congestion and high car use.

Where comments were received to this question the focus was as follows:

• Increased parking provision at key public sites such as health centres, schools, council offices and leisure facilities.
• An additional pedestrian crossing on Bolton Street in Ramsbottom between the junction at Nuttall Lane and the proposed junction at Cross Street. It is currently very difficult for pedestrians to cross this road due to the amount of vehicle traffic.
• Reinstallation of Local Link service in Holcombe Village.
• The path at the end of bury canal needs upgrading. It leads to the senior schools and could be used for pupils to walk home.
• Protected bike lanes on busy bee routes, to prevent cars entering the bike lane during congestion should be a priority.
• The rail link between Bury and Lancashire should be reinstated.
• Use of the Canal system as a transport alternative - not everyone needs to rush to be somewhere, a slow boat ride through town centers would also open new economic options.
• Enforcement of pavement parking.
• Enforcement for roads with weight limits and speed limits.
• Says very little about walking for health and the importance of the Borough's footpath network.
• Issues in respect of mobility vehicles and how these are to be accommodated on our highway network.

Where comments were received to this question the focus was as follows:

• Why forecast to 2040 it’s the here and now that needs attention.
• Bring the canal back into use for leisure activities.
• Not local enough and does not do enough to provide a safe environment.
• There is a lot of high visibility, high-cost development which is not all necessary.
• Why are the lighting lanterns being replaced by LED's throughout the Borough on an ad-hoc basis and not on a complete phased programme?

Comments received by email

In total there were 10 additional responses by email from members of the public, local community groups and local businesses along with responses from TfGM and the Northern Care Alliance.

The main issues raised included: suggestions of additional bus services and routes to the north of the Borough; the use of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Towpaths as key off road Active Travel Routes; consideration of the use of e-bikes for both personal and business uses and that any measures that are likely to have the opposite effect of generating more vehicle traffic, such as increasing car parking, should be avoided within the Strategy.

Comments received at the drop-in Session 

Drop-in sessions were held within each of the Borough’s six Townships (Tottington, Bury, Ramsbottom, Radcliffe, Whitefield and Prestwich) to answer any questions attendees might have and to encourage engagement with the online consultation process.

During the drop-in sessions some concerns were raised by attendees mainly in relation to the reliability of bus services and poor bus connections to the north of the Borough. Personal safety on public transport particularly at night or when travelling alone, a lack of safe pedestrian crossings within the Borough and congestion were also raised.

Comments received from stakeholders

Where requested Officers also attended specific Stakeholder events such as the Older People’s Forum (7th June 2023) and the Circles of Influence meeting (6th July 2023).

During these sessions several similar concerns were raised by attendees at both events. Concerns raised mainly related to unreliable bus services and personal safety whilst travelling on public transport. Attendees also raised concerns around the cost of public transport and school bus services being withdrawn.

Several comments were raised numerous times by many respondents. Some comments were very specific and have been passed to the relevant Department to be considered, such as a request for a replacement bridge at Outwood Road, or to our partner, Transport for Greater Manchester, while others will be taken into consideration as we implement the Strategy.

Several respondents raised issues regarding the two new cyclops junctions in Bury town centre. In addition to causing congestion, several respondents felt that these junctions were badly designed and confusing for all users.

Several comments were also raised with regards to the Bury Town Centre Masterplan proposal to reconfigure Angouleme Way to one lane. Many respondents felt that the proposals to prioritise active travel and bus movement around the south of the town centre with Peel Way being the main traffic route on the north side of Bury town centre, would cause additional congestion and that Angouleme Way should remain as a dual carriageway.

There were also concerns expressed that rather than resolving issues such as air pollution and congestion, a strategy based on providing better public transport, pedestrian and cycle facilities would make these issues worse, particularly for motorists for who would experience more congestion. Others raised the issue of congestion on roads around Bury town centre, in particular on Angouleme Way, at Bury Bridge and on the route out of Bury town centre to the M66, and expressed a view that more road space/capacity was needed for cars, not less.

A small number of respondents also raised concerns that the Ramsbottom Town Plan parking proposals and CRSTS-funded walking and cycling improvements will have a detrimental impact on the town’s economy.

Finally, some respondents used the consultation to oppose the Places for Everyone allocation at Elton Reservoir and the associated new Metrolink Stop and Park and Ride/Travel Hub. The allocation of this site for residential development is outside the scope of the Transport Strategy and the new Metrolink Stop and Park and Ride/Travel Hub will only be built if the development goes ahead.

An extensive public consultation process has been undertaken in the preparation of the Local Transport Strategy. Residents, local communities and key stakeholders including Ward Councillors were informed about the online consultation.

The purpose of the online consultation was to provide details of the development proposals and to gather the views of the local community and interested parties. A total of 243 responses were recorded to the online consultation, with over half of all respondents recording that they agree with the vision for the Transport Strategy.

A range of further comments received individually by residents and local community groups were also favourable. Engagement with stakeholders at several in person events to promote the Local Transport Strategy and consultation have also taken place.

Concerns that have been raised have been addressed wherever possible within the final Bury Local Transport Strategy.