Q. Is congestion charging a price worth paying for £3bn worth of public transport improvements?
NO Chris Wermann is European communications director for Kellogg’s and a member of the Greater Manchester Momentum Group, an alliance of 160 businesses challenging current congestion charging proposals.
Ensuring congestion does not damage the economic competitiveness of our region, along with protecting the environment and delivering a superb public transport system, is a priority for all of us. But introducing the world’s largest congestion charging zone – 12 times larger than the initial London scheme – will irreparably damage our economy, adding hugely to the cost of doing business and penalising commuters by charging them up to £1,200 a year just to drive to work. The £1.2bn debt burden we will take on will also make the scheme irreversible. In agreeing to accept a TIF award in exchange for becoming a guinea pig for road pricing, when cities from Birmingham to Edinburgh have rejected charging, we make our city region much less attractive to existing business, inward investors and potential recruits, in an increasingly tough economic climate. We should find other ways for local government and transport operators to invest, to meet the growing demand for public transport and look at cheaper, proven approaches to managing congestion.
YES
Chris Oglesby, chief executive of Bruntwood and founder member of pro-TIF business alliance United City.
The £3bn package that has been offered is unparalleled – the government will provide £1.5bn for investment in Greater Manchester’s public transport network for free. This is a fantastic deal – the largest ever public transport investment in the UK outside of London and 90 per cent of ALL the funding that the government has made available for regional public transport.
MAYBE Paul Hannah, business development director at Klarius Group
Congestion charging is a good idea on paper, but only if it is used to encourage the development of greener technology for all vehicles on the road, and not just the public transport.
Some of the revenue will still need to be used to persuade drivers and businesses to look at the alternatives to high polluting vehicles.
YES Roger Stephenson, director Stephenson Bell architects and planners
The chaotic state of our public transport system is a direct result of the deregulation carried out by Mrs Thatcher and years of under-investment. There can be no doubt that £3bn of investment is needed to create a 21st century public transport system. The Manchester proposal is the right way round – get the transportation right first, then introduce charges to help pay for it. When it was first suggested that shopping streets in city centres should be pedestrianised, retailers and shoppers alike were up in arms. As soon as it was done, the increased turnover in the shops soon changed their minds.
YES
David Partridge, joint chief executive of Argent Group
The introduction of road pricing across all of the UK is just a matter of time, and, once again Manchester is at the forefront, taking a lead and taking advantage of an enormous opportunity to improve the transport infrastructure of the whole area. The pledge that no charging will be introduced until after transport improvements have been completed is fundamental, so that people will have a proper and equally commodious choice of how they want to travel. Retailers and everyone in the leisure industry should benefit enormously, as their customers will be able to take advantage of the improved public transport, while travelling outside of the charging hours. As the UK lurches towards recession, no region can afford to look the gift horse of a £3bn injection into the local economy in the mouth. The alternative is to plump for a steady and slow strangulation by allowing congestion to get worse while transport infrastructure languishes. This is a once in a lifetime chance.
NO Ruth Whittingham, associate solicitor at the Manchester office of Farleys Solicitors LLP.
I really don’t believe that it is. I am sceptical that all the money would even go towards public transport improvements anyway, and I don’t believe that the congestion issue would ill be solved. People would probably still have to drive to a metro or train station, and then pay to park, as well as paying their fare to get into the city centre. This would probably cost a similar amount to the daily charge but would take a lot more time. Time is a valuable commodity.
People who use the motorway links to get into work will still be stuck in queues – only they will be paying for the privilege, and people like myself who work in Manchester and drive in on a relatively clear route will be paying too.
NO Nick Davenport, senior partner at turner parkinson LLP
For years governments have been incapable of predicting transport needs accurately. Initiatives have frequently led to unplanned and unforeseen results, which cause more problems than they solve. I have no faith that the current crop will get it right when most of their predecessors have got it wrong.
YES Ian Munro, group chief executive, New Charter Housing Trust Group
Greater Manchester desperately needs to invest in its transport system. The TIF bid represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Working in social housing, I know my customers will benefit hugely. Charging for roads will be problematical, but we need to ensure this is balanced by a transport system that is efficient, safe and usable.
NEXT week's question: The smoking ban: has it damaged the leisure sector beyond repair?
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Q. Is congestion charging a price worth paying for £3bn worth of public transport improvements?
A. Of course it is. Next question please!
Q. Is congestion charging a price worth paying for a £3bn loan for public transport improvements - when London gets this sort of investment for nothing?
Next question to Kiwi-blue - how on earth is this going to benefit you?
I see the YES brigade are still telling us all that there's a congestion problem even though the official figures show a steady decline in traffic over the last 7 years.
If it ain't broke, TAX IT!
The terminology used by the pro charge lobby never ceases to amaze me.
"no region can afford to look the gift horse of a £3bn injection into the local economy in the mouth."
Last I heard was £1.2bn of that was a LOAN not a GIFT.
Birmingham & Cambridge have already said NO THANKS
So, where's the poll result?
Was it too embarrasing for AGMA/GMPTE for you to print?
As stated in that article : "The £3bn package that has been offered is unparalleled – the government will provide £1.5bn for investment in Greater Manchester’s public transport network for free.".
So we don't need to repay that amount then? That's good news.
Next question is, when we have repaid the £1.2bn, what happens after that? I assume we are still to be charged, so where will the money go?
A good point to raise here is that the public Transport system was once owned by the public i.e. the tax payer until it was sold off by Maggie Thatcher, the money obtained should be earmarked for other worthy things whilst the Private companies who bought them should be responsible for their upkeep.
It's like buying a house from someone and expecting them to keep maintaining it for you for ever
Why are they now getting what is essensially tax payers money on the condition that the tax payer pays again (and again!! we'll still be paying road tax!)
Roll on 2010!
Roger Stephenson..."The Manchester proposal is the right way round – get the transportation right first, then introduce charges to help pay for it"
Actually Mr Stephenson, Manchester's intention was to do half a job and charge places like Trafford Park half the charge for NO PUBLIC TRANSPORT IMPROVEMENT.
Manchester City Council cannot be trusted.
Blah Blah Blah Yadda Yadda Yadda....try asking some REAL people their opinion for once!
Or are you afraid they won't tell you what you want to hear Mr [pro-toll] MEN?
£3bn will not be spent on improvments. The set up costs have to come out of this. How much will this cost to set up and run? £500m? £750m?
"Q. Is congestion charging a price worth paying for £3bn worth of public transport improvements?
A. Of course it is. Next question please!
Kiwi-blue, Christchurch NZ
1/07/2008 at 11:38"
Here's a question for you - what's it got to do with you? Keep your beak out!
YES
I welcome the congestion charge. It has certainly worked positively in London where public transport is far superior than here. The amount of rush hour Manchester city centre traffic needs urgently reducing, as do the amount of solo commuters. The busy small road through my village is 95% solo occupancy. I’ve monitored it!
We need to reduce everyone's carbon footprints now!
The congestion charge will however create problems for business of all sizes. The many small cultural industries based in the city centre may be affected. Prices will generally rise and new businesses may choose not to locate here. Jobs will certainly be affected. These are small prices to pay and will even themselves out with time.
Those deciding how the improvements in bus, rail and Metro transport take place must spend time commuting on them, as I do. They can be a nightmare at any time of day and night. Security, punctuality, frequency, comfort etc are all still poor. These must be massively improved before instigating the congestion charge.
Phil Jones
Director of Summer in the Park Festival (12 & 13 July) and the Manchester Food and Drink Festival (3 - 13 October)
put it to a real vote with real people, i haven't been asked one time about the con charge neither has anybody i know, who do they speak to when doing surveys?
Phil Jones:
"Jobs will certainly be affected. These are small prices to pay and will even themselves out with time."
I am sure you will be first in the queue to tell those losing their jobs or businesses in the future as a direct result of this nonsense that their sacrifice was a worthy one....will you?
Thought not.
Attempt No.3 lest I criticise United City and it's motives anymore.
Oglesby,
1. It is not free. It is paid for in Tax and Con Charges
2. It is not unprecedented. A £16bn Crossrail project for no tax return is being proposed in London.
3. The fact that it is 90% of the regional public transport budget says more about the inadequacy of the budget than the size of the grant.
And good on Mr Jones welcoming the charge but then going on to explain the problems with it. Security, Rising Prices, Lost Jobs Still as long as extra trams can bring people to two largely irrelevant festivals, then 2.5 million people should be subjected to more tax.
Roll on the Referendum....
Not in any way, shape or form, the so called congestion has been manufactured in the first place by the councils narrowing every road they can. The Toll Tax to give the con charge it's real name is like letting a fox look after the chicken run, even the con-sultation video is biased as the people appear to agree with the actor in following him pied piper fashion from their cars. Labour is still spinning.
I tried to post a comment on here earlier on today, similar to one posted on the 'double whammy' thread but it doesn't look as though they'll include it.
It appears the BBC are prepared to provide a national platform for the pro CON charge brigade to air their views: 'Manchester Congestion Charge: Myth and Reality.'
Surely we are allowed our opinion also? Anyone have
any contacts in the BBC?
i've never seen such a totally biased bung of pro toll trolls in my life.
All the yes's are companies that would benefit tremendously by the con charge.
Bruuntwood, One of the UK's leading providers in office accomodation. has a large amount of offices in manchester.
Stephenson Bell architects, have built many residential projects in the city centre so they would gain more oppotunities to build in the city.
Argent Group, a property development company that makes money from redeveloping property. manchester is a prime location.
New Charter Housing Trust Group, has lots of properties around the area. meaning more people wanting to move into the centre to avoid the charge.
the companies against it are all one's that would be affected by the charge but see no real benefit from the proposed public transport improvements.
these many have to add the costs onto the products they provide. eg, your conrn flakes, solicitors fee's just in this example.
which us the general public will have to pay for.
This is just another example of the pro toll trolls preparing to line their pockets off the back of our money.
Phil Jones said "The many small cultural industries based in the city centre may be affected. Prices will generally rise and new businesses may choose not to locate here. Jobs will certainly be affected. These are small prices to pay and will even themselves out with time."
Cough splutter, people accuse Maggie Thatcher of being uncaring and heartless. Phil jones, you need to bear in mind this will kill the whole regeonal economy. There is no 'evening out over time'. The Long - run economics means that if it costs more to employ people in the Greater Manchester area, business will go elsewhere - simple!
Congestion will disapear but any economy that fails will see congestion disapearing. Manchester does not exist in a vacuum, business has plenty choice re. location.
my advice to businesses in manchester.
if you're thinking of relocating to avoid the con charge. go to the south side of stockport (as stockport are against the charge they deserve some support) or go further afield out of greater manchester. dont go to any of the surrounding towns. they're all supporting the charge so that businesses relocate to their areas from withing the rings. this is what they're expecting to happen.
so dont give them the satisfaction.