Greater Manchester's ten councils voted last week to join the race for huge sums of cash from a fund called the transport innovation fund (TIF).
Only areas that get their bids in by the end of today can expect to be told by the end of the year whether they have been successful.
The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities wants £1.2bn and permission to borrow £1.8bn more against the 30-year profits of a congestion charge of up to £5 a day at peak hours.
Cambridgeshire, which wants a £500m package to deal with congestion around Cambridge, confirmed it would not be formally approaching the government until its county council's cabinet has voted on the matter in October. Shropshire claims to be about three-quarters of the way through a nine-month study of traffic problems.
The West Midlands - seen as Greater Manchester's biggest rival for TIF cash - are yet to agree on a plan. Tyne and Wear has indicated it may not bid until 2008.
Greater Manchester is bidding for virtually all of the £1.4bn currently due to be dished out on congestion-busting schemes under the TIF programme.
The Department for Transport made clear that by bidding early, Greater Manchester wasn't giving itself a better chance of winning.
A spokesman said: "We never set a deadline. It is in people's interests to get bids in by the end of July if they want a quick decision. But we want people to make good bids and take their time."
The spokesman also appeared to pour cold water on whispers from Westminister that Gordon Brown was going cold on a national road pricing scheme.
He said: "We have still taken no decision on that." Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
So its in then.
AGMA finally complied with the FoI requests on what they asked in their CONsultation.
On the day it went in though, tisk tisk
As suspected, at no point is the 2 billion pound loan with the 30 year pay back is mentioned.
Have look at it here, make your own mind up.
http://www.traveltax.org.uk/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=479
MART website
www.manchestertolltax.com
Petition
http://www.gopetition.com/online/12888.html
Proper protest time me thinks
I'm pleased to see that AGMA continue to show leadership on this issue. There's is a lot of detail to work through but I feel that this is the right direction for Greater Manchester to take. FIngers crossed for a successful bid.
Let us hope this bid is successful so that the "GREATER" Manchester area can have a public transport infrastucture to be proud of. Then we will be able to look forward to fewer vehicles in the city centre which can only be a good thing for health and the environment... It makes sense to me.
Both Leese and Jones are off for for two weeks straight after the vote.
Strange that eh, almost like they are avoiding any questions.
Most of the public are against this, so we need to step up our campaign of action and not only be in the face of AGMA, but also in Ruth Kelly and Gordon Browns faces.
Sign our petition if you haven't already done so, and send the link to as many people as you can.
Don't let the authorities force this unwanted stealth tax on the public. The fight is just beginning.
I don't think Manchester has done itself any favours by rushing the bid in and without the support of two surrounding authorities, namely Trafford and stockport. If other cities are fully supportive, unlike Manchester, they will get the money and the congestion charges. Manchester will deserve all they get for their arrogance and refusal to consult all their residents as they promised they would.
So Jones & Leese's rushed sham 'consultation' could have been done properly as the story reveals there was no need to bid this soon - we could have had a referendum and would have known conclusively whether or not local people support this bid.
Shame, I wonder why we did not?
And as there is no decision from the government until the end of the year any so-called 'consultation' in the intervening period is a waste of time as well - if the bid is in now and no decision on this bid is made for another 5 or so months how will further consultation affect things? Can details still be changed? If so stand by for hikes in duration & cost of the scheme....
Our fates have been signed & sealed by the authorities (with NO mandate from the public) and the execution will be delivered at the end of the year.
Say bye bye to your economy Manchester!
Good news to see the bid has formally gone in now.
Now the really hard work will be starting for those in the PTE and the DfT, hopefully they'll be able to come up with an agreement that satisfies both parties, and delivers the huge public transport improvements we so desperately need in Manchester.
Keep up the good work AGMA and the PTE.
http://www.traveltax.org.uk/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=479
One immediate thought on this "spoon fead"
The public is almost told what is happening and the way the questions are asked and put accross they would almost always be a yes.
AND
"The spokesman also appeared to pour cold water on whispers from Westminister that Gordon Brown was going cold on a national road pricing scheme."
The above is interesting any one got a link to this "whisper"
I agree with Graeme and Wor Bobby. Congestion, air pollution and social inequality are all growing problems, and we also need to take urgent action to tackle climate change. I believe that AGMA is acting in the best interests of all of Greater Manchester's residents by submitting this bid to fund a package of measures that will reduce peak-time congestion (to the benefit of businesses and road users), greatly improve the public transport system (to the benefit of everyone, especially those who can't afford to own a car), and reduce the contribution of transport to air pollution and climate change (again, to the benefit of everyone, and in particular the most vulnerable in society such as the young and elderly).
I've signed all the petitions that I know about - Though I feel that it is pointless. The consultation/opinion carried out so far by the suits has not asked the most relevent question: Will you pay (extra) to use your car? Not only will I not pay - I will deliberatly go out of my way not to help support any shop, store or business in the charging zone(s) So Tricky Ricky Leese there is at least 3 grand a year (At todays prices) out of Manchesters economy.
I state that as someone who always buys localy producced goods if possible from local suppliers and I have never bought a foriegn car in 43 years motoring.
i see there are comments about pollution,well some of my collegues have been doing pollution study of Manchester for years. Pollution has increased since deregulation,that is a proven fact.More Diesel buses and commercial vehicles are entering the city.But the major overall fact causing pollution is the bad design of the City.Manchester city centre has too many high rise buildings and covered in area,this stops the wind dispersing the pollution it cannot rise because of the buildings so close to each other.90 pecent of the pollution is not from cars but from the Buses and the building themselves.walk past most building and they have extractor fans spewing out all kinds of smells and dirt.
I'm just waiting for Stockport and Trafford's inevitable legal challenge when they realise that people coming to work and shop in their boroughs during charging periods will essentially be charged for entering, due to their being charged when they leave a neighbouring borough.
Professor Bob
Ive been saying this for years about the state of the town planners and what a mess they have made of our city with its poor planning of the roadways and the way they have allowed deregulation of the bus services around the manchester area.with all the bus routes with bus lanes Etc badly designed.The only thing the charge will do is raise revenue for the council to waste on yet even more looney ideas,most will not go into transport you can bet your life on it.
If Manchester do get the go-ahead for this congestion charge, I just hope it is as effective as the councillors are promoting, with the area inside the zone empty of all cars.
I wonder how they will pay back at least £90 Million a year in interest on top of the millions of pounds taken to administer the scheme if the poor motorist decides not to pay?
I for one will never again visit Manchester if I have to pay an entrance fee.
Peter Roberts,I dont think the idea is to cut congestion,if they cut the number of cars who is going to pay back these huge loans.This is just a money making scam to pay back the loans.They need the congestion to get money,catch 22 situation.
Manchester voted Labour back in on May 3rd this year and you all knew what would happen, so you voted for this congestion charge. The time is now to either accept it ot take direct action!
Ruth: what a very wise post. As you say, they will be hoping against hope that we continue to drive in the charge zone (we will because you won't be able to avoid it) otherwise the cash will stop. Then who will pay off the loan? Erm ... the citizens of Manchester - us! Brilliant.
mancmonkey - to be more correct most of Greater Manchester did not vote for anyone....turnout was less than 40%.
The fact is the majority of the minority that bothered to vote voted Labour....apathy is what will bring this insane tax to our doorsteps & the same apathy will eventually spell the end of this once great nation.
How sad.
Catcher - yes, the pro-tolls lobby on here consistently fail to mention that little fact so come on Kurt, Ali, Wor Bobby & the rest of you - tell us what hapens if your much-loved TiF bid actually works and very few people use their cars to incur a charge....how will the loan money get paid off?
Or will they just extend charge zones/times and increase the cost to cover the shortfall?
If everyone chooses not to drive then I would assume they still need to travel. A large number will therefore switch to public transport and the fares would pay back the loan.
I personally think those who come on here and criticise those who are so called pro-toll should be ashamed of themselves. This is freedom of speech - I have no problem with someone being for or against congestion charging, everyone is entitled to their opinion. All I would say is you make much more of an impact if you offer a reasoned, educated debate as oppose to constant criticism without thought that politicians are not taking decisions like this lightly.
And as for anyone thinking the bid didn't need to go in when it did because the government said so. Now you believe what the government says?!
"A large number will therefore switch to public transport and the fares would pay back the loan."
No where has it been mentioned public transport will pay back the loan. Simply the c-charge for this. (although dicky leese does like this council tax increases)
Ali and green friends, Your cleanairnow website was born,registered and launched all on the same day as the Urbis Debate. I noted one of your (then)home page supporters was CREATIVE CONCERN who recieve public funds for communicating the c-charge nonesense. Is there anything we should know about how your pre-launch list of supporters was formed ?
WHAT THE HELL! ratman your onto something here.
http://www.cleanairnow.co.uk/
Set up same day as urbis debate, it has case studies like the gmpte site (wonder if they learned and didnt use actors this time), the site is nothing to do with cleanair and basically a through and through propaganda machine for AGMA.
Just read it, its got so much spin it makes me sick : -/
NOW heres the Conspiracy, around x15 cleanair members were at the debate and their votes counted towards the "do the public want c-charge". Everyone presumed this was a seperate independent group.
I think AGMA IS CLEANAIR! and have just sunk even lower by "fixing" the MEN debate!
Re cleanairnow.co.uk.
Case Study:
"Amanda" she has children who are 6 and 14 years old - her teenager travels to work by public transport But she would like him to have more independence.
Not many 14 year olds drive to school - never mind work!