C-charge boost for trams

September 19, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (21) | Previous | Next

BOOST: Metrolink

MANCHESTER'S likely deal with the government over congestion charging has given new hope to tram systems across the country, a business leader has claimed.

Angie Robinson, of Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, said: "Like Liverpool, Leeds and Portsmouth, Greater Manchester's Metrolink expansion plans took a significant setback when government funding was withdrawn

"For a while it looked like light rail had gone off the government's agenda."

But she told a transport conference in Manchester: "The future of light rail has, however, been given new hope, although with funding from alternative sources."

And she said: "Light rail continues to be seen as a vital element and future of the public transport service in Greater Manchester."

The conference heard that Edinburgh's £660m tram system has been given the go- ahead after Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, Greens and solo independent Scottish MPs voted 81-47 against the Scottish National Party to support the tramway. It also heard that use of the Nottingham Express Transit corridor is up by 20 per cent in the peak periods.

Almost a third of Nottingham tram passengers have directly transferred from car or use park and ride.

And the Docklands Light Railway extension to London City Airport has meant around 120,000 fewer taxi rides and 288,000 fewer car journeys.

What do you think? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (21) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 21 and replies | View All

Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (19/09/2007 at 07:17)

Just thought you would like to know what the State of the City Report, done by KPMG, paid for by Manchester City Council says

“There has not been any detectable increase in traffic congestion on local roads over the last year.”

Page 11 section 4.4.3

www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/State_of_the_City_appendix.pdf

wkdboy1, Woodley (19/09/2007 at 09:06)

The only change I have noticed on the roads is the increase of roadworks, and they dont usually have anyone working on them. They just block up the roads, just like the big wigs want.

Technobabble, Manchester (19/09/2007 at 09:30)

Our Angie is talking at cross purposes here. When the central government pulled the funding for the Metrolink extensions and new Leeds, Liverpool and Portsmouth tram systems at the 11th hour, it was nothing short of a travesty, and nothing can excuse that.

And as the rest of her comments show, light rail can clearly have a positive effect on car congestion. But then simply installing trams up front to solve the problem wouldn't give a nice juicy excuse to introduce a congestion charge, would it?

Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (19/09/2007 at 10:15)

Did you see that Edinburgh got £660m towards their tram system, this is after they were offered the money in exchange for introducing a congestion charge.

They rejected their C-Charge in a referendum, and they still got the money.

Chris, Irlam (19/09/2007 at 11:08)

Simon, I have no doubt that we in Manchester would also (eventually) get the money for a tram expansion if we were bold enough to reject the Tif bid....it's just that those with vested interests will not let this happen. Referendum now!

wkdboy1, Woodley (19/09/2007 at 13:39)

when we have the next election, find out who does and who doesnt want congestion charge, then vote for the ones who don't, its the only way to get this con stopped.

Rachel, Manchester (19/09/2007 at 13:41)

Have just returned from holiday in Prague, where for £7 you can buy a weekly ticket which entitles you to get on and off any of the metro, tram, bus and some train services which between them cover the whole of Prague 24 hours a day. I would expect no less for this price before any congestion charging comes in. £7 here buys a restricted route bus ticket. There's no comparison.

alvinlwh (19/09/2007 at 15:10)

Why must money from the C-charge be used on trams? It is money collected for the use of the roads, so the money should be spent back on road improvements, not trams improvement. If they want to improve the trams, they should charge the users instead!

polkyb (19/09/2007 at 16:13)

The biggest problem I have seen is that the government is manipulating the AGMA members into going for this travesty of a bid, and most of those are Labour councils.

We MUST remember that two TORY councils also voted for TiF and that my local councillor (labour) is dead against it.

In my opinion, it's new labour bullying and bribing local councils who SHOULD KNOW BETTER that to accept them.

I'm scared that the next local elections might be too late to stop them sending me and my children down the river with this £3bn debt.

If we didn't/couldn't pay the loan... could they repo the town hall...? :-)

polkyb (19/09/2007 at 16:22)

Sorry. I got a fact wrong in my previous post.

one tory and one Lib Dem council voted in favour of this charge.

Chris, Irlam (19/09/2007 at 16:23)

polkyb - that is their exact intention....by the time the dim half of the electorate realise they've been conned it will be too late to do anything about it. This is something 'Tricky' Dicky Leese alluded to last week, frankly if people sleepwalk into it then they deserve it both barrels!

polkyb (19/09/2007 at 16:27)

You're right Chris, but why should they be allowed to take all the rest of us down with them?

Richard Wilde (19/09/2007 at 20:36)

If we as joe public make a bad investment and waste loads of money on useless things, we have our house's snatched back, are made bankrupt and sometimes sent to jail.
Will Sir Richard and friends be made to pay back the money that they have wasted on surveys and such or will they just put up the council tax. (Of with their heads)

Fred Parker (19/09/2007 at 20:47)

How many more Congestion Charge Supporters must we see hanging off trams, trains and buses in an effort to convince the public that they are working in our best interest. They are not or the Public Transport System would never have been allowed to fall into such wanton neglect. The sticking plaster won't work now, that is why they are adamant we are all going to pay a congestion charge - REFERENDUM NOW

Chris Paul, Manchester (20/09/2007 at 09:31)

Brilliant news. The sooner we have trams running to all corners of Greater Manchester the better. This will be brilliant for Manchester residents in terms of transport options and air quality, it will be brilliant for businesses who can opt to drive around uncongested on or off peak for a modest fee, and it will be great for Manchester's reputation to invent or in this case re-invent.

Off peak driving will be chargeless but once the addiction is broken there will be less cars all day anyway. People's working days will change around the new hours and this will extend the working day of city centre businesses. Probably enough to meld even more into the "tiffin time" and later evening economies.

City centre residents in particular will benefit as their air quality and noise levels drop, as the pressure on parking subsides to help them, as car clubs and so on kick in, and as more streets are pedestrianised or become shared surface.

Less cars, less drink driving. Less cars, less injuries and fatalities. Less cars, less road rage. Less cars, cleaner air. Less cars, faster buses. Just bring on those brilliant art cars instead.

Of course there will always be a noisy and persistent car lobby turning the air blue (and smoggy) with their armageddon predictions. Old John Whittaker of the Trafford Centre has such a vested interest in cars and their survival it's untrue. But bring it on.

Chris, Irlam (20/09/2007 at 09:44)

Chris Paul....what planet are you on?

When will trams run to all corners of Greater Manchester exactly?

Nothing about that in the TiF bid is there?

Snare Drum, Ashton-under-Lyne (20/09/2007 at 11:31)

For weeks we have said what is causing all the congestion but all we get is some lame CANite going on about fewer cars on the road when the only way this £1.8b can be paid is if the traffic increases. Public transport is not affordable to many people and most of the time is not even viable due to it doesn't go from A to B but stops short at both ends of the journey. We also saw in yesterdays paper that the trains were overcrowded, so why don't they put on more carriages instead of having them parked up on some siding. A thought has just struck me! OUCH! What happens when road works are needed, how the hell do you detour a tram??? Cars can get down side roads and even busses can struggle doing that. So as we can see, cars can get from A to B and are pliable enough to go on detours and most modern cars kick out far less muck than busses. I feel safer in my car as I don't have to stop and take on skallies and I don't have to hold my breath when the sneezing flue ridden passengers have their urge to share it with others. Simply we want freedom of choice without having to pay for someone else's choice. We want a REFERENDUM and we want it NOW!!!!!!!!!!!

Black Sabbath (20/09/2007 at 15:39)

Spoken by a Lib Dem MP very recently:

"I am afraid that some alternatives to Congestion Charging have not been investigated fully. I would like to see a return to site value ratings. This is basically a windfall tax on property values. Everyone knows about the regeneration benefits that Metrolink will bring to our town. You have the ridiculous situation in London though where £3.5 billion of public money is used to build the Thameslink. Then the developers see land prices rocket and make a fortune. Instead of always looking to clobber the motorist, why not look at clawing a significant portion of the cost of Metrolink through site value ratings? It is only by looking at sustainable solutions like site value ratings that we will see a transport system fit for the 21st century."

Anyone see anything wrong with that?

The Catcher, In The Rye (20/09/2007 at 16:02)

Chris Paul: When (eventually/if) they build the Rochdale/Oldham Line, it will shadow the current rail line out of Victoria and will stop at pretty well the same stops as the current train. In what way will this offer me more options?

Sad fact is that we will never have a proper integrated travel system because Manchester was starved of investment up until recently. I'll be sticking to my car thanks - and if they stick a congestion charge on me , I'll put oil in my diesel to create extra pollution.

Jane Bennett (FPB), Knutsford (21/09/2007 at 13:03)

I work for the Forum of Private Business (FPB) which represents over 25,000 smaller businesses in the UK, over 2,000 of which are based in Manchester. The FPB is concerned that smaller businesses have been overlooked during the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid process which will lead to the introduction of congestion charging in Greater Manchester. The Government must be very happy that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce is on board with the bid’s proposals however what we would like Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTA) and the Government to answer is why smaller firms have not been consulted during this process? Our members will not be able to transport their goods on trams or any other forms of public transport, despite the fact that they will be paying for them through congestion charging. Smaller firms will have to increase their prices, will become less competitive and may even have to move out of the city centers. It is urgent that the Government considers this and consults properly before smaller businesses are chased out of our cities.

Jane Bennett, Forum of Private Business

rammylad, ramsbottom (23/09/2007 at 09:45)

Personally I am going all the way to Jail with this Congestion Charge. I am already looking forward to it. I can see Sir Dicky's press statement now.

'It is appropriate to release 20,000 killers, rapists, drug dealers and common thiefs so we can find room to punish these evil Con charge dogers. They are really putting a downer on my bid to become a Lord as they won't pay to get to work when other city workers around the country don't have to. I would however ask people to be more careful when they visit the city as it is no full of out of work, un educated, evil killers and drug dealers who are exempt from the Con Charge as they generally steal cars'.

()

Report

News