MANCHESTER'S congestion-charge bid WILL go ahead, transport chiefs say, despite claims that Gordon Brown could scrap plans for a national road-pricing scheme.
The prospect of a national scheme has been seen as a major argument in favour of Greater Manchester submitting a £3bn bid to the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF).
The bid, which was submitted in the summer, includes plans for a peak-hour congestion charge of up to £5 a day. In return, Greater Manchester is requesting a grant of £1.2bn and permission to borrow £1.8bn more.
There are claims that the prime minister was ready to put national road pricing on the backburner after fierce opposition throughout the country.
But the Department for Transport said there had been no change in policy.
A spokesman said: "We have said all along that we want to see how this works regionally and locally."
Roger Jones, chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, said: "The DfT has said that it wants to see road pricing working in regional pilots before it makes any decision about whether there should be a national scheme.
"In terms of Manchester's bid, the process has not been affected."
Greater Manchester - through the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities - remains the only part of Britain so far to submit a bid for the fund. DfT officials have made it clear successful bids will be expected to include some form of road pricing.
Andrew Simpson, managing director of Peel Holdings, said: "This is an embarrassing day for the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities.
"They decided to press on regardless in a bid to win Transport Innovation Fund cash and in the process have spent £6.6m of taxpayer's money becoming the only runners in a one-horse race.
"National road pricing will not become a reality and that removes a central strand from AGMA's argument. They have also consistently refused to release financial information about the scheme so I cannot see how they can now have a case to proceed."
What do you think of the congestion charge? Have your say.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 19 and replies | View All
Chipper, CIty center (16/10/2007 at 09:35)
Chris, Irlam (16/10/2007 at 09:50)
Jones KNOWS he is wrong.
Jones CANNOT ADMIT he is wrong.
Thank God the man will be gone next year!
Manchester Against Road Tolls (16/10/2007 at 09:59)
Whatever it pretends, the Government knows that so called "congestion charging" is a scandalous waste of money. In London about 90% of the money collected in charges and fines has been spent on setting up and running the system.
The chances of national road pricing going ahead are very slim as it will waste many billions and whichever party openly backs it will lose the next election.
If despite this Greater Manchester goes ahead with its road toll plans, then the whole area will be subject to an economic blight as most of the rest of the country will be toll free.
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/10/2007 at 10:37)
headline says
"Road toll bid 'to go ahead'"
Not
"Road toll 'to go ahead'"
Rush hours Car levels have been proven to be dropping in Greater Manchester in the last 6 years by upto 22 perecent in some places.
The congestion is being created by Jones a his buddys by fiddling with the roads.
Jones can say what he wants because he is up for re-election in May08.
The people of Irlam this time knowing it is him up for re-election, I would not bet on him winning.
This is just a case of
Full steam ahead and damn the torpedos "Voters"
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/10/2007 at 10:54)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/15/nroads115.xml
RANDYRED (16/10/2007 at 10:58)
Oh and scrap the car tax too,money grabbing scroats,as if the govenment do not have enough,and we pay the most money into the eu,what a joke.
Rob (Manchester Against Road Tolls) www.manchestertolltax.com, Denton (16/10/2007 at 11:05)
National road pricing will be scrapped, so there is another element of the scheme that means it will fail.
The majority of the public do not support it, so that is one of the major tests of the scheme that has failed.
With all this failure, why are they still pressing ahead with the scheme? Pure and simply, to line their own pockets.
ace, manchester (16/10/2007 at 11:27)
ace, manchester (16/10/2007 at 12:03)
gillykins, urmston (16/10/2007 at 12:38)
mylifeinthemafia (16/10/2007 at 12:39)
wkdboy1, Woodley (16/10/2007 at 16:55)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/10/2007 at 17:12)
He is also the chairman of the GMPTA.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority.
This charming Manc (16/10/2007 at 18:48)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/10/2007 at 20:10)
If Jones does not stand in May08, or not win if he does, he loses both his postitions as a Labour councillor, and his positition on the GMPTA
Fred Parker (16/10/2007 at 20:14)
This proposal is not progress, it is another stealth tax to hit the motorist, the majority of whom have no alternative but to drive as public transport is unreliable and unsafe and not fit for purpose.
This proposal is not progress, it is another stealth tax to hit the motorist hard, the majority of whom have no alternative but to drive as public transport is so unreliable, dirty and unsafe and not fit for purpose. The £9.6 Million already wasted would have gone a long way to improving some of the major problems. I cannot for one minute imagine Mr Jones giving up his top of the range BMW to join the rest of the lower ranks on the tram or bus. Another case of do-as-I-say - not-as-I-do.
rammylad, ramsbottom (16/10/2007 at 22:06)
The problem, oh yes, a brand spanking new bus broken down at the traffic lights by Bowker Vale tram stop.
Every time there is congestion there is a bus broken down on my route. What about the fuel I wasted and the fact I did not get to put my lad to bed as I was late home.
Thanks bus company, thanks GMPTA. Now you want to charge me for sitting behind broken busses. Cool! I can see that working.
mancmonkey (17/10/2007 at 11:46)
S P In exile, Tameside (17/10/2007 at 11:49)
I have copied and paste the picture of Jones printed it and put it over the fireplace to keep the kids away.