CONGESTION charging plans for Greater Manchester are under threat as a third council prepares to withdraw its support for the scheme.
Councillors in Bury are expected to vote on Wednesday to join Stockport and Trafford in a rebellion against the pay-as-you-drive proposals.
That would leave only seven of Greater Manchester's 10 district authorities in favour of the bid to implement road pricing, in return for £3bn of public transport improvements.
And the current bid to the government's Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) would collapse if just one more town hall was to change its mind and join the `No' camp. Under the terms of the bid by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), there must be at least a two-thirds majority among the 10 councils for it to go ahead.
If another council breaks ranks, the bid could only go ahead if there was a public vote in favour of the proposals in a referendum across all 10 district authorities. Plans for congestion charging were part of a complex transport strategy submitted by AGMA to the government in July.
Under the scheme, Greater Manchester would receive £3bn to spend on public transport, but only 40 per cent would come from the government and the rest would be borrowed and repaid from the proceeds of bringing in road tolls. A decision is expected next March.
Council leaders in Bury said they would oppose the congestion charge, but voted to back the bid in July after AGMA agreed to tackle traffic congestion to the north of the town and in Ramsbottom.
Bury's Tory leader, Coun Bob Bibby, said there had been no progress on the matter since then and the council would now be performing a U-turn and withdrawing its support.
Coun Bibby said: "They said they would look at the problem and get back to me. That was one of the conditions of us supporting the bid in the first place.
"They talked of getting consultants to draw up a report and all sorts. They were dangling a carrot, but they just haven't kept their word. We believe we have got the worst congestion in Greater Manchester and we need to do something about it.
"I would not want to see Greater Manchester lose the public transport improvements, but people are taxed up to the hilt and a lot are just saying `no' to congestion charging."
Bury council is under no overall control, but the Conservatives are the largest party and are claiming the support of the Lib Dems for the crucial vote on Wednesday.
The town's Labour group has already demanded a referendum on the issue.
Councillors will vote on the motion: "This council is against the TIF bid if congestion charges are included in the final offer from the government."
Campaigners against charging say they still want a referendum and spokesman Sean Corker said: "Even if the council votes not to support the TIF bid on Wednesday, we will still go ahead with our demands.
"Coun Bibby has assured us before that he will not support congestion charging - but Bury voted to accept it in July."
Should Bury back the congestion charge plans? Have your say.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
polkyb (10/12/2007 at 08:33)
Any vote other than NO would severly impact the Prestwich/Whitefield border.
No doubt this would also affect trade for Tesco Prestwich and Sainsbury's at Heaton Park. BOTH are sited on the outer ring and BOTH I would expect to see their early morning and early evening trade halved.
Dave (10/12/2007 at 08:39)
We can't all afford cars, and we need a good public transport system. When will the motorists stop being so selfish, and realise it's simply not sustainable, healthy, or environmentally friendly to have increasing cars on the road every year.
tram vet (10/12/2007 at 09:15)
so, bury would happily see the c-charge as long as rammy gets a bit of help with conjestion?
what about the debacle of radcliffe centre at peak times? designed and implimented by bury council! no help for radcliffe then?
what about whitefield? and ainsworth?
usual bury bully tactics. looking after themselves and letting all other towns die a lingering death
alvinlwh (10/12/2007 at 09:19)
Donkey-Stoner (10/12/2007 at 09:33)
"We can't all afford cars, and we need a good public transport system"
Where can you not go now where you will able to when public transport gets a massive boost(school buses, trams to hicksville etc) "public transport" is not going to put a bus on for you to go from Wigan to Bolton on Christmas Day or have a bus waiting outside Tescos to take you and your shopping home at 11 at night.
Why should the private motorist pay billions just because you cannot get a decent paying job to buy a car?
In the know (10/12/2007 at 09:34)
Two councils have already withdrawn their support, this will probably be the third(although I would agree about the expected U turn later this week). Will all three councils have the charges thrust upon them. Will the roads within their area that were earmarked to have charges on still have them?
tram vet (10/12/2007 at 09:39)
nice to see your priorities are in the right order. i cant afford a car, so you lot cant have one either!!!!
quite right. equality for everyone.
stalin for prime minister!!!!
Chris, Irlam (10/12/2007 at 09:50)
Notice how it is only LABOUR run councils that now ignore the wishes of the people?
LABOUR OUT!
Ms D, Manchester (10/12/2007 at 09:55)
D Vader (10/12/2007 at 11:24)
My understanding is that the councils will by applying to the government for funding to get this scheme off the ground, am I correct? If this is so, why not invest the money on improving public transport instead. That should please most people shouldn't it?
CrankedUpReallyHigh, Tameside (10/12/2007 at 11:24)
The Bobelesque (10/12/2007 at 11:32)
That is the last time I shall use the bus.
When the council can sort out public transport that can be relied upon, I will use it. Until then I shall happily use my car, cause congestion, blow out carbon and damage the environment as much as is necessary to make my trip convenient.
I agree with Giles in the Big Wheel Breakdown story, Manchester is 3rd rate these days. The council is hopeless.
Dave (10/12/2007 at 11:35)
Also, you too are allowed to get public transport to your destination... seeing as you feel it is so adequate at the moment why don't you use it?
What about the affect cars have on young lungs? The increasing rate of allergies and cancer?
What about dwindling oil supplies, and the fact the remaining supplies are in unstable nations?
What about the fact that car use is growing so much that we will soon be gridlocked?
I'd better not mention global warming, as I'm sure you don't believe in that.
Maybe it's time some people visited European cities to see how much more relaxed places can be when they aren't chocked by cars, and where everyone can easily reach their destination using an efficient public transport system.... but I guess all the pro-car lobby care about is themselves..
Darren H - A-U-L, Ashton U Lyne (10/12/2007 at 11:36)
Black Flag (10/12/2007 at 11:38)
Because that is the fair cost of using roads. Motorists have been protected from paying the fair cost of driving for far too long, to the point where some people foolishly think they are being overcharged.
Rather than waste time with government run schemes, we should privatise the operation of roads. Auction off the right to run the roads on a regular basis and then let the company running them charge whatever it wants to let people use them. That way, the market can decide what the fair cost of road use is.
Mark Johnson (10/12/2007 at 11:41)
The fact is that any charges will have little effect on congestion - most people will just pay the extra as with Labours massive fuel tax rises. It's all about robbing the motorist to raise revenue.
wkdboy1, Woodley (10/12/2007 at 11:45)
PW, Manchester (10/12/2007 at 11:45)
And I’m no ‘petrol-head’ who loves his car whatever. I’m usually glad to get out of it by the end of the day.
Uncle Buck, Burnage (10/12/2007 at 12:08)
The 'loud minority' are actually the majority; and vastly so. As you said yourself, look at the polls. ALL polls, with the exception of the biased, ambiguous GMPTE one, are massively opposed. Remember the one on this very site? Something like 80% opposed?
Also, congestion in Manchester has FALLEN during the last year, despite the council's attempts to punish the motorist with traffic 'calming' schemes.
Timberman, MANCHESTER (10/12/2007 at 12:28)
They talked about getting in 'consultants,' all that was supposed to have been done with the £10m they have already spent, or did they forget about Bury?
Donkey-Stoner (10/12/2007 at 12:36)
My quote was qualified with " becuase "you" cannot get a decent job so as to afford a car." which you omitted.
The motorist in Greater Manchester will pay a greater price to use the roads than any other metro area ave for London. If you think being taxed twice is a good idea - I have no argument with you - I would like to know why I am not being consulted as I may be expected to pay 50 quid a week more than my Liverpudlian neighbour to use the local roads
tram vet (10/12/2007 at 13:12)
may be YOU are the one who should get out into europe and look at the city centres! i am sure there will be a bus/train that will take you there.
name me half a dozen euro cities that have decent public transport as a result of c-charging! go on, i dare you!
they have decent public transport because its been invested in for generations, unlike ours that has been underfunded for generations. i totally agree, public transport should be the first option for city centre transport. the problem i have is with other people being taxed to provide it. what happens when more bio-fuels are used in cars, when hydro-cell cars become more affordable? will c-charging then stop? will it heck. its back-door taxing, and the band wagon is being jumped on by every carless person in manchester.
yes i believe in global warming. its happened on a cycle for millions of years. yes we have contributed to it, but we havnt caused it. its the lemons who demand short term answers like c-charging that need educating. if you want to make a difference, lobby the govt to legislate that ALL new cars sold must perform 5% extra fuel economy on last years model, or they cant be sold. within 20 yrs the emmissions will have fallen way before c-charging has even broke even! but then again, that wont happen cos the govt wont get the fuel tax, and the c-charge. and those who cant afford cars now will still not have them then either. bleat bleat bleat
Beaufort (10/12/2007 at 13:21)
We do not suffer from traffic congestion. If thre are roadworks on a country lane and cars are stopped is this congestion? Congestion is when it is gridlock and we don't suffer from gridlock.
It is congested on buses. Again I used public transport last week and again I listen to swearing, see people stick gum on seatbacks, put up with smoking etc. We are not civilised enough in this country to have a decent public transport system. Many people chose cars because they are frightened to go by bus or don't want to sit in someone else's mess.
stacy (10/12/2007 at 13:22)
Why should we (The public) pay for improvements to line the pockets of big business such as stagecoach.
Mr Angry, Bury (10/12/2007 at 13:44)
The first was the Beeching cuts on the railways in the early 1960's when approximately a third of the total rail network was shut down and massively caused an increase in car use. (my dad only bought a car because the Manchester-Bury line was threatened, in the event, it was reprieved) Incidentally, this report was brought out by the Tory government of Harold Macmillan in 1963, Labour promised to dump it if elected, they won the election in '64 and proceeded to implement it.
Secondly, was Thatcher's ruination of the bus services by privatizing them under the 1986 transport act, this placed them in the hands of a variety of mickey mouse private firms, all of whom were eventually swallowed up by either Stagecoach, First Group or Arriva, so we now have a private monopoly run for a profit, which is a million times worse than a public monopoly run as a public service
Finally, the mess was completed by John Major's laughable excuse for a government which then sold off the remains of the railways
Combine it with bad planning which encourages car use and you have the mess that we have now