PLANS to bring congestion charging to Greater Manchester have suffered a further blow after a third council withdrew its support for the scheme.
At a stormy town hall meeting on Wednesday night, Bury council also called for a Greater Manchester-wide referendum on congestion charging.
Councillors passed a motion stating that the council would be `against the Transport Innovation Fund Bid if congestion charges are included in the final offer from the government'.
The Lib Dem amendment to an original Conservative motion went on to state that the council `requires that public support for the initiative is confirmed through a Greater Manchester wide consultative referendum on congestion charging'.
The vote, on which Labour councillors on the Conservative-majority council abstained, means Bury has now joined Stockport and Trafford in rebelling against the pay-as-you-drive plan.
At the moment only seven of Greater Manchester's 10 local authorities are in favour of the bid to implement road pricing in return for £3bn of public transport improvements.
Bury's vote means the current bid to the government's Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) could collapse if just one more town hall changes its mind.
Under the terms of the bid by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), which meets on Friday, there must be at least a two-thirds majority among the 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.
If successful, 60 per cent of the £3bn sum would have to be paid back through a charge of up to £5 a day to travel selected routes around the city. A decision is now expected in March.
Council bosses in Bury voted to back the bid in July after AGMA agreed to tackle traffic congestion in the north of the town and in Ramsbottom. The ruling Conservative group however performed a U-turn and announced plans to withdraw its support after council leader Bob Bibby said there had been no progress on the AGMA vows.
Bury's Labour group accused the council of `making decisions before the outcome of the TIF bid is known' and `running scared' after anti road toll campaigners threatened to lobby for an elected major who would overthrow the plans.
Debate
Coun Wayne Campbell said: "We want this money but it is not just going to appear. To do nothing is not an option. We should debate it at the right time and the right time will be when the bid is put in."
But both Bury's Tories and Lib Dems said they supported the TIF bid, divorced however from the congestion charge element.
They argued that public transport improvements should be central government policy and branded the TIF `the Transport Injustice Fund'.
Lib Dem leader Tim Pickstone revealed that he and Bury's other political party leaders received a letter from Sir Howard Bernstein, Manchester City Council's chief executive, urging them to support the bid.
He said: "Bury is flexing its muscles in Greater Manchester. We will not stand for government bullying."
Coun Richard Baum added: "We need people using sustainable public transport but there is no such thing as a free lunch. We pay for it through our tax and the government wants us to pay for it again through congestion charging."
Tory leader Bob Bibby added: "We are against the principal of congestion charging. What we are not against is £3bn worth of public transport investment."
The council re-affirmed its support of public transport bus `corridors' to the north of the town.
It added that a public transport boost in Manchester was `urgently needed' but that it rejected the attempts of the government to `force congestion charging on Greater Manchester to receive the public transport that we need'.
What do you think? Have your say.
Tweet
Bury blow for c-charge
December 13, 2007
Road pricing plans in question
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Kurt Stephens, Sale (13/12/2007 at 09:07)
there is a congestion problem both in their borough, and across all of Greater Manchester that needs to be tackled, yet on
the other they are attempting to kill off literally the only solution left available to them.
Given that the TIF proposals from the PTE are still in with the DfT for consultation, too see what the DfT are actually going
to offer, I fail to understand why Bury have made the decision now, other than that of weak leadership.
Surely, the logical way forward would have been to see exactly what was going to be on offer from the DfT, and make the
decision during the consultation phase of the bid that will be occuring next summer?
By making the choice they have, they are only increasing the chances of us being left with an inadequate public transport
system and worsening traffic problems as time progresses - be in no doubt whatsoever, the DfT have £700m per year for
transport projects outside of London, this is set (and the Tories have pledged to stick to Labour spending plans), and will
not be changing, for the next decade. If we do not grasp this oppurtunity to develop our transport system now, it'll be gone
for years and years, and we'll have more and more traffic jams to worry about.
At some point, probably in the not to distant future, our public transport and roads will reach capacity on many routes, and
we'll have no way of ensuring that this situation doesn't start to strangle the local economies.
Lets get this clear, without TIF we'll have very few public transport improvements other than the much cheaper option of more
and more bus lanes (which I know are so loved by many on here - but hey, if you want to strangle our public transport
investment, then you're going to get the cheapest option available).
One final thought as to why I believe congestion charging is the only fair way to raise this money...
TIF will bring along alternatives to using the car for the vast majority of journeys that would be charged, and those that do
chose to continue to drive will get the added benifit of not having the roads as busy as otherwise they would have been.
Also, more important than that, given it is Greater Manchester that would benifit from such a scheme, I firmly believe that
we should be funding it. I see no reason why I should be expecting someone who lives in Devon to be funding a transport and
road network in Greater Manchester that he will never benifit from. The scheme should be funded by the people of Greater
Manchester who will benifit from much improved public transport, lower congestion on the roads, and lowerchances of economic
stagnation due to traffic congestion.
Trudy, Bolton (13/12/2007 at 09:10)
Kurt Stephens, Sale (13/12/2007 at 09:16)
DfT have made it clear control over roads, buses, trains and trams will only truly come with TIF.
Where is the money coming from for these park and ride schemes and public transport priority measures?
Like it or not, the DfT are not going to fund these schemes, or provide the money for them without TIF.
Going down the route taken by Bury we are almost certainly going to ensure we do not get the public transport systems that you or I would like - no matter which party is in power in Whitehall.
Chris, Irlam (13/12/2007 at 09:17)
Kurt Stevens, Sale (13/12/2007 at 09:20)
Kurt Stephens, Sale (13/12/2007 at 09:21)
I bet serious money that not one sensible, viable alternative is suggested.
Black Sabbath (13/12/2007 at 09:23)
This is excellent news for the people, and for once it is good to see a council bowing to public pressure on such a critical subject.
Kurt Stephens, Sale (13/12/2007 at 09:25)
As I've said before, imitation and flattery and all that - very nice of you to take so much notice of my postings.
Donkey-Stoner (13/12/2007 at 09:26)
"Where is the money coming from for these park and ride schemes and public transport priority measures"
How about the people who use em? - if there is a call or that type of thing the private trsnsport opperators will provide without the need of a thirty year loan.
One thing I know, it will not be coming out of my backpocket!
Batfink, Manchester (13/12/2007 at 09:26)
Kurt Stephens, Sale (13/12/2007 at 09:37)
Even the most capatilist country in the world, the USA, accepts that public transport requires subsidy, and infrastructure investment, otherwise nothing gets delivered, and the poorest in society are totally cut off, and those with disbility are totally unable to move around their local area.
So then, do we need public transport improvements or not?
If you are quite happy for public transport to disappear those roads are going to get a lot lot busier as the people migrate over to cars, and your traffic jams are going to get worse and worse.
It's funny how the most successful cities in the world all have great public transport systems, normally funded through locally raised revenues.
Oh well, lets go down the Bury route and ensure a Manchester and area continues to be the mediocore place it is, continually constrained by poor transport links, and huge division due to lack of mobility.
What a great future to look forward to.
Giles, Voice of City Fans (13/12/2007 at 09:42)
We have the metrolink, an airport, trains (Victoria being revamped without congestion charging money, Piccadilly refurbished already), so what do you want?
Manchester is not congested. If you want to see congestion then look at Beijing, Bangkok, LA or Delhi. We are a hamlet in comparison.
No more comments.
wkdboy1, Woodley (13/12/2007 at 09:53)
Jimc (13/12/2007 at 09:55)
My guess is all the other authorities who so far have not obelected will be offered even more money for thier districts to ensure the congestion rip off goes through.
There are only two places in Manchester that i see congested.
Piccadily bus station.
Rusholme twice a year during Ramadam.
Alex Green (13/12/2007 at 09:56)
Private industry is simply too self interested to seriously take into account externalities such as congestion. Without external involvement it will not be tackled sufficiently and we will end up with a clogged up roads everywhere, slowing down both cars and buses. This will hinder economic growth and cause a detrimental effect on people's standard of living from time wasted in transport.
The TIF bid will help provide many transport improvement we will either not get for the next 20 years or never get while also providing us with the opportunity to reduce congestion through a charge which would then help us to dictate how the final national charge would work. Without any charge of our own, in 10-15 years we will be imposed with one anyway, with no control over how it is implemented!
It would be a real shame if we lost the TIF bid when it would have such a radical effect on improving the Greater Manchester conurbation which will help further develop the area as one for investment into new jobs and growth.
Bury has been scared off by a few pro motorist lobyists, rather than take the tough decision to do it is actually good for its people after knowing all the facts.
Alex Green (13/12/2007 at 10:02)
There is only fixed space for motorists which is not easily expanded. Also some buses are not that full, I agree but when you increase public transport provision you also increase the connection possibilities, ease and convinience, so has an added growth of users i.e. would help fill not empty the buses.
If people were charged, then those buses would be filled more anyway, leading to less congestion from the cars taken off, speeding up journeys for the rest of the car journeys.
Kurt Stephens, Sale (13/12/2007 at 10:09)
It takes 1hr to get from Park Road in Timperley to the M60 each morning along the A56.
The M56 is chock a block each and every morning, as is the Mancunian Way.
There are loads of areas around the city where congestion is pinching, and this will only get worse and worse as time progresses.
Not, we are not Bejing, London or any of the mega cities, however, to fail to see that we have a developing problem, and that the problem will get worse with time is blinkered in the extreme.
We don't have a fully fledged tram network, it will only be delivered through TIF, we do not have regulated buses (and roads and trains), they will only be delivered through TIF, we don't have integrated ticketing, it will only be delivered through TIF, we don't have a bus network that serves the poorer areas sufficiently, it will only be deleivered through TIF and we have no high performance rapid bus routes, they will only be delivered through TIF.
To imagine we could deliever the schemes required to push the region forward we need TIF, it will deliver capacity required for economic growth, greater social cohension between poorer areas and areas of employment and overall a much more attractive place to live.
Black Flag (13/12/2007 at 10:11)
For some time, a number of the users of this site were commenting on the horrific congestion on the roads caused by bus lanes, one way systems, lack of road building, etc., but since the Congestion Charge was initially suggested, the same people have been posting to say that there is no congestion, traffic levels are down, etc.
I can only conclude that the Congestion Charge has some mystical powers which mean that its mere mention is enough to reduce congestion.
As for the idea that public transport needs subsidy because the US does it, that’s simply untrue. The reason that the US has to provide subsidy is that the cost of fuel in the US is absurdly low, which means that the externalities of transport are not taken account of in decision making. If you have a level playing field in which externalities are full costed, public transport is fully capable of supporting itself.
In the know (13/12/2007 at 10:14)
Earlier today a representative from GMPTA was on GMR talking about the shackles that are placed upon them because they hold no authority over the bus companies (private companies). He talked about bus services over the Christmas period and basically said we will work with the companies, but it is often frustrating because they can only do so much. Private bus companies are in it to make money not provide a service. There should be a re regulation of these companies before any cash injection.
One of the main reasons this is not backed at a local level is because it is a national problem. Yet the money that is raised at a national level is spent elsewhere, London being a prime example of this. Before anyone says that is because they have the congestion charge, look at the figures. It simply isn’t the case.
Bury, Trafford and Stockport have listened to the people that voted them in and they should be praised for that. Kurt speaks of the consultation process that will take place next year. Looking at the consultation process that has already taken place it would seem only the ones who have consulted and listened have decided to back out.
None of the Councils who are still in the scheme have approached their public to see what they want. Nor do I think that will happen. Instead we are told this is the only route available to us.
The message regarding the loan is getting out and the public are beginning to realise it is a bum deal. Some Council’s listened and have back out, some simply don’t listen.
Come next May lets see if they open their ears.
Tameside and Bolton watch your back.
Rob (Manchester Against Road Tolls) www.manchestertolltax.com, Denton (13/12/2007 at 10:16)
Watch out Tameside - you are next! (We will be in Stalybidge tonight, and Ashton Market on Sunday).
www.tamesidemart.co.uk
Lord Badger (13/12/2007 at 10:17)
S P In exile, Tameside (13/12/2007 at 10:18)
Ms D, Manchester (13/12/2007 at 10:33)
Fran M, Stockport (13/12/2007 at 10:36)
If evidence were needed to confirm this look at a government booklet from DfT, the TRL and institute of Highways and Transportation called, Urban Safety Management Guidelines-Road Safety Strategies for Urban Communities.
Local councils are urged to.
Lengthening journey times on local distributor and residential access roads by reducing the speed of traffic, (mainly through traffic
calming)
Giving less time at traffic signals to traffic on local distributor and residential access roads taking space for car traffic by installing central refuges and hatching, bus and cycle lanes and fitting bus-priority receivers to traffic signals, triggered by transponders on the buses.
All the Greater Manchester councils embrace this advice with gusto and then go further. Roads are narrowed and closed off at the drop of a hat. New speed limits imposed for no good reason where there is no history of accidents. Traffic gating is used extensively to cause traffic queues. Bus stops are moved out into the road and traffic islands positioned directly opposite. Take a look at the so called Reddish Corridor or the A6 through Levenshulme and Longsight. Road junctions are narrowed causing further queues. All designed to reduce road space. Speed humps are ubiquitous. Even Ken Clarke who introduced the use of speed bumps when he was in government has admitted it was a big mistake.
And it’s not only minor roads that are designed to cause problems. The A34 through Wilmslow and Handforth Dean is a daily grind for anyone travelling on that road. A series of roundabouts cause traffic chaos. This is a relatively new road and good road design could have illuminated the bottleneck by the use of flyovers and underpasses. It’s not quantum physics!
The truth is that the local authorities engineer congestion into their road planning on the advice of the government. So then they can come along and blame the motorist and introduce a congestion charge for the very problems they have caused.
Black Sabbath (13/12/2007 at 10:42)
The TIF is truly the TRANSPORT INJUSTICE FUND as Labour use it to batter a Road Pricing scheme through, the TIF is a bad idea (it must be as Kurt thinks it is a good idea!) and it should be dropped as plans for a national RP scheme already have been.
Viva La Revolution Baby! Democracy In Action!! WooHoo!!!