Traffic increase blamed on government

January 18, 2008

Submit Comments | Comments (37) | Previous | Next

Lib Bems blame the government for increasing congestion on the roads

THE government is to blame for a 12 per cent increase in traffic levels in Greater Manchester since 1997, say the Liberal Democrats.

Their transport spokesman, Norman Baker, says over the past decade traffic levels have risen dramatically everywhere in England, apart from London which has congestion charges.

He said government figures also show a 13 per cent rise in traffic levels in Cheshire and Lancashire and blamed the rising price of public transport and the falling cost of motoring for the increases. He said: "Here in black and white is proof of Labour's 10 years of failed transport policies."

Rochdale's Lib Dem MP Paul Rowen said London was the only place where public transport is properly funded. He said: "The government must invest in Rochdale's public transport, providing better buses and transport links."

Greater Manchester has been given an extra £1.5 million to help draw up public transport and congestion charging schemes.

Click here to see our interactive traffic map, and take part in our survey.

Submit Comments | Comments (37) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Kurt Stephens, Sale (18/01/2008 at 08:15)

So we are here now.

Where do we want to be?

How do we get there?

The Bobelesque (18/01/2008 at 08:28)

Kurt:

have we got a map?

can we read the map?

is the map accurate?

is the place where we want to be on the map?

is the place where we are on the map?

Is there an easy route?

So many questions - but what do they all mean Kurt?

polkyb (18/01/2008 at 08:38)

It's all part of Labours plan to introduce per mile road pricing around the country.

Paul Rowen (MP) is all for this, and yet again, is all against it at the same time.

I wouldn't trust a word this man utters anymore.

Richard Leese used to be against road charging as well (back in 2005) but now Sir Richard Leese is all for it.

alvinlwh (18/01/2008 at 09:24)

They just love to go on and on blaming everyone. They just could not recognize the very simple fact that it is human nature of wanting a car. Look at the Indian Tata car, look at the people interviewed in India, did a single one of them care about congestion or the environment? NO! They all said the same thing, they want to get OFF public transport or a scooter onto their OWN car. It is the way there and I don't see how can it be different over here.

Wanting a car is just human nature, face it people. No government, be it Lib Dem, Labour or Green can stop human nature. The best thing to be done is to accommodate the problem instead.

Tig, Manchester (18/01/2008 at 10:18)

Falling costs of motoring? If you are a minister with a fleet of chauffer driven cars then yes it would be. Cars are a money pit. I hate driving and would rather take public transport, but I haven’t got an hour and a half to take 3 buses (this is no exaggeration) to go the 10 miles to work so I drive to arrive in 20 mins. Manchester is a big place, if they want people to use public transport they need an integrated rail system that goes around the suburbs – in effect performing the function of the M60, not just radiating out from the centre. Buses are just too slow to go more than 4 miles.

Dave (18/01/2008 at 10:26)

Tig, you're right - public transport is terrible in Manchester, as the government don't seem to care about anywhere but London.

But it is also true that the cost of motoring is constantly falling, since Labour came into gov - something the pro-car lobby seem to ignore!

Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (18/01/2008 at 10:34)

alvinlwh: "Wanting a car is just human nature, face it people. No government, be it Lib Dem, Labour or Green can stop human nature. The best thing to be done is to accommodate the problem instead."

A fair point, and I've got a car myself that I drive, but there are some journeys that are far easier by a decent public tranport system than to drive.

It should be about having the choice, which many Mancunians still don't have.

For example, if I was to drive to my job in central Manchester, it'd take me about 30-40 mins and about £5-8 parking. So I get the train, which is about £3 return and takes 20 mins. I use my car for other trips, or to park & ride.

Some people seem to argue that it's one thing or the other, that you either have to drive everywhere or they want to ban the car. An intelligent discussion should be about a mix of all modes.

alvinlwh (18/01/2008 at 11:34)

Munkey Boy, I guess you are one of those that do not need a car for your job? I do and I am provided a parking space by my company because driving is part of the job requirements.

And as Tig said, I do not have 1 1/2 hour for buses. I had taken the bus and tram to work and it took me that long while driving, even with congestion, it took me 30 minutes.

paul teeque (18/01/2008 at 11:38)

"Traffic increase blamed on government"

After reading the title I was *hoping* to click into a story about "engineered congestion" - bus lanes, traffic islands, bottlenecks, traffic light sequences.

I am disappointed no MP has cottoned on to this yet. :- (

Chris, Irlam (18/01/2008 at 11:48)

Bob, you won't get any sense out of Kurt, he's a bit of a PT fanboy you see....

Munkey Boy has it right (for once!), he's in a minority as he is a PT fan who also sees the benefit of private transport. We need both a PT and a private option - problem with the Toll Tax is it forces people onto PT with an economic cudgel. If it works and cars are taken off the roads PT fares would have to rise to meet the loan repayments.....so we all lose.

If I too was travelling into the city centre I would use train or bus but as I work on the other side of GM from where I live this isn't an option so it's car or motorbike every time I'm afraid.

Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (18/01/2008 at 12:09)

paul teeque: "After reading the title I was *hoping* to click into a story about "engineered congestion" - bus lanes, traffic islands, bottlenecks, traffic light sequences.

I am disappointed no MP has cottoned on to this yet."

Has it ever occurred to you no MP would raise it as it smacks of desperate paranoia?

If you seriously believe the profession of transport planning has become so corrupt as to be led by an agenda to create congestion, you must have trouble leaving the house in the morning because the sky might fall on your head.

Or are you arguing safety schemes shouldn't be introduced? Oh, and sod the bus users too, they're obviously not important enough.

Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (18/01/2008 at 12:33)

Does it make a person a fanboy for even considering the alternative?

Tig, Manchester (18/01/2008 at 13:31)

I would say the government are to blame for congestion – public transport should never have been privatized. Private companies naturally want profits. Rail and bus routes provide a captive audience with no competition so they companies can charge what they like. The government are letting them as its just more tax rolling in.

Regardless of the cost of the car, the cost of rail travel is shocking. I remember on the news, when I was a lass, Royal mail taking everything off the railway because it was so expensive, and putting it on the roads. My Aunt recently got the train from Scarborough to Hull (via York because the direct line was out of action) to visit my Father in hospital and it cost SEVENTY pounds! For the same cost I was able to visit 5 times by car from twice as far away. My friend went to London recently for work and ended up flying and taking a taxi because it was only a few pounds more than the train. You can get a holiday in Spain for the price of a train ticket. How on earth are these costs justified? It’s no wonder everything is on the roads.

paul teeque (18/01/2008 at 13:48)

Munkeyboy

1. Bus lanes havn't decreased bus journey times

2. Bus lanes funnel two lanes of traffic into one

3. The same volume of traffic is now in one lane

4. This creates a bottleneck and congestion

5. We now need to borrow £3b to sort this out because Dicky Leese told us "doing nothing is not an option"

6. Go and make yourself a coffee chap and wake up to the reality

Paul :- )

Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (18/01/2008 at 14:52)

paul teeque: There are several bodies of evidence that show bus journey times have decreased where bus lanes have been employed - but more importantly they enable bus services to be more *reliable* and can run to timetable, as opposed to having the old wait-for-ages-then-3-turn-up syndrome.

The important thing about road capacity is how many lanes are available to traffic at the stop line - this is the bottleneck, not the bus lane. You may notice bus lanes in Greater Manchester don't run up to the stop line. Removing the bus lane would not expand this bottleneck.

Anyway, buses are a more efficient method of carrying people between a and b *on a congested road* (note I'm not saying in all circumstances). Besides, having reliable buses is the right thing to do to make them a viable alternative. Who wants to wait for a bus if you don't know you'll be waiting 5 minutes or 30?

Your attitude regards the car as the only alternative that should be considered, and everyone else can go swing. That's the unfairest tax of all.

Kurt Stephens, Sale (18/01/2008 at 15:00)

Bus lanes increase the capacity of a dual carriage way from 2000 people per direction per hour to 6000 per direction per hour.

If we are going to accept that more and more people are going to commute into Manchester, and accept that the current road infrastructure is incapable of getting the required people into town, then either fewer businesses will move to the city than otherwise would have been the case, or we need to dramatically increase our transport capacity.

Given the national Labour government are not going to fund the infrastructure we need, and the Tories would be even worse (suggesting we'd need to borrow all £3bn and not just the £1.8bn the other day), we either do it ourselves, or we accept that the city and region will not do as well as it should be.

alvinlwh (18/01/2008 at 15:52)

Buses are a more efficient method of carrying people between a and b only if it goes direct from your front door to where you want to go, without stopping for anyone else on the way.

For me to travel by bus from Fellowfield where I live to Old Trafford where I work, I need to take a bus to the city centre and then change to another bus or tram then walk to the office. Total time 90 minutes

With a car, I travel straight across Wilbraham Road to Chorlton and cut across Great Stone Road and I am there. Total time under 30 minutes.

Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (18/01/2008 at 16:24)

48% of households in Manchester don't have access to a car. What are we going to do for them?

Link: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/A1_ManFacts07.pdf

wkdboy1, Woodley (18/01/2008 at 19:34)

I am a bus user, it has done nothing to reduce the travel time on the buses and also we still have the 3 buses at once syndrome. I wish I could drive, then i could wake up later for work and get home earlier!

Kurt Stephens, Sale (19/01/2008 at 12:33)

alvinlwh - yes, and under the TIF plans you will not be paying to drive from Fallowfield to Old Trafford either will you?

alvinlwh (19/01/2008 at 19:42)

Kurt Stephens, nor under the TIF plans did it provide a bus that will run from Fellowfield to Old Trafford. However, I may not need to pay either as I will not be crossing any zones.

Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (19/01/2008 at 21:03)

alvinlwh.

They'll get you with the later Sat Tracking system that they really want.

Then it will be pay per mile.

Kurt Stephens, Sale (20/01/2008 at 10:09)

Hence why the TIF bid is sensible, instead of charging everyone in a zone, like London, it charges people heading down congested routes, into town in the morning and out again in the morning.

If you want improved transport between Fallowfield and Old Trafford through regulated and improved transport, the only way you'll be getting that in the real world is through TIF - and you will not even be having to pay if you chose to continue to drive.

Just looking at your circumstances it's a no brainer, improved public transport, with no charges.

Chris, Irlam (21/01/2008 at 09:45)

Kurt, any comments on phase 2 which will cover all of Greater manchester with pay-per-mile charges?

paul teeque (21/01/2008 at 11:21)

"If you want improved transport between Fallowfield and Old Trafford through regulated and improved transport, the only way you'll be getting that in the real world is through TIF - and you will not even be having to pay if you chose to continue to drive. "

If Manchesters councillors lived in the real world they would get funding from the government like every other city in the UK does. Not beg for it on the promise they will tax the hell out of Manchesters residents.

()

Report This

News