HALF the cost of congestion to Greater Manchester is caused by traffic that never comes inside the M60, new figures have revealed.
Those drivers would NOT be hit by the planned peak-hour congestion charge.
The data is contained in the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid submitted by Greater Manchester's 10 council leaders to the government.
The 301-page bid, which would see £3bn invested in public transport in return for the charge, has been released under the Freedom of Information act more than a month after it was accepted by ministers.
It contains detailed intelligence about the scale of congestion in Greater Manchester - including a formula that works out which journeys are hitting the region's economy by clogging the roads at key times.
During the morning peak times, 50 per cent of the cost of congestion is caused by traffic that never comes inside the circular M60.
Only 28 per cent is caused by traffic that crosses one of the two proposed charging bands - one just inside the motorway and one nearer the city centre - and WOULD be charged.
The rest is mainly caused by traffic travelling between the zones or away from Manchester. Neither group would have to pay the planned charge.
During the afternoon peak, 48 per cent of the cost of congestion to the economy is caused by traffic outside the M60. Again, only 28 per cent is caused by traffic that would be hit by the charge.
A spokewoman for the TIF bid said it was intended to target congestion `at the times and in the places' it was worst.
Dissapated
She said: "Congestion outside the M60 is more dissipated, and charging would not generate the same ratio of benefit to cost.
"The transport improvements are Greater Manchester-wide, so we would expect to see some form of impact on congestion [outside the M60] even without the incentive that charging provides. It just won't be as marked as inside the M60.
"The larger proportion of traffic movement is within the M60 and the congestion charge is only focused on the traffic heading into the city centre at peak times. You won't be charged to travel out of the city in the morning rush hour or to travel around within the rings, only if you cross a ring at the peak time in the morning. The same is true for the evening rush hour."
The public version of the bid - which has had some pages removed to protect `commercial sensitivity' - also reveals:
*Businesses would save £5.3bn in travel time over 60 years if the TIF package is introduced - more than the £4.8bn their staff would have to pay in charges
*Average car speeds towards Manchester city centre will drop from 15.6mph in 2006 to 12.8mph in 2021 without TIF - but increase to 16.3mph if it goes ahead.
The leaders of Greater Manchester's councils have decided to hold a public referendum on the bid in December.
The results are to be considered borough-by-borough and if people in seven or more council areas are in favour the schemes will go ahead.
The TIF bid can be viewed at
gmpta.gov.uk
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
(wetsocks), Manchester (31/07/2008 at 07:01)
So they're hiding the true motive for the tram tax then.
"Businesses would save £5.3bn …more than the £4.8bn their staff would have to pay in charges"
So workers get to fund a windfall for their bosses – great, Bradley Hardacre would be proud!
"Average car speeds towards Manchester city centre will drop from 15.6mph in 2006 to 12.8mph in 2021 without TIF - but increase to 16.3mph if it goes ahead."
Can I have next weeks lottery numbers please, those figures are awfully precise for a prediction 13 years into the future!
God, they must think we're dumb.
Hamish Macbeth, Whitefield (31/07/2008 at 07:15)
Err not quite true. If there is a massive investment in public transport and a shift because of the c-charge to it - then this will reduce traffic outside the zone. This is because many of the people hit by c-charge live well out of the zone and if they take public transport then their cars will be off road in the outer area too
shayla (31/07/2008 at 08:22)
I wonder why that was then?
Emjay See (31/07/2008 at 08:39)
you are talking complete twaddle. My guess is that Stockport has one of the worst congestion problems. Trying to get from the A34 to the A6 and beyond is a nightmare. There is no relief from public transport planned for this problem and indeed no easy solutions.
Jay B, oldham (31/07/2008 at 09:03)
so if it gets passed and they dont get the expected returns in charges i can see the zones being extended to catch these drivers!
its going to affect everyone anyway in increased costs. you might not pay it direct. but you'll pay it indirectly in the things you buy or services you use.
look at how the increased costs in fuel has driven up the price of living.
Councillor Allheart, in a black cab (31/07/2008 at 10:13)
I simply do not belive anything they say. Councils and governments all lie to suit themselves.
Pentest (31/07/2008 at 10:22)
I wonder what words of Prozac influenced wittering Laura the explorer will type on this blog ...another pile of rubbish no doubt.
Manchester Dale, Manchester (31/07/2008 at 10:27)
Lets not forget that this initiative is about helping Manchester city centre become a bigger commercial centre. All the £3bn investment is about new trams, bus and train systems to bring more people into the city at the expense of the economies of the other Greater Manchester towns. 100,000 new white collar jobs in the city centre was proposed. Where are these people from? Do you think the people in Wigan, Bolton, Stockport and Rochdale etc can't see that?
Alan Kelly (31/07/2008 at 10:30)
It will simply move any "congestion" to the outside of the M60 turning those areas into rat runs and car parks
Jay B, oldham (31/07/2008 at 10:53)
Leeds and liverpool are not that far away for a business to locate to.
(NO TO £2080 a year CON TAX) Paul Teeque (31/07/2008 at 10:53)
stivh, Urmston (31/07/2008 at 11:19)
Check out the booklet and see how misleading the the road map is if you compare it to the Tram and the Bus map.
I have travelled into the city centre four times at the peek time this last few weeks and it is easy to identify bottlenecks as well as the obvious "heavy congestion" If Manchester wants to grow as City centre then fine do it but place the infrastructure where it will cause little impact.
Out of town. Because thats what will happen in any case.
Councillor Allheart, in a black cab (31/07/2008 at 11:23)
I live on a main road just inside the M60 - the 'new' bit. Since it opened, traffic has increased drammatically, additional noise, late night traffic, new brighter street lights so it's like daytime 24/7, dirtier air, more crap thrown from cars, more accidents etc etc.
I applied to be compensated but was told I could not get anything because my propert value was not intrinsically affected. Meantime, other people on side streets nearer the M60 got huge pay offs.
So if you live near the M60, expect your life to be turned upside down but don't expect any interest from the council.
Munkey Boy (31/07/2008 at 11:52)
Personally, I live just outside the M60 myself, near the Ashton turn-off, but I really don't see how the scheme is detrimental to my area at all.
Manchester Dale, Manchester (31/07/2008 at 12:19)
well you will know when the cost has over run and the revenue falls short. Because at that point your council tax will shoot up to repay the government loans.
Munkey Boy (31/07/2008 at 13:45)
How do you know that'll happen? Have you a crystal ball as well, or have you actual figures to back up your claim?
Besides, I wouldn't mind a council tax increase to fund better public transport anyway, but that's just me.
(NO TO £2080 a year CON TAX) Paul Teeque (31/07/2008 at 13:48)
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/blog/leadersblog/post/206
citycentre, manchester (31/07/2008 at 15:37)
""released under the Freedom of Information act more than a month after it was accepted by ministers"
I wonder why that was then? "
probably because someone asked for it to be released
jayB
"going to affect everyone anyway in increased costs. you might not pay it direct. but you'll pay it indirectly in the things you buy or services you use"
what increased costs, the report estimates that businesess will actually save money, so hopefully some of this will be passed on to customers
Manchester Dale,
when you say were will the people come from, do you mean the people to fill the new jobs? if so this is a good thing if there are lots of jobs for people in those towns, along with increased public transport to get them to manchester to work
if you mean the jobs will move from these towns to manchester, then i dont see it really; big companies decide to locate in big cities so may choose manchester or london or cologne say; not wigan
Pentest (31/07/2008 at 15:56)
I responded to the blog which he has written, but Leese doesn't like critisism, so i doubt if they will print it lol.
joe stalin, Gorton (31/07/2008 at 16:11)
PW, Manchester (31/07/2008 at 16:38)
This is not a good way to deliberately stifle the economic well-being of our city. All people are trying to do is go about their normal business, whether by car, van, truck or bus. Do not believe the lies about congestion. It is deliberately manufactured. And please, don't anyone call me or others paranoid. In this case, it's tantamount to the word 'stupid'. But that's what the Councils think we are.
Highwayman, Altrincham (31/07/2008 at 17:13)
But no financial highlights in the Executive Summary and Section 9, presumably the financial section, is missing.
What are they hiding?
Sir Reg Ringpull, A-u-L, Lancashire. (31/07/2008 at 17:39)
"Besides, I wouldn't mind a council tax increase to fund better public transport anyway,"
Check the full doc - not the abridged version that winged its way from Propaganda House. If revenues are not upto "expectations" - They cancel "non essential" projects (whatever those are!)
Munkey Boy (31/07/2008 at 17:40)
PW: It's all about how you look at the way roads are engineered now. You may consider that a road which has had space given over to cyclists as engineering congestion, or you could consider it a way of killing less pedestrians at the cost of slowing the driver by a few seconds. By *far* the biggest contributor to congestion is traffic volume, rather than losing road space to pedestrians or buses.
D.F.Macaulay, Romiley (31/07/2008 at 18:09)