City design expert Leif Jerram said traffic was a 'growing drain' on Greater Manchester's quality of life.
He said congestion charging would lead to benefits from quicker journey times to better health. A Greater Manchester-wide referendum in December will decide whether to introduce a peak-hour congestion charge in return for up to £3bn for public transport.
Some £1.5bn would be a grant from the government's Transport Innovation Fund (TIF), while the rest would be a loan paid off over 30 years by the proceeds of the charge.
Mr Jerram - lecturer in urban history at Manchester University - looked at congestion charging schemes across the world and more than 150 academic studies.
He says every piece of research found charging motorists to subsidise public transport had positive economic and social impacts.
His paper claims people don't understand the true cost of congestion because it is hidden in slower delivery times for business and environmental costs.
Places with poor public transport, he said, `invariably' suffered higher levels of crime and poorer health, and other social costs include missing family meals because of traffic jams.
Mr Jerram said people generally opposed congestion charging as a way of subsiding public transport - until they saw the scheme in place. Then they swung round and gave their support.
He said the key to winning over public opinion was finding a `charismatic spokesman' to explain the benefits.
Significant cost
He said: "Without doubt, road and public transport congestion places a significant cost on a region like Greater Manchester. This will escalate substantially over the next decade.
"Congestion charging is a controversial solution, but where it pays for investment in public transport extensive research shows that there are substantial benefits for the local economy as well as individuals from every social class, businesses and large organisations."
His analysis was commissioned by United City, a business pressure group backing the bid for congestion charging and the TIF cash.
Founder member Ken Knott challenged anti-bid groups to produce their own research.
He said: "Self-interested opposition groups have claimed that TIF would have a negative impact on our economy, but every piece of independent research supports our position.
"The time has come for the vocal opponents to back their wild claims with intelligent and independent research."
The TIF bid can be viewed at gmpta.gov.uk
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
460
275
0
false
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Simon B, No Taxation without Representation (04/08/2008 at 06:19)
Oh and "His analysis was commissioned by United City"
Ah ha, this explains it all, United City who's majority are developers, who dependant on Manchester City Council for planning permissions for their business.
(wetsocks), Manchester (04/08/2008 at 06:45)
This whitewash is getting beyond a joke though.
[AKA Scrotnig], Gorton (04/08/2008 at 07:41)
Handing over thousands of pounds annually to the council just for the privilege of earning a living would also be a drain on manchester's quality of life.
More leftie propaganda.
Professor Bob (04/08/2008 at 08:12)
Ken Hulme, Delph, Saddleworth, Yorkshire (04/08/2008 at 08:25)
The campaigning group SOS Saddleworth has announced the date and venue for a major debate on the congestion charge it will be organising prior to the referendum on the charge later this year. The decision of SOS Saddleworth to organise a major debate comes after efforts to persuade Saddleworth Parish Council to organise the debate failed.
Saddleworth Parish Councillor Ken Hulme who chairs the group said:
'We believe it is important that we have a full and informed debate on the congestion charge before the referendum takes place in December. Slick road shows and expensive PR campaigns are not a substitute for a real debate. We want to hear both sides present their case and then debate the issues with of course full participation from the audience. Saddleworth folk don't need to be told what to think, they listen to the arguments and then make up their minds.
Saddleworth mustn't be left out of this debate, it's not just about Oldham Town Centre and we have every right to ask - 'what's in this for Saddleworth ?' Are we going to see local improvements in public transport, especially in rail which will justify the congestion charge ? Leading figures from both sides will be approached to speak but above all this will be a chance for local people to have their say.
I'm sorry that our Parish Council has reversed its previous decision to organise this debate. In many ways it would be the appropriate body to host it. I'm disappointed that it is now only interested in promoting the pro-congestion charge case being put forward by a travelling PR road show in Uppermill on Wednesday. I think folk in Saddleworth want a real debate not PR and Spin - and a real debate is what's on offer on October 10th'
The Saddleworth Congestion Charge Debate will take place on Friday October 10th at the Millgate Theatre, Delph starting at 7.30pm. A bar will be available. More details about speakers will follow.
For more information contact Cllr Ken Hulme 01457 872859
silvervectrab (04/08/2008 at 08:32)
A Voice From The North (04/08/2008 at 08:33)
When will the government see that’s it's better to solve a problem rather than throwing all our hard earned cash at it.
polkyb (04/08/2008 at 08:36)
Play a guessing game for a bit and then I'll tell you who said them... It was in 2005 is your only clue.
"Congestion charging could be "extremely damaging" to the local economy."
"Congestion charging, if introduced in a very localised way, could be extremely damaging - not just to Manchester but the whole of the north west."
Robert Tocker (04/08/2008 at 08:36)
Robb (MART), Denton (04/08/2008 at 09:10)
Probably not!
Audenshaw Bob (04/08/2008 at 09:18)
i) Manchester city centre is not congested. A queue of traffic at traffic lights is not congestion. Go to London if you want to see congestion.
ii) It will not benefit the economy because it will costs £1200 per person per year to pay the tax. This means grossing £2000 extra per annum so either the company pays higher wages (and increases prices to the consumer to cover) or the worker loses out.
iii) If even 30% of people transfer to public transport then th ecouncil doesn't get the money it needs to pay back the government loan of our money.
iv) It is not abour saving the planet beacuse the council need the majority to keep driving in otherwise they can't pay the loan.
v) The comment about social breakdown because of not eating together because someone is stuck in a traffic jam is nonesense. It's quicker to use the car and besides if you use the bus you are in the same jam, have to stop for passengers and will get dropped of half a mile from home! These experts must think we are simple.
Kiwi-blue, Christchurch NZ (04/08/2008 at 09:24)
Jack (04/08/2008 at 09:30)
Audenshaw Bob (04/08/2008 at 09:39)
The reason why families don't eat together is because we are working longer and longer hours to make ends meet. When I need to find £1200 for this tax I will need to work even more hours in order to pay for it, so I'll see less of my family.
There will be no metrolink to Audenshaw, the buses, well I don't trust the drivers. I don't go through red lights in my car so don't want to do so as a bus passenger either.
I also don't want to be pushed and shuvved by unruly youths. In mainland Europe youths are well behaved and you don't even see then hanging around. Here we have a problem.
polkyb (04/08/2008 at 09:42)
I know people who live and work in London as well, and they're telling me that the charge is killing the local businesses and the traffic levels are far from reduced. In fact, they tell me that the only difference between now and then is that they now get stung for the best part of a tenner if they want/need to drive through the congestion zone.
Malcolm Amer, Urmston (04/08/2008 at 09:50)
Audenshaw Bob (04/08/2008 at 09:56)
London is a different kettle of fish. I was down the last week and it still takes ages to get in and out and around, but the charge has eased it a bit but has packed the tube out even more.
Manchester is like a tiny village in comparison. We do not have congestion, we do sometimes have queing traffic but this is normal. Even with the congestion charge we will still have to queue at traffic lights, queue at road works,, queue after an accident etc.
If the council wants to ease 'congestion', improve the traffic light sequencing, stop buses going through on red lights and blocking junctions, limit the number of bus lanes, prevent developers from blocking off roads. Look at Whitworth Street in the village, what was two lanes going West is now one because of the buliding works, take down the side of Lime Bar, traffic struggles to get down there because of skips in the road, dumper trucks on the pavement and road etc.
Or alternatively if the want to improve air quality cars from Deansgate two days a week, close runway 2 at the airport etc
gulliblenotme, bury (04/08/2008 at 09:58)
PW, Manchester (04/08/2008 at 10:01)
Well I've got my own opinions, and so have a lot of others. I want to see all these Councillors, Business advocates, Transport Officials on the bus. They will then show us how good it all is. But you won't see it.
Iain Monks (04/08/2008 at 10:02)
We need to know exactly how much of the money from the Congestion Charge will actually be reinvested and how much will be swallowed by runing costs and repayment of loans.
If, as I suspect, the majority of the money will be syphoned off, then the charge is nothing more than a CON.
Fran M (Permissum Populus Constituo), Stockport (04/08/2008 at 10:09)
Headline from Evening Standard last November.
Congestion 'as bad as before the charge'
I think that speaks for itself, no need to add anything.
Mike S, Manchester (04/08/2008 at 10:14)
It annoys me that there are billboards everywhere trumpeting the benefits of congestion charging - what would you say to more seats on peak-time trams? - yes, they should be there already! We're already paying for them! Are they also going to pay for billboards for people with opposing views?
dessie, manchester (04/08/2008 at 10:19)
obviously you havent got a clue what ur on about!!
con charge will bring the poorer population of manchester even more on the breadline, if you lived in this country you will know how much working class people have to pay for basics, food energy etc. as for the guy spouting off it will be good, i wonder what wage he is picking up each year, i bet it aint £5.75 hr!!!!
Dave (04/08/2008 at 10:38)
Unless people like the American style isolated-in-your-car way of life?
Munkey Boy (04/08/2008 at 10:40)
Audenshaw Bob: "There will be no metrolink to Audenshaw..."
Don't know which bit of Audenshaw you're in Bob, but there is a new Metrolink stop planned called Audenshaw. Think it's just outside the Snipe. If you're further south, then Guide Bridge is probably a better bet anyway.