THE government's new transport boss told a Manchester audience that the region had shown 'courage, vision and commitment' with its approach to cutting traffic levels. Referring to the congestion charge plans, during his keynote speech to the Passenger Transport 2008 event at Bridgewater Hall, Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon, said Greater Manchester had 'recognised that congestion represents a serious brake on its economy if nothing is done about it, to say nothing of the environmental impact'.
He told the event, which looks at public transport challenges and government policy: "I applaud Greater Manchester for having the courage, the vision and the commitment to develop a serious package targeted at the very real problems of congestion that face us."
Evidence
Mr Hoon said there was no evidence from London congestion charging to suggest businesses would relocate away from Manchester. He also reiterated that there was no 'Plan B'. If the people of Manchester rejected a congestion charge scheme, the £3bn transport scheme would collapse.
Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester council, told the audience that opponents of the congestion charge scheme would never have built Manchester Ship Canal. Making his case for road charging alongside massive improvements to Greater Manchester's public transport system, he said he was prepared to stake his political career on the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid and criticised opponents for their lack of ambition.
'Ambition'
Sir Richard said: "These are the sort of people who would never have built Manchester Ship Canal, would never have made Manchester a great city, because they don't have any ambition whatsoever. I would risk it all on this referendum because we're talking about something that will have more impact on Greater Manchester than anything else I've done in the last 18 years.
"There is nothing more important for the conurbation than getting our TIF proposals through." Greater Manchester's 10 councils are jointly bidding for more than £2.75bn of investment from the fund, including £318m to set up a peak-hour, weekday-only congestion charge. Some £1.2bn of the total would be in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.
Improvements
Sir Richard highlighted the transport improvements in his speech at the Passenger Transport 2008 conference at Manchester's Bridgewater Hall. He said: "It is investment on a massive scale on a once only basis. If we don't take it now it is gone. There will be a 10 per cent increase in the bus network. That will be matched by a simpler fare structure and fare capping.
"There will be longer trains, an extra 30 per cent peak-time capacity, 7,000 extra seats, but also the potential for extra stations on existing lines, or even new lines and new services." Sir Richard said the Metrolink tram network would be extended by a third, park-and-ride services expanded and a new fleet of school buses introduced. He said the changes were needed to maintain economic growth and protecting the environment. And he said 80 per cent of the improvements would be in place before the introduction of the controversial peak-time congestion charge scheme in 2013.
The charge would be capped at £5 a day, with motorists who drive through two rings surrounding Manchester charged. An independent regulator would ensure it could not be increased arbitrarily. Ballot papers will be posted to homes later this month for the referendum. They include a 12-page information leaflet together with a voting slip. The results will be announced on December 12. People in at least seven local authorities must vote 'yes' for the scheme to go ahead. Supporters say it will reduce the worst peak-time congestion by an estimated 30 per cent. Taxi drivers, blue badge holders, motorcyclists and people with health appointments will be exempt, as would HGV drivers for the first year and Trafford Park workers before the tram extension. But low-emission vehicles will pay.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Vincit Omnia Industria, Radcliffe (13/11/2008 at 18:35)
I'm sure that the ordinary mancunians of the day were not asked to stump up for it.
Just vote NO.
RT, UK (13/11/2008 at 19:22)
Now a comparison with the building of Manchester Ship Canal. Forgotten about the Casino now have we. Let down by the same government.
Vote NO for the future of Manchester and Greater Manchester.
Terry Mahon, Ex Mancunian (13/11/2008 at 19:41)
The Scottish Parliament was supposed to cost only £40 Million. It came in at £400 Million. The London Cross Rail is being paid for by the goverment, not the motorists. The London congestion charge went up 60% after only 2 years. How long before this government increase the charges in Manchester?
Just VOTE NO.
Do not give them a licence to screw you and your children for the rest of time.
markyboy, manchester (13/11/2008 at 19:43)
well all i can say is that if they rely on geoff 'buff'hoon then they are on a sticky wicket. even in westminster they treat this guy as an incompetent (iraq springs to mind!!)
VOTE NO TO THE CON CHARGE!!!!
Rt Hon Dr Rev MC Spanner MP QC FCA FRICS JP OK (13/11/2008 at 19:47)
I bet he won't resign when he loses. What more incentive do you need to vote no
self_loading_frieght, sale (13/11/2008 at 19:55)
Albert J Beancounter, At Home (13/11/2008 at 20:00)
"Sir Richard said: "These are the sort of people who would never have built Manchester Ship Canal, would never have made Manchester a great city, because they don't have any ambition whatsoever"
Unlike you the backers put their hand in their own pocket to finance it - One of my ancestors was one of them - The family also made a fortune by backing Liverpool - Manchester Railway with their own money.
And it's very child like to call people just because they have a different veiwpoint to yours.
matt t, tameside (13/11/2008 at 21:02)
This week, Hoon says if we vote no, we get nothing.
I wonder what their policy will be next week?
If they can come to a screeching u-turn like that in just 7 days, what on earth will their policy be this time next year? What if Manchester gets saddled with congestion charging, and they change tack again and Liverpool and Portsmouth get their trams with no charge? How competitive will Manchester be then?
Pentest 2, Hyde (13/11/2008 at 21:02)
Albert J Beancounter, At Home (13/11/2008 at 21:18)
The Cheapskates.
Rt Hon Dr Rev MC Spanner MP QC FCA FRICS JP OK (13/11/2008 at 21:37)
The Ship Canal was initially built with private funding but a combination of under-investment and excessive tolls meant business fock to the Port of Hull (sounding familiar)
The second canal was going to be privatey funded until the Liberal MP for Gorton got involved.The price rose from £5m to over £15m and large portions of the eventual cost of construction were borne by Manchester rate-payers (Sounding very familiar)
It ended up running over plan by three years. Twice as long as planned.
Nice speech Richard - Now be a good poodle and let your Labour masters take you for a ride.
A Bus Driver (13/11/2008 at 22:31)
Graham moston, moston (13/11/2008 at 23:54)
Graham Moston
Peter Roberts, Telford (14/11/2008 at 01:11)
"he was prepared to stake his political career on the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid "
He went on to say:
"I would risk it all on this referendum"
Does this mean he will resign if he loses?
Can we have confirmation please?
PW, Manchester (14/11/2008 at 06:22)
And please, don't anyone call me paranoid when I have seen it all happening day after day for the last 10 years.
I don't think the people of Manchester are that thick, so vote accordingly - NO!
PW, Manchester (14/11/2008 at 06:38)
"Our intelligence is concrete, and we have no doubts whatsoever about their presence in Iraq, none whatsoever."
If that man said he had an egg for his breakfast, I wouldn't be too sure.
polkyb, Middleton (14/11/2008 at 07:50)
Aren't they the ones responsible for redeveloping Salford Docks?
Aren't they against road pricing as proposed by the TiF package?
citycentre, manchester (14/11/2008 at 08:32)
" Richard Peacock, the vice-chairman of the Provisional Manchester Ship Canal Committee, had said in 1882:
No few individuals should be expected to subscribe and form a company for mere gain; it should be taken on by the public; and if it is not ... I for one should say drop the scheme; ... unless I see the public coming forward in a hearty manner."
then as now they were not so keen and
"Large portions of the eventual cost of construction were borne by Manchester rate-payers, via Manchester Corporation. Loans were arranged during the early 1890s"
Barry Cratchett (14/11/2008 at 08:58)
There will also be people who will claim that such a big project cannot be installed in time and according to budget. The congestion charge project is nothing ground-breaking in the technology being used or the infrastructure being put in place. Similar projects have been installed for example in Stockholm. The Norwegian company that delivered Stockholm did so according to the schedule and within budget, and they can easily do the same in Manchester. So cost and timing is not a problem.
People will also claim that it is a waste of money. First of all, the billions of TIF funds for public transport is not a waste of money. Secondly, there is sufficient competition in the road charging industry that the cost of the infrastructure will not be too high. The system in Stockholm is run very efficiently so that operation costs are kept to the minimum. The money that the congestion charge generates can therefore be put to further use to improve Manchester.
A charging scheme can make a positive difference in Manchester. On other cities people where congestion schemes have been introduced the majority of the population recognises this. In Stockholm the charging scheme was trialled for 6 months before being stopped. The citizens were then asked whether they wanted the scheme to be re-introduced and the majority said yes. In London support for the scheme before it was introduced was low and the press painted a negative story of its introduction, predicting chaos and gloom. This never materialised and support for the scheme grew after people recognised the benefits.
It’s easy to reject something that would require you spending money. But in some cases we may end up saving money should, for example, a taxi ride to the Manchester Airport be replaced by a tram ride. Or a 30 minute car journey, half of which was spent in gridlock, and a parking fee is replaced by a bus ride that wasn’t possible before. The benefits will not just be seen in straightforward financial terms. How about more time on your hands with reduced queuing? Less stress from shouting at bottle-necked traffic? Better health from improved air quality?
But why not get this without the congestion charge? Why not get the TIF funding for improved public transport now? That of course is the perfect solution. But then if you give it to Manchester without any strings, why not give it to the other big cities in the UK? Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Bristol, Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds….
It’s not going to happen, is it.
Bean B4, manchester (14/11/2008 at 09:03)
Bean B4, manchester (14/11/2008 at 09:04)
This is what happens when you have a democratic vote and it doesn't go the way the majority want it to go.
Kurt Stephens (14/11/2008 at 09:31)
Maybe Terry Mahon can explain where the extra trams, at the start, came from.
I am sure he knows it takes 12 trams to operate the Alty and Bury to Piccadilly service and 11 trams to operate the direct Alty to Bury service, meaning a total of 23 trams are inuse on Phase 1.
I am sure he also knows that there are 26 trams for Phase1 operation, leaving a total of three to be in maintenance or providing double services.
The reality is there has NEVER been double services on all units - this would take more than 46 units to do, we only have 26 units. But hey, like always, why let the facts get in the way of the truth when knocking TIF hey?
The very simple fact is, there is one way to improve transport for all in Greater Manchester, and TIF is that solution.
NS (14/11/2008 at 10:03)
It is really disappointing that the MEN is not only not challenging these falsehoods but printing them as fact.
Dave Sherwood, Irlam (14/11/2008 at 11:14)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (14/11/2008 at 13:19)
Also, do M.E.N. have to insist on putting that same paragraph in every story about how much the proposal is for etc etc, it's like a stuck record