GREATER Manchester's landslide rejection of congestion charging looks set to sound the death-knell for similar schemes across the country.
Political leaders throughout Britain are reeling after the proposals were thrown out by the huge margin of 78.8 per cent to 21.2 per cent in a region-wide referendum.
Voters in ALL of the 10 Greater Manchester boroughs said `no' to the £5-a-day peak-hour charge - and the £2.75bn of transport investment it would have unlocked.
And even in Manchester city, where the vote was closest, only 28 per cent said `yes'. Now the question remains - what happens next? Pressure is growing for the government to find at least some `no-strings' cash to fund transport improvements in Greater Manchester and fight congestion. The proposed investment package had included a £1.5bn grant from the government's Transport Innovation Fund - a pot reserved for councils prepared to introduce congestion charging.
Bidding
The Department for Transport insisted last night that money would now be made available for similar schemes in other places, and that the rules for bidding had not changed.
But experts said other cities preparing bids – including Bristol, Leeds and Cambridgeshire – would be put off by both the scale of Greater Manchester’s ‘no’ vote and the bitterly-divisive campaign that preceded it.
That could lead to the TIF pot being scrapped altogether and the money being clawed back by the Treasury for other hard-pressed departments.
Lord Peter Smith, leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, said: “I am very disappointed with the outcome. We can now expect these resources to be re-allocated to other parts of the country, including London.”
Adrian Tink, the RAC’s motoring strategist, said the ‘no’ vote was ‘likely to be the death knell’ for other British congestion-charge schemes.
And Graham Stringer, Labour MP for Manchester Blackley, said the referendum had ‘killed off’ the issue unless the tax burden was lessened elsewhere and ‘an extraordinarily good offer’ was made in return for charging.
Mr Stringer said the government had a ‘moral and political’ duty to look at extra transport funding for the region.
Transport secretary Geoff Hoon has previously warned that there was ‘no Plan B’ should the scheme be rejected, adding that the region would not get an extra penny for trams, trains and buses if it said ‘no’. But Theresa Villiers, the Tory shadow transport secretary, said: “Labour’s attempt at bullying the city into accepting congestion charging has failed.
“But just because the city has voted ‘no’, that shouldn’t let the government off the hook on keeping the promises they have made over the years on the transport improvements the city desperately needs.”
The DfT signalled that was unlikely, pointing out it had already agreed £1.34bn worth of schemes in the north west over the next decade, including the ‘little bang’ extension of the Metrolink to Rochdale, Oldham, Chorlton and Droylsden.
The TIF investment package of more than £2.75bn would have dwarfed the £2bn the government spends on regional transport schemes across the country every year, with. Some £211m of that goes going to the north west.
Matt Colledge, the chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, said his priority would be to ‘rethink and reconsider the limited funding’ already available to the region.
Legacy
But he added: “As a result of the detailed and dedicated work and extensive consultation that has gone into preparing such an enormously-intricate bid, we now have a clear set of transport investment priorities and business cases for Greater Manchester.
“We are committed to ensuring that this legacy is put to good use by working hard with central government to establish alternative ways to deliver these schemes, which remain critical to the future of our economy.”
Margaret Eaton, chairman of the Local Government Association, said: “It’s a shame that the government will not now provide the extra funding for much-needed transport improvements in Manchester and other parts of the country.
“Congestion charging isn’t right for every place and the government can’t force councils to do something local people don’t want.”
People in seven of Greater Manchester’s boroughs had to vote ‘yes’ for the charge and investment to go ahead.
Instead, the scheme got a resounding thumbs-down everywhere. The margin against was greatest in Salford, where 84 per cent voted ‘no’. The total turnout, across the region, was 53.2 per cent.
The ‘yes’ campaign publicly blamed the economic downturn and the complexity of the scheme. Privately, one senior ‘yes’ source said referendums involving congestion charging appeared to be ‘unwinnable’.
Lis Phelan, chairman of the ‘yes’ campaign, said: “The challenge now is to look to the future. Greater Manchester has just turned down some real protection from the recession.”
Four to one, a resounding majority
Town hall bosses 'not suprised'
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
ebble, manchester (13/12/2008 at 07:15)
These councillors and staff should concentrate on running the schools, emptying the bins on time and other things we already pay them to do before they get any more grand ideas. There is plenty of room for improvement in these mundane areas and we haven't seen much return for all the huge increases in council tax have we?
MsD, Manchester (13/12/2008 at 07:32)
I hope the mud slinging from both sides is over now and that the people of Greater Manchester can come together to fight for what the area deserves.
To me, this only shows the distrust for the Goverment and maybe they will no longer have the electoral support Greater Manchester has always shown them.
Kevin Darling (13/12/2008 at 07:55)
I can't speak for the whole electorate but in a straw poll amongst colleagues and friends below is a concensus of what they read in the TiF proposals and what they expected this would mean in practice....
'the creation of thousands of jobs' = an influx of thousands more eastern european bus drivers plus hundreds of administrators robotically denying appeals against the charge
an improvement in bus services = a mannah from heaven windfall to increase the salaries of all Stagecoach & First Bus executives while providing an opportunity to put more private buses on the most profitable routes at tax payers expense - happy days! OR.....more room on buses for wheelchairs and better disabled access despite the vast majority of people not needing these perceived 'benefits'....
an expansion of the metrolink system = more trams to places I don't want to go.....
On a serious note, the imposition of ever more 'traffic calming' measures have contributed enormously to the congestion in Manchester City Centre, turning free flowing 2 lane carriageways into 1 lane, chevron bordered convoys of stop/start traffic. Couple this with the ill conceived piecemeal bus lane provision and drivers are changing lanes more times in a journey than ever before......and no investment in transport will enable the vast increase in bus numbers to squeeze past each other at the annual sewer replacement/water leak repair/cable renewal lane closures! Facetious?....perhaps.....but the bottom line has got to be that not enough people trusted the proposers or the way in which the incentive was framed. Sadly I do not expect that a resounding NO will mean that anyone will listen. A rehashed set of the same proposals will undoubtedly re emerge from the carnage and we'll go through the same again and again until some form of charge is imposed by which time the money will have been diverted by government to pay for the new translator army!
PW, Manchester (13/12/2008 at 09:44)
Andy2, Manchester (13/12/2008 at 09:56)
feston gonzalez (13/12/2008 at 10:00)
the real disgrace is that over £30 million has been wasted on all their propaganda and spin. who did they pay to do their surveys? the ones which kept coming back saying the public was split 50/50. a complete waste of time and money.
those responsible (leese, phelan, etc) should do the decent thing - apologise and resign. but don't hold your breath.
that money could have been better spent elsewhere. perhaps on starting to widen the M60 near the M62 & Worsley junctions where there is a problem with congestion. there isn't really a problem in the city centre.
Pigi, Manchester (13/12/2008 at 10:04)
meldroo, Oldham (13/12/2008 at 10:13)
Well, if they have no plan B, then lets find a government and a council that does!!
Pieman Pete, Wigan (13/12/2008 at 11:04)
alvinlwh (13/12/2008 at 11:08)
Trumpetman21 (13/12/2008 at 11:13)
Good God, you lost....get over it!
Road Pricing is dead - it is simply not acceptable to us.
Deal with it.
Drifter, Mancunia (13/12/2008 at 11:15)
PW, Manchester (13/12/2008 at 11:23)
We'll have plenty of time to reflect on the vote against the charge as we sit in gridlocked traffic day in, day out. If you voted no, you chose long slow journeys rather than to pay for better trams, buses and trains. You chose time spent sitting in traffic above quality time with friends and family.
OH YES, THE COUNCILS WILL SEE TO THAT WITH THEIR ROAD-MEDDLING WHICH WON'T CEASE, UNTIL THEY GET VOTED OUT FOR GOOD.
How much does that cost you - in terms of fuel, time, stress levels and health? What of your children breathing polluted air, transported everywhere by car and walking nowhere because the roads are too busy & dangerous and the public transport inadequate? Did you stop to think of the implications of voting no?
IT'S SHAMEFUL THAT AUTHORITIES CREATE THE JAMS THAT THEY SO LOVE, DELIBERATELY POISONING THE AIR FROM HINDERED TRAFFIC. THEY EVEN CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON BUSINESSES OF THE CONGESTION THEY CREATE AND PRESIDE OVER, IN THEIR QUEST TO SQUEEZE EVEN MORE MONEY FROM THE WORKFORCE AND ECONOMY. HYPOCRITES!!
What of the thriving economy we all need to make a living from? We could have had a city unique in the UK - one with a clean efficient transport system - what an incentive for business to invest here!
BUSES CLEAN??? EFFICIENCY?? GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF EFFICIENCY. TIP FOR YOU PIEMAN AND OTHERS - OFFER TO PAY £5 PLUS ON EVERY DAILY JOURNEY YOU MAKE TO AND FROM WORK ON TOP OF YOUR FARE. THERE, YOU ALL HAVE THE BEGINNINGS OF A NEW TIF BID. NOT PALATABLE OR ACCEPTABLE IS IT?
Phil L, Denton (13/12/2008 at 11:27)
I was partially wrong regarding SVD - some buses in Stockport have it fitted, to either turn lights to green, or at least stop them turning to red. However, I am convinced that other buses, particularly those running down Hyde Road also have it fitted - to change lights to RED as they approach. Yesterday, the bus I was on was the first vehicle stopped at 5 out of six sets (not including ped-x crossings) between Gorton & Aytoun Street. In fact, buses on the 201-206 group of services ALWAYS get stopped at Fairfield Street going into M'cr. I also remembered observations I did when I used to catch the 204 bus all the way from Haughton Green some years ago, which showed that morning rush buses spent 3-4 times longer at traffic lights, than the do at bus stops. I suppose the gap would be slightly different on Mondays, when more passengers are buying weekly tickets.
As for build-out bus stops. There is one reason, and one reason only for those - and that is in response to the epidemic levels of spiteful motorists parking on bus stops. If motorists didn't have this deliberate policy of preventing the elderly and disabled in particular from using buses, there would be no need for build out bus stops.
As for whether this is the death-knell for road charging - it is for GM. Despite life for motorists getting cheaper and cheaper, and life for non-motorists getting more expensive, restricted and dangerous, GM's motorists still retain a pathological animosity towards non-motorists. If this wasn't the case; you'd be attacking expensive, unreliable, elitiist Rail services, rather than Omnibuses (anybody do Latin?), which are the only form of public transport reachable for the vast majority of the population. And here in the east of the city, rush-hour buses are a darn sight more reliable than trains - despite red traffic lights, planning disasters like Tesco Gorton/Morrisons Denton, and illegal parkers!
Still, standard response, when you don't like what politicians do - don't take it out on them, take it out on the (politically/financially) weak.
Andy2, Manchester (13/12/2008 at 11:33)
What emotive cobblers! And so wrong. If this scheme had gone ahead, local pollution would have got worse. Do you think buses produce no pollution? Big diesel engines are one of the worst offenders for 'local smoke'. Instead of choking on car fumes, we'd be choking on bus fumes. Look up what happened to the air quality on Oxford Street in london after it was made 'bus only'. Then look up how it has improved since Boris changed it back.
silver-fox, Chorlton (13/12/2008 at 11:49)
They've voted for Gridlock, Tameside (13/12/2008 at 11:51)
Ace Shakespeare , manchester (13/12/2008 at 11:58)
alfie20, south manchester (13/12/2008 at 12:04)
What arrogance !!
Well - he was finally dragged screaming and kicking to the point of having to allow a referendum & guess what Sir Arrogant Lees - the people of Manchester well & truly read the question, saw through the scam it represented, understood it and gave you the answer in no uncertain terms - 'UP YOURS'.
Now do the real job of sorting out the traffic in Manchester - or do the people have to tell you how to do that as well?
Perhaps the government should also take note & for once listen to the people - becuase I am certain that given the vote - people up and down the country will react the same way. Do us all a favour Brown - take a hike
Geolives, manchester (13/12/2008 at 12:19)
Most people didnt understand the benefits. Grtr Manchester has probably missed a great opportunity to become attain 'world' class City status it appears to covert. Most people I spoke to were under the impression the charge would have started on Monday. The next time you are late for a meeting,work or an appointment in the next six years and blame the traffic, just remeber you're the problam, oh sorry forgot, there isnt one!!!
Rammylad (13/12/2008 at 12:26)
Rammylad (13/12/2008 at 12:28)
An apology is the least we deserve. Although they should also both leave.
Cynic Al, Gtr Mcr (13/12/2008 at 12:55)
As a 'No' voter, I have not chosen to sit in traffic. I have chosen not to spend an extra £100 per month (which incidently I do not have) on top of the £45 I spend on fuel and the £35 I pay to insure my car. Not to mention the £110 I spend a year on on road tax.
To say there is no plan B is disgraceful. However, I think we will see new proposals come to the fore, which will see the companies who were so desperate to take over public transport pay for the upgrades themselves. Public transport died when private companies took over the running of it. They put profit before service, because they know there will always be an unfortunate section of society that rely on them.
I feel for people who have to use public transport. I grew so tired of the rises in fairs, of endless standing in the rain, of services turning up late or not at all without reason or apology that I got a car. It was a simple choice.
A vote for 'No' was a statement to those in charge that they have to come up with a better idea, and not the easiest idea for them to implement.
NickCity1 (13/12/2008 at 12:59)
Their lack of understanding of the desires of the people they are supposed to be representing have been spectacularly exposed.
If they are unprepared to resign they should be removed to stop them wasting more of our cash on Propaganda.
I think that they should also be held responsible and provide some kind of compensation for the stress and anger caused to the people of this fine City; Many of whom have spent the past two years wondering how they can continue to live in the area, or wether they can afford to.
As for the Labour Government: They should have already funded a world class UK Transport infrastructure; instead they chose to blow all of our 'Taxpayers' cash on illegal wars in Iraq, and bailing out irresponsible banks.
Don't expect the people to keep paying for your huge gaffs. If you are still listening; The people of Manchester have now told you clearly "Enough is Enough"!
Phil L, Denton (13/12/2008 at 13:38)
Why else do (legal) motorists pay a fortune to tax and insure your car, even if it sits on your land causing no congestion or pollution, but then costs virtually nothing to drive - include polluting and congesting in some circumstances? Why else have they got the Government controlled BBC (with their conformist perceived-wisdom collegues in comercial media) continuing their partial, right-wing brain-washing of the public to believe that car ownership is already 100%. They are supposed to be impartial in all news items, but the fall in petrol prices is automatically a "good" thing. All accidents/major roadworks are accompanied by "misery for motorists" headlines - what about the thousands of bus users caught up in the same delays?