TWO cabinet ministers have called for a new plan to improve the transport network in Greater Manchester after plans for congestion charging where overwhelmingly rejected by voters.
Hazel Blears, the communities minister and James Purnell, the work and pensions secretary, both said a period of 'reflection' was needed after the landslide referendum vote but said the problems of congestion still had to be addressed.
Ms Blears, who is MP for Salford, said: "It is important that we get the traffic moving so that those extra jobs that our economy needs come to Manchester and not elsewhere.
"All of us now in Greater Manchester, councillors, MPs, and Ministers need to look at the situation and see where we go from here. I think many people did not realise that the charge would not come in until 2013.
"There needs to be a period of reflection to take stock but clearly the problems with congestion, the fact that people find it hard to get in and out of Manchester are still with us. I also believe that public transport needs to be improved. "We need better railway services, and improvements to the Metrolink."
Mr Purnell, who is MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, said voters had turned down a 'a unique opportunity' to invest billions in trams, trains and buses. "Unfortunately the decision of the referendum will bring those plans to a halt," he said.
"A 'yes' vote by the people of Greater Manchester would have marked the start of a new era for public transport.
"As well as taking more cars off the road it would have widened the opportunities available for the significant numbers of people in the area who do not have access to a car.
"Now, instead of the hope of a radical overhaul, we continue to be faced with a transport system that struggles to keep pace with the expectations of 21st century commuters.
"The need to improve the transport network is as crucial as ever. We cannot let the result of the referendum diminish the attention that needs to be paid to improving services.
"After a short time of reflection we need to look at alternative measures that will ensure that the transport network across Greater Manchester is fit for purpose, in a way that reflects the views of transport users."
The leaders of Greater Manchester's 10 councils will formally pronounce the cash-for-congestion-charging deal dead at a meeting on Friday.
The sheer scale of its rejection - 78 per cent of voters said 'no', compared to just 22 per cent saying 'yes' - means it is off the agenda for good. Some £1.5bn of the planned investment was in the form of a grant. That money will now be made available to other areas prepared to introduce congestion charges.
The Greater Manchester referendum, however, has made it far less likely any will come forward.
Cambridge is the only other place near to submitting a bid - and political leaders there said they were 'studying' the Manchester vote this weekend.
'Yes' campaigners were still trying to work out why they suffered such a crushing defeat after polling earlier this year suggested the vote would be close.
Professor Austin Smyth, one of Britain's leading transport experts, claimed the economic downturn had been crucial. "The timing of this referendum could not have been worse given the onset of a recession, with people and businesses tightening their belts," he said.
"In these circumstances they are less likely to want to pay more to use the road network."
Professor Smyth, the head of the department of transport studies at the University of Westminster, added: "The proposals failed in part because the problem of congestion in Manchester is not as severe, and because a higher proportion of people would be affected by the charge compared to what happened in London following the introduction of the congestion charge.
"Alternatives to the use of cars are not as comprehensive as in London, where the vast majority of people use public transport."
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
silver-fox, Chorlton (14/12/2008 at 20:58)
Pippa, Manchester (14/12/2008 at 21:00)
Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (14/12/2008 at 22:06)
Does she think we're stupid, of course we knew it wasn't coming in until 2013, it's just we didn't want another ludicrous tax, end of!
S P In exile, Tameside (14/12/2008 at 22:34)
The c charge was an ill thought out idea and someone should carry the can for the amount of money it has cost the taxpayer so far, Lease and Bernstien should at the least offer their resignation they are obviously not in tune with the electorate. We need someone with vision and ideas someone who can embrace the electorate and not someone who looks at the electorate as a cash cow.
BDZ, UK (15/12/2008 at 06:44)
The council could also consider selling off the airport. I seem to recall last year a certain Peel Holdings expressed an interest in buying it and a fee in the region of £4-5bn was mentioned. Think what the council could do for public transport with that kind of cash... and there'd be no need to make motorists pay for something they'd never use.
Alty Cynic, Altrincham (15/12/2008 at 08:27)
You've just called 78% of the voters in the region stupid, I hope you'll have the decency to apologise but somehow I doubt that you will, it's not the NuLab tax'em till the pips squeak policy is it..
Mind you, we voted for muppets like you so it might not be too far from the truth.
Falkenbergblue (15/12/2008 at 08:36)
Audenshaw Bob (15/12/2008 at 08:38)
'I don't think people realised it would come in until 2013'. So is she saying that if everyone knew it wasn't coming in until 2013 that the vote would have been 20% no and 80% yes? It doesn't matter when it would have come in, it would have come in.
Most people voted no because it was a very bad deal. These politicians say the result would have been different if we weren't in a recession (cobblers, £1250 is stil £1250), they say that the voters didn't understand the question, vted no to congestion charging but not no to the TIF improvemenst etc etc.
Please have teh good grace and humility to accept this overwhelming decision. If it was 80/20 in favour you wouldn't be questioning our intelligence would you.
The cooments and sour grapes from Blears, Leese and co has made me even more certain that I made the right choice.
How much money did they waste on this campaign?
Emjay See (15/12/2008 at 08:44)
you ain't welcome round here no more.
P.S. Where's our casino/alternative investment?
Jay B, oldham (15/12/2008 at 08:59)
dessie, manchester (15/12/2008 at 09:01)
because everything that comes out of it is garbage, doesnt she realise the working people of this country 'and i dont include her either' have had enough of being over taxed and trying to make ends meet.
You would have thought over the past few months she would have kept a bit of a low profile after her constituents had a go at her and the stealing of valuable stuff from her car/office.
I wonder if she would have got a bus if the charge came in? i think not!!!
Mr Paul Teeque - DEMOCRACY IS ALIVE IN MANCHESTER! WE WON!, Proud of his fellow mancs!!! (15/12/2008 at 09:14)
A. Because every YES poll has been biased and full of spin.
Two thirds of households have a car. Its not rocket science to see an ENTIRE household who has a car user will be against that car user paying more TAX.
Stick with me failed yessers...
ALSO we havn't lost out on £2.75 billion of "improvements" how much would have been wasted on setup, admin, consultants and congestion charging technology?
FINALLY it was tax payers money funding the LOAN. It is OUR money. Not a gift from the government.
Most of the metro link improvements are already happening, the low level bus access is already happening, the overflowing private bus companies coffers can afford more services but instead choose to pocket the cash.
Remove bus lanes, completely rehash traffic light sequences and sort out MCC one way system, along with "out of touch" richard leese resigning.
BINGO!
Love Paul. (I will not charge £34 million for the above)
Jay B, oldham (15/12/2008 at 09:24)
i want to see the back of labour! they're so out of touch with the people of this country now!
they're even emplying nearly 80% of mancunians are stupid!!
the only ones who are stupid are the government!
we deserve better (15/12/2008 at 09:26)
Can you believe it?
Implying nearly 80% of the voters were too thick to comprehend such a fundamental part of the yes campaign; not a particularly wise strategy is it?
NWmancCUB (15/12/2008 at 09:31)
How dare this woman claim that the people of Manchester didn't realise the charge would be introduced until 2013? Just what planet do these people live on?
Destroyer Benchill (15/12/2008 at 09:34)
I though that they had done that anyway? They said that congestion charging was the only option and that there was no plan B. So which is it, did they not investigate other options after all and is tehre actuallya Plan B'?
Mike S, Manchester (15/12/2008 at 09:49)
I am horrified that my council tax paid for the "yes" campaign, particularly as it did not allow any to be spent on the "no" campaign - I thought we were supposed to live in a democracy?
As someone pointed out on another post, this amounts to approximately 20,000 homes' council tax. I want my money back and heads should roll.
Mark, South Manchester (15/12/2008 at 10:00)
Our public transport system is not fit for purpose - because of you and your wretched "pro London" government Mr Purnell. Have you not noticed, on your brief visits to this region from your London mansion Mr Purnell - that we don't have a Tube up here? Nor the vast investment that the London railway system gets under New Labour.
So I've got a NEW PLAN to solve all this - vote Labour out!!
Tidders, Rochdale - VOTE NO to the Con Charge (15/12/2008 at 10:17)
Dave Dave (15/12/2008 at 10:21)
Trumpetman21 (15/12/2008 at 10:45)
It's the only way forward, even in the face of a staggering defeat they still look to apportion blame elsewhere.
Accept you lost & that your plan is not wanted!
Trumpetman21 (15/12/2008 at 10:46)
What does the massive NO vote show then dave dave?
Orb, Rochdale (15/12/2008 at 10:46)
What has this got to do with it? I don't give a monkeys if it's not due until the 25th century - if they want money to invest in public transport then it's not being paid for by a congestion charge. Period. The referendum results last week have just illustrated this. How can someone who is either so thick or so out of touch be in a position of power? It beggars belief.
I think that the *least* that the government can do as an *immediate* stop-gap measure is to bung 34 million at Greater Manchester (our money that they've wasted on this fiasco) to get some junction improvements in place. (Of course this would reduce congestion which isn't what they want).
Destroyer Benchill (15/12/2008 at 10:56)
I travel in and out every day and don't see congestion. I see traffic queing at lights. That's a queue. If you want to see congestion go to London. It takes me twenty minutes from Benchill to town - no problem.
Also, they wanted to charge that were just going to work. I have to be in at 8.30am an I work to put a roof over my head and food on the table and to pay taxes. My journey is necesary by car as I use it in the day meeting customers.
Why not charge unecesary journeys? Like when people go shopping in tow when they could shop elsewhere like Chester or Liverpool, other non essential like drving in to go to a cinema (go to a local one) or going for ameal (go to alocal restaurant). So either get the bus or metro or pay to drive in. This should apply to all non workers entering town or those travelling in on thew eekend.
We should not have the Christmas markets if all they do is bring people into town and therefore causing more traffic and less space on the public transport for the weorkers.
Emjay See (15/12/2008 at 11:10)
Of course this would just apply to Greater Manchester so we can give Labour a kicking for not fulfilling their Metro link extension promise and for not fulfilling their Casino/alternative investment promise.
Come on make it happen, Labour have it comming to them in Greater Manchester