AN MP has slammed a massive imbalance in transport cash given to London compared to the north west.
New figures show the government spends nearly £700 per Londoner on road, rail and buses - and less than £300 per person in Manchester.
Blackley MP Graham Stringer described the funding chasm as `outrageous' and said it was further evidence of a north-south divide.
A study by a high-level transport group tallied up the amount spent in each region by government and other tax-funded agencies.
The report by the Passenger Transport Executive Group, which represents British transport authorities, found investment in cites outside London was among the lowest in Europe.
Investment in London transport was £667 per person last year, compared to £292 in the north west.
The spending gaps in areas such as health and education were far smaller - £1,900 was spent per Londoner on health last year, compared to £1,750 on those in the north west and the Midlands. The report said: "Spending on transport in London is far higher per head than in the north of England and West Midlands, and has grown significantly over the last five years.
"The gap . . . is large and widening, with spend per head almost two and a half times as much in London."
Mr Stringer said the inequality was set to balloon even further as billions are invested in transport ahead of the 2012 Olympics.
He told MPs: "Every candidate in the London mayoral election boasted of the £40bn that would be invested in the London system. The total being invested in Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds would come to only a small percentage of that.
"I accept that London is the capital city and that when it comes to education, health and transport, London has greater cost and that it will cost more to invest there.
"However, over the past 10 years, the gap in expenditure on transport in the regions and London has grown.
"As a Labour government has brought overall expenditure up, in education and health it has risen at more or less the same rate, but in transport it has not."
A third of households in Greater Manchester have no car and rely on public transport, higher than the national average of 26 per cent.
Greater Manchester had been earmarked to receive millions of pounds of investment under the Transport Innovation Fund. But ministers last month confirmed there would be no new cash after voters rejected the proposals.
Tweet
MP slams transport divide
February 27, 2009
Showing comments 1 to 12 and replies | View All
Jay B, oldham (27/02/2009 at 09:01)
but when most public transport is privately owned and has funding for services they could put more services on! the buses are frequent enough! but the trains need alot of work! i've stopped using them as they have become totally unreliable and you end up feeling squashed like sardines in a tin.
Princess_Pam, Crumpsall (27/02/2009 at 10:01)
And local councils should not pay Business rates to a London Government as they were introduced by Thatcher to stop London Businesses from paying higher rates by getting the rest of the country to subsidise them.
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw (27/02/2009 at 11:35)
Black Flag (27/02/2009 at 11:45)
In fact, the real effect is almost the opposite of that.
Business rates are set according to rental value and then distributed nationally, so higher value properties in London end up paying more into the national pot.
In many respects, it's the fairest tax we have, as, when an excessive proportion of national taxation get's spent on infrastructure in London it increases the value of business premises in the area, resulting in them paying more in business rates. It's a feedback loop which goes some way to balancing out regional inequalities.
Ace Shakespeare , manchester (27/02/2009 at 12:09)
Trudy, Bolton (27/02/2009 at 13:35)
Princess_Pam, Crumpsall (27/02/2009 at 18:28)
ebble, manchester (27/02/2009 at 18:43)
The BBC has shown that deadbeat, unimportant people can be moved outside London.
Phil L, Denton (28/02/2009 at 09:49)
Incidentally, how many people *wrongly* thought that any TIF/C-charge money would have gone directly to bus operators?
Also, this massive financial and legislative gulf between London and the rest of the country - especially with Buses - has been going on for more than a quarter of a century, so why does Stringer raise it now, and not *before* the TIF bid?
Lets get a few things straight; In London, the Government do what's best for London. Outside London - in Transport terms - there is only a slight difference between Labour and Tory Transport policies:
Labour Transport Policy is based on creating a utopia of 100% car ownership. This is for tax raising purposes - hence why it costs so much to *own* a car, including having it parked safely on a drive, and why it costs so little to *run* it, or use it to inconvenience or endanger others.
Tory transport policy is based on the belief that this "utopia" of 100% car ownership is already here!
Black Flag (28/02/2009 at 13:56)
If you think I was factually incorrect and your original comment was right, then please tell me where you think I've gone wrong. If I've made a mistake, I'll hold my hands up, but I'll only do that based on the facts, not your CV.
Redtooth, Manchester (20/03/2009 at 16:42)
S P In exile, Tameside (20/03/2009 at 20:45)
So this proves that our councilors are still sat on their lazy backsides still drawing all the expenses and benefits for doing nowt just about sums up what the councilors are about.
The local elections are here in May just use your vote more wisely and maybe we will start getting results that benefits the community.