Pay-to-drive deal over trams OK 'in principle'

David Ottewell

November 09, 2006

| Submit Comments | Comments (23) | Previous | Next

Sir Howard Bernstein

TRANSPORT chiefs say there is a case - "in principle" - for congestion charging to fund the Metrolink tram expansion.

A report drawn up by Sir Howard Bernstein, chief executive of Manchester council says up to 30,000 new jobs could be at risk through jammed roads in the next decade.

It underlines the government case that to get any cash from the Transport Innovation Fund - a pot of é200m a year for congestion-busting schemes - a bid will have to include plans for some form of pay-to-drive plan.

And it warns that cities that do not bid will eventually have a national road pricing scheme imposed, with no cash in return.

The report by Sir Howard, also clerk to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, says an "in-principle case" has been made for road charging to underpin the strongest possible bid for TIF cash.

TIF is seen as the only way of closing a funding gap and allowing the full Metrolink "Big Bang" expansion to go ahead.

The government has agreed to help pay for a é538m "Little Bang", with new lines to Rochdale, Oldham, Chorlton and Droylsden. But Greater Manchester needs another é450m to extend the lines to the airport, Ashton under Lyne, and Rochdale and Oldham town centres.

Economy

Sir Howard said that even if the money were available now, drastic action, "almost certainly road-pricing", would have to be considered "in the next 10 years" to prevent increasing traffic from harming the region's economy.

He said the growth in congestion could "seriously compromise" projections that 210,000 new jobs could be created in the city-region in the next 15 years.

As many as 30,000 of those jobs could be lost as a result of jammed roads if the full Metrolink "Big Bang" failed to go ahead, he added.

Sir Howard cited Dublin as a city which had "paid the economic price" of failing to act in advance by tackling congestion during the economic explosion in the Irish capital in the 1990s.

Sir Howard said the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities were still committed to four "key tests" to be met before road-pricing would be allowed. These were a "significant" investment in public transport; the business community would have to accept it; there must be proof the economy would not be undermined; and measures must be targeted "where congestion exists or may emerge".

He added: "A lot more work is still required to refine this package and to be confident that a charging scheme can be delivered which passes the tests."

Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester council, said that while an "in principle" case had been made, extra work had to be done to "wholly justify" road charging. Simon Ashley, leader of the Lib Dem opposition, said Sir Richard had "done a u-turn" on congestion charging.

"Before the last General Election, Richard Leese promised faithfully that road charging would not pay for the `Big Bang'," he said.

"Now, it is clear it will be. He should apologise for misleading the people of Manchester."

Should congestion charging be introduced here? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (23) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 23 and replies | View All

Kurt Stephens, Sale (09/11/2006 at 09:42)

We have a finiate amount of road space available in Greater Manchester. Unless something is done congestion is going to start to seriously hamper the economy of our region, no matter how good our public transport is the congtestion problem will continue to get worse and worse, as such something needs to be done. If the PTA / PTE can develop a scheme that will not adversely affect the economy (I doubt very very much there will be a 'zone' which you are charged to enter, rather, you pay a varying amount to drive on different roads at different times), then this could be a great benifit to the region since the economy will be able to continue to grow as has been the case over the last 10 to 15 years in the Manchester region. For me it's a non-brainer to go down this route - there will be a national scheme at some point in the future, so why not get in now, and do it on OUR terms, and also get access to the Transport Initiative Fund - worth up to Â£2.5Bn a year in a decades time. I'd rather we had access to that money so we had a greatly improved transport system when the nation scheme kicks in, rather that doing nothing and having no improvements but charging forced on us.

Greg, Northern Moor (09/11/2006 at 09:50)

Can you give us some honest answers is the Big Bang going to hit the Airport in the next 10 years even conjestion charge or not ? why are there so many lies flying about ? we want/need to know answers ?

Jake Long, Manchester, City Centre (09/11/2006 at 10:11)

Well fair play to them for playing the game. This is like the five ecenomic tests to join the Euro. They are impossible to meet so there will be no road pricing scheme. One think that I can promise them is that I certainly will not be paying it.

Joey, Ashton under Lyne (09/11/2006 at 10:18)

In principle I find having to subsidise other people travel not OK. .
If the government can find billions for the cross London Link they can find it for Greater Manchester.
And I for one will never venture into Manchester if it comes to pass.

Jake Long, Manchester, City Centre (09/11/2006 at 10:46)

Make no mistake, this is about population redistribution and business reloacation. If it wasn't then Gordon Brown would not allow it because he would be fully aware that it would push inflation way beyond what we could imagine. Every single business relies as heavily on cars, vans and trucks as it does on heating and lighting; whose price rises are already pushing up inflation.

Had enough, Walkden (09/11/2006 at 10:52)

What a joke, surely it should be the other way round, get a transport system in place first to give people an alternative to driving. Then they have a choice and the ones who decide to use the roads should be charged. Drivers in this country pay enough in insurance, road tax and fuel costs and at the end of the day the people traveling in the rush hours are only going to work which inturn pays their taxes which keeps this country afloat. And who will be the ones that get away with it, yes you guessed it, the people sat on their arses at home claiming benefits, what a great country we live in!

Kurt Stephens, Sale (09/11/2006 at 10:52)

Joey - why specifically Manchester???

From what the PTA have been saying recently this will NOT be a scheme that charges for entering the city centre. There will equally likely be a charge (maybe less) from driving in Ashton.

Jake - how is this a plan by Gordon Brown to move people and business? It is the PTA who decide how the scheme should be configured, and it looks likely we'll get a scheme similar to the German one, i.e. Sat Nav tracking your use of roads.

Kurt Stephens, Sale (09/11/2006 at 11:19)

Greg - as far as I can tell no one has ever lied about the airport extension. In the past central government have allocated monies for Metrolink expansion - specific amounts of money. For whatever reasons, it turned out that it would cost more to build than had been allocated, as such, we've had to go back over and over again with different proposals to the government. We are were we are, and to complete the network, i.e. to go down to the airport, will require lots of additional funding, this funding will almost certainly come from the Transport Initiative Fund - worth up to ¿¿2.5bn a year in a decades time. GMPTE will be submitting their TiF bid next July (the congestion charging scheme) with the government announcing the 'winners' in December 2007. As such, buy early 2008 there should be an answer as to if and when the airport line will be built - to be honest, it won't be completed before 2012, but if the TiF is successful then probably not much after that - but I am NOT involved with the PTE, and this is a guess and not a promise.

Carol, Crumpsall (09/11/2006 at 11:42)

There is already a good train service to Manchester Airport, so is it really necessary to extend the tram there? Would it be better to invest the money in new services to areas that need better public transport?

peter, middleton (09/11/2006 at 11:46)

In principle, the Metrolink is a great idea but there is a flaw in the plans. Metrolink stations on the outskirts need to be accompanied by adequate parking facilities so that people commuting from further afield can utilise the system. You only have to look at the M62 from Leeds, the M66 from Lancashire, the M67 from Derbyshire and the M56 from Cheshire to realise where the traffic volume is coming from. We need to look at Greater London for inspiration. Every Train Station has a large car parkk to accomodate commuters who drive to the station. Buses are not the answer. Since deregulation, the bus service has become a farce. Just take some time to stand and look at how many buses are clogging up the city centre with hardly any passengers travelling on them.
Then attack the drivers who go into the city, park for the day, then drive home. Introduce a ¿¿25 parking charge for stays over 6hrs. Remember, there are people out there who need their cars during the day to do their jobs. These people help drive the economy and their output would be severely reduced if they had to use public transport.
Come on Transport Chiefs, start thinking outside the box. There are lots of measures available before you go down the blind alley of congestion charging.

Kurt Stephens, Sale (09/11/2006 at 11:48)

Carol - yes the airport already has a train station, as does Altrincham, Eccles, Ashton and Rochdale. These lines will service all the intermidiate places on the line, for example the people of Chorlton and Wythenshawe have terrible public transport as it is, the airport line will give them huge improvements. I'm sure anyone wishing to travel from airport to city centre will get the train, however, someone wanting to get from Sale to Wythenshawe, or airport to Chorlton will benifit greatly by this new service. Trams are for short urban jounrys, trains for longer journeys with fewer stops.

Tony, Wythenshawe (09/11/2006 at 11:58)

Why should people in the south of the city pay road fees for a service which is seemingly only concerned with the north. Theres no benefit for us if Ashton, Oldham and Rochdale have a better transport links into the city centre.

Greg, Northern Moor (09/11/2006 at 12:57)

Kurt - Why did the cost double if not triple from the original bid ? if the goverment had given the go ahead in the first place we would all be using the Met by now for half the price being banded about today, as stated if they did not lie every other year about this it would have been done and dusted along time ago for a fraction of the price, its all been empty promises from day 1, i bet 10 years down the line the cross London link will be in service without any of this messing about what the people of Manchester get, i bet they dont have only half the service completed awaiting more funds ? even if the cost spirals out of control as everybody knows it will.

Colin W, Stockholm (09/11/2006 at 13:04)

You only have to look at the increase in vandalism and anti social behaviour in Altrincham, Sale and other areas on the metro route to see how bad it has been for these areas..

Chris, Manchester. (09/11/2006 at 14:18)

What a farce. I have said from the first day this 'big bang' was mooted that congestion charging would be used to pay for it, and here we are - despite the lies of our esteemed councillors. Why should I, as someone who will never benefit from the metrolink (I live in Irlam, miles away from ANY proposed line), pay for it - merely to subsidise those who do benefit from it? Give me a break, we may as well all give up work now!

Kurt Stephens, Sale (09/11/2006 at 14:49)

Chris, the more people from other areas using the trams means less traffic jams for you - you'll be paying to drive on much less congested roads.

Richard, M61 Corridor (09/11/2006 at 16:42)

Public transport links along the M61 corridor are woeful and do not look likely to be improved during the course of my lifetime. Hence, I am forced to use my car. I sincerely object to subsidising somebody elses gain when I have no reasonable choice myself. I also hope that Wigan and Bolton councils would, in course, withdraw from GMPTE, or receive a great rebate, seeing as neither of these boroughs will benefit directly from any Metrolink expansion.

John M, Rusholme (10/11/2006 at 06:04)

Sadly national and local politicians are short term thinkers,i.e. their next election.
This is a long term issue for the City and region. Compare and learn from the London experience. London Cross rail has been campaigned for now for over 25 years and is still not a reality! Congestion Charging despite some business opponents and Tory political opposition has been successful in reducing congestion and increasing public transport use. Manchester's regional economy needs strategic thinking if it is not to continue to be damaged by congestion. The cost of any public transport improvement increases year on year that political inertia delays the inevitable. Anyone seeking to travel within the city centre can see the folly of failure to plan long term. The Tories are non existent in this issue, except for the post Thatcher mess of bus deregulation! It isn't going to happen overnight which means we all will pay a lot more when the inevitable dawns on our elected representatives!

H J, Manchester (10/11/2006 at 07:47)

Another crazy idea my Manchester Council, nearly as bad as their plans to build a school in Heaton Park!! To register your objections to this, please go to www.saveheatonpark.com for details!!

Chris, Manchester (10/11/2006 at 08:41)

Kurt - there are virtually no traffic jams round where I live, mostly they are dreamt up by lazy politicians to justify schemes such as this! How would you feel, as a metrolink user, if YOU were charged to subsidise my drive to work on a brand-new road? Not happy I should imagine....

Alan Baillie, Eccles (10/11/2006 at 09:21)

Just a point to those who say that the buses go about empty in Manchester. The fact that the buses in Greater Manchester carry nearly 160 million passengers each year does not seem like they are empty to me. The Metrolink carries less than 20 million.... 8 times less!! Even when the extensions are in place the passengers carried should be about 50 million.... 3 times less!! The trains carry even less at roughly 10 million. So why should the buses be put off Mosley Street when they are busier then the trams? Of course they will start to empty out before the City centre... Stand on Portland Street and watch the (half emtpty) buses going out with 60-70 passengers on most of them!! (Doesnt seem empty to me)

Shaken, Bury (10/11/2006 at 09:23)

I am all for additional metrolink links, there are cleaner for the enviroment etc. However as a whole the working public pay more than enough in taxes duties etc, dont tell me that the central government/private investment cannot cover the outlay. Maybe we should just reduce our overall contribution to European projects to fund this. Lets for once put ourselves, the Great British public first !!!

Jake Long, Manchester, City Centre (15/11/2006 at 19:30)

I often travel to customers in East Lancashire. A round trip is 52 miles, if they introduce road user charging I will have to charge the customer an additional ¿¿70.00 that is plus the 50pence per mile for fuel and the call out charge, giving a minimum call out of around ¿¿320.00. If you seriously believe that road user charging will not push up inflation than you need your head examining.

()

Report

News