CONGESTION charging has moved a step closer after the government backed the controversial Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) bid.
Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly announced she would offer £3bn in government cash to Manchester to improve public transport, so long as it introduced congestion charging, in a speech in Parliament on Monday afternoon (9 June).
The money, made up of a direct £1.5bn cash payment - higher than the £1.2bn expected - is conditional on setting up a pay-as-you-drive scheme to help pay back the remaining £1.5bn loan side of the investment.
The ten Greater Manchester Authorities will now engage in three months of consultation before deciding if they accept the offer
Lord Peter Smith, Leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) said he was delighted to have had had Manchester's TIF bid accepted by the government.
He said: "This announcement is great news for Greater Manchester. As a successful and growing economy, congestion is an increasing problem and one we cannot afford to ignore.
"This will provide a level of investment not seen before outside of London, and will transform our public transport system into one capable of supporting the growth of the region for years to come."
Speaking at a press conference, held at Rochdale Town Hall to run alongside Ms Kelly's announcement, Sir Richard Leese, Deputy Leader of AGMA, annouced how the money would be spent if AGMA continues with the scheme.
He said money would be used to extend the metrolink, to increase the number of train carriages, develop new park and ride schemes and increase the number of buses.
He also committed to not introduce congestion charging until 2013 and improvements in public transport had been put in place to offer a proper alternative people using their car.
However, Chris Wermann from Kellogg's, who are heading a group of companies opposed to the introduction of congestion charging through the TIF bid said they would continue to fight against the proposals.
He said: "We are surprised that the government has decided to consider increasing taxes on motorists at a time of record petrol prices and tax, as this charge could see motorists pay an additional £1,200 a year.
"We will continue to fight to oppose the introduction of congestion charging."
Sir Richard Leese confirmed drivers would pay a congestion charge everytime they crossed the M60 at peak hours, between 7.30am and 9.00am and between 4.00pm and 6.30pm Monday to Friday.
They would pay an additional charge for entering the city centre.
He however did not rule out the possibility of a city-wide referendum on the issue, with three of the ten AGMA Councils having previously stated their opposition to the plans.
Showing comments 1 to 3 and replies | View All
padd (10/06/2008 at 11:07)
Polky (10/06/2008 at 11:08)
No. He'll wait a few weeks and then say that it's too complicated and that the electorate are to stupid to understand a question... He'll be nice about it, but we won't get to have our say.
Polky (11/06/2008 at 11:30)
"However, in addition to the approvals required for the package as a whole, individual enhancement schemes will also need to be signed off by central government before work can begin on the ground. The DfT has divided projects into four categories and while those in Category A are considered sufficiently advanced in development to be given Programme Entry at the same time as the package as a whole, separate business cases will need to be worked up for Category B and C projects - which include additional train rolling stock, station improvements and the planned Metrolink extension to Trafford Park. Category D schemes - such as the Rochdale and Oldham Metrolink extensions - are considered a low priority by the DfT and AGMA/GMPTA will be responsible for paying the entire capital cost of these projects if they are to go ahead."
Do you think that they know in the town hall about the low priority Rochdale has?
The use of the phrase "IF they should go ahead" should start some alarm bells ringing... Watch this space, we're going to end up charged and no better off.