The TIF Debate

[jrb]

A MASSIVE congestion charge scheme for Greater Manchester is revealed by the M.E.N. today.



Drivers face paying up to £6 a day - around £1,500 a year - to use the area's busiest roads.

The actual amount paid would depend on which roads are used and for what distance, with those travelling at peak times facing the highest fees. The charging zones would be aimed not only at the heart of Manchester but traffic hotspots across the region.

Transport chiefs plan to charge motorists to use roads on and around 15 of the most heavily-used `corridors' spreading out from the city centre across Greater Manchester.

The charges would be introduced on several of the corridors initially, then imposed gradually across the region. The proposals have been drawn up to try to close a funding gap to allow the `Big Bang' extension of the Metrolink tram system to go ahead by tapping into a £1bn government fund for jam-busting schemes.

Satellite technology

Cars would be fitted with satellite technology or windscreen-mounted `tags' that could be tracked automatically by electronic scanners positioned at key points along each corridor.

Motorists would also have the option of pre-paying for a day pass based on how many scanners they will be driving past. Number plate recognition cameras could be used to catch and fine those trying to cheat the system.

No price has been set but it is understood any charging regime would be no more expensive than London, where motorists pay £8 a day to enter a zone in and around the city centre.

Sources close to the Greater Manchester project suggest the peak charge could be £3 for every scanner passed, with up to two scanners on each corridor route - giving a journey total of £6 or about £1,500 a year.

Motorists using the routes at off-peak times, or for shorter journeys, would be charged much less - and possibly not at all.

The Greater Manchester scheme would not come into force until 2010 at the earliest and transport chiefs have pledged it will only go ahead on routes which have regular, reliable and economic public transport.

The plans, drawn up by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive - GMPTE - can only go ahead if backed by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities on Friday.

If given the green light they will be worked up in detail and used as the basis of a bid to government for money from the £1bn Transport Innovation Fund (TIF).

That money - reserved for towns and cities that introduce congestion charges - could cover the £400m funding gap GMPTE needs to close in order to complete the Big Bang tram-line extensions to Manchester Airport, Rochdale town centre and Ashton under Lyne.

Currently the government has agreed to fund only a "Little Bang" to St Weburgh's Road, Rochdale rail station and Droylsden - and then only after a massive M.E.N-led campaign to get the cash. The 15 corridors run out from Manchester as far as the airport and satellite towns including Leigh, Rochdale, Wigan, Stockport, Rochdale and Bury.

The proposal for Greater Manchester is that the highest charges would be reserved for those using the most heavily-congested routes at the busiest times.

Pilot groups

Initially only a small pilot group of motorists would see their cars fitted with satellite-based technology, which would allow administrators to track exactly when and where they were travelling and charge them accordingly. Of the rest, some would pay in advance for day passes and the rest would use the tags.

GMPTE would want to move everyone to the satellite-based system `as soon as possible'. The plans have been drawn up not only to access the TIF money but also for economic and environmental reasons.

Since 1997, there has been a 13 per cent increase in overall car travel in Greater Manchester and the GMPTE believes congestion is about to reach a `tipping point' where it has a negative impact on the regional economy. Their intelligence suggests it could cost Greater Manchester 30,000 of the 210,000 jobs expected to be created in the region by 2021.

There has also been an increase in carbon emissions and the number of times local concentrations of nitrogen dioxide exceed environmental targets.

------

15 `corridors' into the city earmarked for charging

CHARGES vary according to route, time and distance

ROADSIDE scanners and satellite technology will track journeys.

THE charge will be up to £8 a day costing an average motorist around £2,000 a year

THOSE caught by number plate cameras trying to cheat the system will be fined

THE scheme would not come in before 2010

------

C-Charge: "Doing nothing is not an option"


MANCHESTER'S political and transport leaders today welcomed the prospect of congestion charging.

Roger Jones, chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, said: "We know that people will use buses, trains and trams if they are reliable and affordable and I am confident that - given the right levels of investment - we can achieve this."

Lord Peter Smith, chairman of Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, said: "Greater Manchester has the fastest growing economy outside London. Unchecked congestion is already starting to take its toll on both the economy and our environment and doing nothing is not an option."

Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester council, said: "A London-style charging scheme which imposes cost irrespective of time of day, length of journey, origin and destination is not right for Greater Manchester.

"If road charging is to work in this area, we have to tackle congestion both now and in the future. Any charging scheme must therefore take into account the time of day, length of journey, origin and destination as well as the impact on communities and key workers. Greater influence over the bus network, local rail and the strategic highways network is also a vital pre-requisite. There will be a major public consultation in the spring so that residents, businesses and other stakeholders can give an informed opinion about our proposals for the charging scheme and for the improvements to the public transport network."

------

Controversial road from 'Big Bang' to charges

IT was in January 2005 - just after an M.E.N.-led campaign had forced the Government to reinstate £520m of funding for the Metrolink extensions - that then transport secretary Alistair Darling made a proposal.

He noted that the £520m would not cover the full `big bang' and suggested more cash might be made available if Greater Manchester could produce `a bold, integrated package to tackle congestion'.

The implication was clear. Just six months earlier he had sparked a massive debate when he suggested car taxes could be scrapped in favour of `pay-as-you-drive', depending on when and where motorists used their cars. And he made it clear he was on the lookout for major urban areas - like Greater Manchester - to trial the scheme.

Local transport chiefs were cautious. But by February 2005 it emerged that a survey of people who drove into Manchester for work had been carried out.

Only 23.6 per cent agreed with the idea of a congestion charge. Roger Jones, chairman of the GMPTA, seemed undeterred, saying: "I think after this cities will start looking at options other than the London model. It could mean taking it out of car tax so you would pay less car tax if you drove less."

Perhaps he knew what was coming. By July the Government was being more explicit about what it wanted. The Department for Transport announced that `pump-priming' cash would be made available from the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) for areas offering `innovative local transport packages.'

Bid

Greater Manchester announced a bid in November. Coun Jones stressed it did not mean the region was committed to a congestion charge - only seeing how one might work.

By now it was clear that significant sums from TIF - worth up to £200m a year - would only be given to areas prepared to test out some form of road pricing.

Research in Greater Manchester found the city-region was heading for a `tipping point', where the amount of traffic on our roads would begin having a negative economic effect. The GMPTE said 30,000 of 210,000 jobs likely to be created in the next 15 years could be under threat unless action was taken.

That allowed local political leaders to `think the unthinkable' while sticking to their line - that a congestion charge would only be considered if it did not have a negative impact.

The latest plans will form the basis of a full TIF bid if they are accepted by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities on Friday.

------

C-Charge: The case FOR

BEFORE you say no, make sure you're asking the right question.

The Government has made it quite clear that, sooner or later, everyone in the country will be paying more for driving at peak times.

What's on offer to Greater Manchester is a potentially huge amount of money - enough to pay for the Metrolink Big Bang - if we try out a system that will almost certainly be rolled out across Britain.

So the question isn't, "Do you want a congestion charge?" The question is "Do you want to get up to £1bn funding for public transport in return for trying this out, or do you want to wait until we impose it on you and get nothing in return?"

Put in those terms, it's a no-brainer. But even if we set aside the practical argument, there are still good reasons to support the plan.

Congestion is a problem we can no longer ignore. The amount of car journeys in Greater Manchester has increased by 13 per cent since 1997 and - if left unchecked - will continue to rise at a much faster rate. That won't just mean more frustrated waiting in traffic jams. It could jeopardise our economic future.

Studies commissioned by the GMPTE show gridlock on our roads is already beginning to have an impact.

It's estimated that 30,000 of the 210,000 jobs expected to be created in Greater Manchester in the next 15 years could be at risk if we don't take action on congestion. That's something we simply can't afford; the productivity gap between the North of England and the national average still stands at £30bn, and too many people are still missing out on the economic boom in Manchester city centre.

Those who grumble that public transport is simply not reliable and regular enough are missing the point, too. The whole purpose of this scheme is to pay for changes that will make our buses, trains - and trams - truly fit for a 21st century economy. The prospect of bus re-regulation will mean services can be designed to provide the most efficient, wide-ranging network possible. And the M.E.N. has repeatedly proven that the tram gets you from A-B far quicker - and more comfortably - than the car.

The "green" argument is clear, too. We all know that carbon emissions are continuing to rise; we all want protect our environment for future generations. Cutting down on unnecessary car journeys is one of the simplest and most effective measures most of us can make to play our part. If we don't act voluntarily, the Government is quite prepared to legislate to further the green agenda.

This charge, or something like it, is the future. We can make face it head on and make it work for us, or we turn our backs and wait for it to hit. Because it's going to happen anyway.

------

C-Charge: The case AGAINST

IN three years time I will have to fork out up to £6 a day to go to work. My crime? Not doing enough to save the planet.

Call me a selfish gas guzzler (I drive a Renault Clio) but I care more about being financially clobbered yet again, than future generations whose fate can only be surmised by Domesday-mongers.

After all, in Manchester, 2007, I'm more likely to be crushed by the weight of a self righteous transport mandarin than choked to death by greenhouse gases.

Truth is, I do my fair share. I drive a small car, I wash my clothes at 30 degrees and I use three different recycling bins, not to mention energy-saving light-bulbs. But that's not enough.

Living right bang in the middle of the proposed Manchester Sale Altrincham Hale corridor as I do I'll be expected to use Metrolink and leave the Clio at home.

But why should I when the journey would involve a 15 minute walk home along secluded dark roads after alighting from the tram? And as for the bus, I've heard more than enough horror stories of anti social behaviour and low-level yobbery to put myself through the daily ordeal of the weary bus commuter.

My attachment to the car won't end when congestion charges come in because I can afford to pay it, albeit grudgingly. And so my current clogged but passable route to work will open up for me and the Cheshire tractors.

That's for the richer, for the poorer it'll be a daily grind along congested rabbit runs that will spring up everywhere around the charging routes. And don't believe the fee will remain as stationary as those stuck in traffic. Londoners started out paying £5 when their charge was introduced in 2003 - now it's £8.

We'll follow suit with a supposedly palatable "entry" level followed by the big hit a few years later. It's the same story on Britain's first toll motorway where prices have doubled in three years. No wonder Birmingham city centre workers prefer to sit it out on the M6.

Back to me me me. My carbon footprint can't be that big, but if it is I'll try wearing smaller shoes - what the hell, I'm being squeezed so much anyway.

------

Comments.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....tory_id=234066

It's worked!

It's already convinced me to use public transport when I go into the city centre in the future.

I certainly won't be paying a £5 congestion charge to drive into the city centre and further £5 to park my car. (£10 even before I buy anything)

Public transport here I come.

[jrb]

End of free parking suffers double blow

AS the congestion charge proposal was unveiled today it was revealed that plans to introduce fees to park on Sundays and evenings in Manchester have suffered a double blow.

The Greater Manchester Chamber - which originally appeared supportive - backtracked after chief executive Angie Robinson said the plans were `causing businesses a great deal of concern'.

In a further blow, it is understood that Labour city centre supremo Coun Pat Karney also has serious concerns about weekend parking charges, which could mean drivers having to cough up to £2.20 an hour for on-street bays.

When the proposals were first mooted earlier this month, Sarah Johnson, the Chamber's transport policy executive, said: "We welcome the move to help shoppers and visitors find short stay parking spaces more easily, as it has the potential to benefit business."

But after urgent talks at the Chamber, Ms Robinson said last night: "We have yet to find any members who are welcoming this."

The strongest criticism is coming from shops, bars and restaurants who believe staff will be put off working weekends.

Members also argue that trade could suffer as customers are put off travelling to the city centre.

Views

The Chamber, which has 7,000 members, will now tell the council its views as part of the consultation process.

Ms Robinson said: "Members feel the process is on a tight time deadline. We would want the council to take their time when considering the responses and next time if there's anything like this hold discussions beforehand to look at options and alternatives."

Thousands of people have contacted the M.E.N. website to complain while hundreds have contacted the council directly.

The council says the changes are necessary to tackle congestion and to free up bays.

Coun Neil Swannick, the city's parking chief, has said no final decision will be made until the consultation closes on Friday.

[Latic]

Cheers JRB - must have taken ages to type that out.

I've just seen this on North West Tonight, and I think the council & GMPTE may have been a bit clever about this.

Some senior GMPTE bod was on saying that it will only happen if central government coughs up £1 billion for transport improvments and a whole list of conditions are met.

For example it must help not hinder ecomonic growth, it must not create social exclusion etc etc.

He was saying this is not definatley going to happen, and if it does it will be a hell of a lot more intellegent than the London scheme.

[andysimo123]

I thought it would just be central Manchester(aka the city centre) but by the looks of this the whole of Greater Manchester is well, totally fucked if this goes ahead. I'd rather see afew traffic jams than see this and new Metrolink lines built. It may sound stupid but they have just finished making the M60 wider and they have started something else now near Stockport and once that and the new 3a phase of the Met is built. Well I don't think there will be any need for it. We can say "right Mr Government transport Dude or Dudette our roads are fine apart from where you lot are doing road works and where the Metrolink hasn't been built."

[Local Lad]

Andy if you drive, you will know that the M60 is full already. The work in Stockport is simple resurfacing (and a few quid from those cameras). As has been posted elsewere on this forum, charging was coming wether we liked it or not. I am happy for it to happen, as long as the money stays here in Manchester and we have the Metrolink running every which way in the future

[Mackem]

Well a great boost for the Trafford Centre there. Go into town & get clobbered. Oh yes, and don't think that car tax will miraculously decrease or that Metrolink is about to be turned into something special because than aint gonna happen either. The charging system has to paid for and run (not cheap) before any extra cash goes anywhere. I'l bet the Treasury see this as a good way of eliminating more transport expenditure "Well revenues haven't been high enough from the congestion charge so project XYZ won't happen".

[Caiman]

So basically, unless you drive around backstreets of the shitty inner suburbs, the only way into Manchester will be to be ripped off when you're no where near the city centre? Fuck this I'd rather have London Stle Congestion charging.

[b4mmy]

Originally Posted by Jon Reid

So basically, unless you drive around backstreets of the shitty inner suburbs, the only way into Manchester will be to be ripped off when you're no where near the city centre? Fuck this I'd rather have London Stle Congestion charging.

You reckon? The fuckers will block those rat runs off AND stick a load of sleepers in there as well... its pathetic, they are a greedy bunch of bastards

[FLD]

Originally Posted by Mackem

Well a great boost for the Trafford Centre there. Go into town & get clobbered. Oh yes, and don't think that car tax will miraculously decrease or that Metrolink is about to be turned into something special because than aint gonna happen either. The charging system has to paid for and run (not cheap) before any extra cash goes anywhere. I'l bet the Treasury see this as a good way of eliminating more transport expenditure "Well revenues haven't been high enough from the congestion charge so project XYZ won't happen".

Do you think Trafford Council will be forced to charge people to park their cars at the Trafford Centre, as is likely to happen with the Merry Hill Centre in Dudley?

[andysimo123]

Originally Posted by FLD

Do you think Trafford Council will be forced to charge people to park their cars at the Trafford Centre, as is likely to happen with the Merry Hill Centre in Dudley?

Trafford Council don't own the Trafford Centre so they can't do shit. Its private land.

[andysimo123]

It maybe simple resurfacing but my dad works in Stockport and he has to go out 30 minutes earlier in the Morning since they have started the work. I think our Government is like Windows XP, its just full of problems that will never get fixed.

[URBANISER]

Surely this makes the Trafford Centre even more attractive and the City Centre very unattractive for shoppers?

[b4mmy]

Originally Posted by URBANISER

Surely this makes the Trafford Centre even more attractive and the City Centre very unattractive for shoppers?

if you study the c map, you cannot get onto any motorway without first getting onto an corridor route... ( unless you live in erm... sheffield)... whichever way you look at it, this is buttfucking on an obscene level.

Todays letter is the letter C. C is for cunt.

[Potato Man]

Like it nor not, it appears inevitable that a national road charging/congestion scheme is coming our way.

As Kurt has argued so eloquently today and in the past, Greater Manchester is in a unique position to take advantage of this fact and win funding for Metrolink in exchange for running the pilot. As such, I think it would be negligent of our political leaders not to be pursuing this course of action.

For me the only downside is that the national charging scheme has been linked to cuts in fuel duty and road tax. Obviously this won't apply during the local trial and motorists could be hit by double charges in the short term.

But I also think there is another potential upside that has been overlooked. As Mackem points out in post 6 this 'system has to paid for and run'. Obviously by running the pilot Manchester is going to develop some quite considerable knowledge and experience in the field of congestion charging. I wonder if this experience could put the GM area in pole position for the HQ of any national road pricing authority when the scheme goes national.

And this benefit could extend beyond admin/civil service positions. If the trial proves successful and if local companies (or indeed national/international companies operating out of Manchester) win contracts to supply goods and services to the local trial, they will, I assume be among the front runners to win bigger contracts for the national scheme. Of course this is all speculative, but at the same time I'd suggest it sounds perfectly feasible. So assuming things actually pan our as I've suggested we could be talking about hundreds, no thousands of new jobs for Greater Manchester on the back of running this pilot.

[b4mmy]

Originally Posted by Potato Man

So assuming things actually pan our as I've suggested we could be talking about hundreds, no thousands of new jobs for Greater Manchester on the back of running this pilot.

Fan-fucking tastic... my taxes already help employ more than 500,000 civil servants most of whom are underemployed over salaried and over pensioned. I'm not bothered where they are, beurocracy sucks,

[NerveAgent]

So I would have to pay £6 to leave my driveway. Thank fuck I'm leaving Manchester soon.

[TheFly]

Any congestion charge should only apply within the inner ring road AFTER they have built huge car parks next to the metro stops.

Without the above this will be an economic disaster for Manchester.

Why go to the Arndale to pay a car park fee and a congestion charge?

Why should the Trafford Centre, essentially only accessible by car get free access when it itself attracts car traffic.

This is a total farce.

It is just a tax without any real thought.

Don't even get me started on the guy earning the minimum wage who lives in Gorton and works in Trafford Park.
Don't give that rubbish that he could catch the metro....at what cost? The metro is privately run..the prices will rise to take advantage of a monopoly position on shunting passengers through Manchester.

Solution?

Build the metro 1st (like they have with the underground in London).
Build park & ride.
GMPTE takes over ownership of the Metro.

THEN

congestion charge within the inner ring road.

Anything else is a total disgrace, anti-competitive and discrimanating against lower income families.

A campaign should be started before jobs flee the centre for the suburbs, creating more traffic.

[Isaac Newell]

It's good news for Liverpool.

[Jongeman]

Originally Posted by TheFly

A campaign should be started before jobs flee the centre for the suburbs, creating more traffic.

Funny thing is, this has happened before when Manchester's rates were silly in the 1970s, early 80s. Until pretty recently you could tell that there'd had been a mass exodus of people and business as soon as you crossed the 'City of Manchester' signs on any road. Everything on the outer borough side was well cared for and everything on the City side of the sign was rotting, and the only reason was rateable value.

[Farsight]

Originally Posted by Nerveagent'

So I would have to pay £6 to leave my driveway. Thank fuck I'm leaving Manchester soon.

Oh boy, this is a city killer. It isn't congestion charging, look at the routes, this is a stealth tax. I notice they don't tell you how much they'll rake in. But hey, look on the bright side. Businesses will fuck off so when this starts to bite everybody who hasn't fucked off will be sitting at home on the dole so you won't need all them tram lines any more. Aw, you never were going to get them and you never fucking will. And with this you won't get any more skyscrapers either. Last one to leave, please turn out the lights. It's back to dismal depressing dereliction for Manchester. And when you see fatcat civil servants swanning past in their chauffeur-driven limousins, you can console yourself that you're saving the planet. LOL.