Manchester roundly rejects the congestion charge
So there we go, Greater Manchester has roundly booted out the idea of having a congestion charge.
The "yes" vote was no where near in any of the ten boroughs.
The idea was most popular in Manchester itself, but even there only 28% of voters said they were in favour.
It was least popular in neighbouring Salford, where 84% were against.
This could be very good news for Liverpool and Merseyside. Up to ã3bn was to be poured into public transport in Greater Manchester.
Merseyside and Merseytram could now be line for a slice of the cash.
But if that does happen, don't expect it to be a straight forward process.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
Merseyside has no prospect whatsoever of benefiting financially either directly or indirectly from this vote. At least two reasons. First, the cash was ring-fenced by Government expressly for 'innovative' traffic management schemes. In other words, it was an incentive (or bribe if you prefer) to introduce road-pricing. Once that falls, the cash disappears. And second, public debt is about to balloon to ã110 billion. Clawing back ã3 billion will be some kind of windfall to a hard-pressed Exchequer.
The vote itself was an unsurprising disappointment. Unsurprising because it's extraordinarily difficult to win a vote for a collective benefit that requires a charge on individual behaviour - even though 90% would never be affected by the charge, and no one at all until 2013. Disappointing because rationing road use by price is the only sensible and fair way of preventing overuse, congestion and environmental damage
So bad news for the (global) environment. But great news for Liverpool? Good job we can pull up the drawbridge at the mouth of the Mersey Tunnel.
David and Mark thanks for the comments. Mark, I take your point.
All I would add is that if Merseytram were to ever get off the ground that too would be good for the environment. Being as we are where we are now, it would be nice to think that the government would spend the money on other public transport schemes. That of course will remain to be seen.
Merseytram would not only be good in public transport terms, but would bring huge regeneration benefits to Kirkby by providing a speedy direct link to Liverpool city centre.
Merseytram would not only be good in public transport terms, but would bring huge regeneration benefits to Kirkby
This is the claim, but it doesn't always repay inspection. For sure, trams are generally 'cleaner' environmentally than buses. But unless you plan to disqualify buses (& cars), or believe people will switch to trams in sufficient numbers to reduce road traffic, nothing much is gained. Even if people do switch, you would then need to ask why we need three urban transit systems linking Liverpool & Kirkby - bus, rail & tram; and why the two existing systems had failed (where trams are presumed to succeed) in producing regeneration benefits. Not easy questions; even harder answers.
Of the regeneration benefits, it's certainly the accepted view that benefits flow when peripheries (Kirkby) enjoy high quality links to urban cores (Liverpool). This view underpins EU aid policies at local and national levels. But it asks too much of a transit system that it should be a catalyst for regeneration unless other steps like credible employment opportunities are locked in - and they rarely are.
Maybe people think the proposed Everton stadium fulfils that role. Moving 40,000 fans from Liverpool to Kirkby every other week would help build a case for a tram line. However the evidence from America is that the impact of new stadiums on urban regeneration is frequently asserted but rarely supported by experience - itâÂÂs merely spin from developers seeking to hijack public funds for private ventures (see Brookings Institute)
To this we can add the murky position of Liverpool City Council. It opposes the Kirkby-Everton stadium development because it fears competition in the retail sector. In other words, it will block regeneration efforts outside Liverpool if it can. Not much chance of a Greater Liverpool economic strategy emerging under these conditions; no chance of a coherent urban transit system either.