Congestion charging
in Manchester
“If congestion charging in Manchester was as successful as
congestion charging in London, it would cut traffic by 13% and raise over £30
million for public transport in a year”
A Green Party press
office briefing
April 2003
Researched and
written by Sorania Kochat
Contact Green Party press office
Tel 020 7561 0282. Fax 020 7272 653
Email press@greenparty.org.uk
Contents
Introduction p 2
1.
Learning
from London – potential benefits for Manchester p 2
2.
Manchester’s
poor transport history - and some solutions p 3
3.
“A more
positive and open contribution” p 4
4.
Without
congestion charging we will have 11% more traffic in the morning peak by 2021 p
4
5.
Some
myths about congestion charging p 5
Conclusion p 6
Notes p 7
I1.This report argues that Manchester is
in urgent need for improvements to its public transport, particularly buses,
and unless the right measures are taken Manchester is heading for a future of
even worse traffic congestion with serious economic and health impacts.
I2. It is estimated here that if
Manchester introduced congestion charging it could cut traffic by 13% and could
raise £32.5 million for public transport in the first year of operation, if the
benefits achieved in Manchester were comparable to those in London.
I3 This study is based on a comparison
between Manchester and London, where congestion charging has already been
introduced with the active support of the Green Party Group on the London
Assembly. Manchester city centre has approximately a quarter of London city
centre’s traffic movements each day.
I3. London’s congestion charging scheme
has shown signs of success after only 6 weeks in place. Manchester can learn
from this success and also from any problems encountered.
1.
Learning from London –
potential benefits for Manchester
1.1 The Green Party applauds Ken
Livingstone in his determination to once and for all cut the traffic congestion
in London by introducing congestion charging.
1.2 The Greens on the London Assembly
had made congestion charging a manifesto commitment, and were strongly
intrumental in its introduction. Both the Mayor’s environment adviser and his
Ambassador on Road Safety were Green Party Assembly Members.
a.
20% reduction in traffic
levels which has remained fairly consistent since the first week.
b.
Bus speeds in the charging
zone have increased by 15%.
c.
An increase of 14% of people
choosing to use public transport in the morning peak hour since autumn 2002. [
1 ]
2.
Manchester’s poor public transport history –
and some solutions
2.1 Manchester is in desperate need of
measures to encourage people to use public transport.
2.2 At morning peak time 7.30 – 9.30, some
85.3% of commuters travelling into Manchester come by car. [ 2 ]
2.3 A report by the
Commission for Integrated Transport found that Manchester has the lowest supply
of timetabled bus services per capita and lowest take up of bus services in the
UK. [ 3 ]
2.4
Bus related spending in the United Kingdom is amongst the lowest level
of spending in the EU accounting for 32% of total industry income. [ 4 ]
2.5 Manchester’s bus subsidy spending is
below the national average at 22%. [ 4 ]
2.6 Fuel consumed operating local bus
services receives a rebate of 80%. In 1994 it
was 100%. The passenger pays the price in higher fares. [ 4 ]
2.7 Traffic congestion makes bus
services unreliable. This is creating a no-win situation. Less reliable bus
services mean more people take to the car, more cars means more congestion,
more congestion slows down journey times for both car users and bus passengers.
2.8 It gets worse! Bus operators provide
more buses to counter the congestion to improve punctuality. Stagecoach, a
major bus operator in Manchester, has had to provide 60 extra buses in the last
3 years, yet operating speeds reduced by 8% in the year to April 2002. [ 4 ]
2.9
A Commission for Integrated Transport report estimated that if
Manchester used congestion charging it could cut traffic by 13%. The same
report predicted that central London’s traffic levels would be cut to 20%. The
latter estimate has turned out to be correct. [ 5 ]
2.10 Ken Livingstone
pledged to put £84 million from the revenue of £130 million earned from the
London charge into bus subsidies. If Manchester introduced the congestion
charge and raised £32.5 million, the current subsidy of 22% to buses could be
raised by at least 33%.
3. “A more positive
and open contribution”
3.1
Unfortunately too little investment in public transport comes from
central government. Indeed, Labour government transport policy is based on the
fundamentally flawed assumption that car use will become cheaper in real terms
over time while public transport will become more expensive in real terms. Thus
it puts far more effort into accomodating growth in car traffic, and far too
little into facilitating a switch from car to public transport. [ 6 ]
3.2
Labour transport secretary Alistair Darling, according to a Labour
dominated transport select committee, is showing a lack of leadership on the
congestion charging issue. The select committee’s report said “It is a matter
of serious concern that the government is not at present prepared to make a
more positive and open contribution to the national debate on congestion
charging”.
3.3 The government’s
10-year transport plan to 2010 includes £35 billion for new roadbuilding and
road widening. The Green Party would scrap the roadbuilding programme and
invest in alternatives instead – in fact a preference shared by 61% in a recent
opinion poll. [ 7 ] But at present this isn’t an option - and funds need to be
found elsewhere to improve public transport now. Congestion charging could be a
significant help.
4. Without congestion
charging the M60 will have an 11% increase in morning traffic by 2021
4.1 The report was conducted by consultants
Faber Maunsell. [ 8 ] It was conducted as an attempt to see how to free-up the
overloaded M60 between junctions 12 and 18, which has over 185,000 vehicles
using it each day. The conclusion was that the only way to free-up the area is a
package of measures including area-wide congestion charging. The report warns
that unless this happens, the M60 alone could have an 11% increase in morning
traffic by 2021.
4.2
The report sets out how 30,500 cars can be taken off the road in the
morning peak time. This in itself would cut Greater Manchester’s car trips by
9% resulting in a major reductions in highway traffic and a major impact on
congestion in Greater Manchester.
4.3 The Jetts charge would apply only at
peak times and would be 10p per kilometre. It would apply to all roads of
Greater Manchester’s conurbations.
4.4 The revenue raised would go into
much-needed improvements in public transport. It would run alongside road
improvements and quality bus corridors.
4.5 The Jetts report has been submitted
to the North West Regional Assembly which will then make recommendations to
Alistair Darling.
4.6 The report conducted a questionaire
which showed that the majority of people are for public transport improvements
and against new roadbuilding.
5.1 This was the prediction
by many opposed to congestion charging in London – in fact probably just their
ideological opposition being expressed as a form of scaremongering in a vain
attempt to defeat the proposal. Concerns that traffic around the Inner Ring
Road in London would be heavily increased have proven unfounded. A spokesman
for the AA said “The roads around the zone are slightly busier but it seems
people are orbiting around the zone much further than was expected.”
5.2 A Mori Poll found that 67% of
Londoners believe it has been successful in reducing traffic congestion. [ 9 ]
“It
will be bad for business”
5.3 Studies in Germany have shown that
there is no relationship between car parking provision in city centres and
retail spending. However there is a strong relationship between retail spending
and public transport arrivals. [ 10 ]
5.4 The business community has in fact
warmed to the charge. A survey done by investment agency London First found
that 75% of respondents considered the charge a success. 30% believed it has
actually benefited their business whilst only 5% believed it has had a negative
impact. [ 11 ]
“Congestion
charging hits the poor not the rich”
5.5 Poorer communities are affected the
most by the worst impacts of road traffic - road accidents, pollution, noise
pollution and busy roads cutting through communities. [ 12 ] Cutting traffic
actually benefits poorer people.
5.6 63% of the lowest income families at
present do not have a car. [ 12 ] Those who are entirely dependent on public
transport have to put up with an inadequate service which is the more
inefficient because of traffic congestion.
C1 According to the Confederation for
British Industry, traffic congestion costs UK business literally tens of
billions of pounds every year. The pollution from all this traffic contributes
heavily to the 12,000-24,000 annual UK deaths from air pollution. [ 13 ] Health
impacts from road traffic have been estimated to cost the UK over £11 billion a
year. [ 14 ] And road transport directly contributes up to 25% of the
greenhouse gases which are causing catastrophic climate change. It is
absolutely essential for social, environmental and economic reasons that we
reduce road traffic.
C2 A new Green Party report shows that
the UK could cut road traffic by 20% within a decade – a much better prospect
than the 17% traffic growth envisaged in the Labour government’s 10-year
transport plan to 2010. [ 15 ] This would require a comprehensive package of
measures.
C3 Congestion charging has proven to be an effective way of both reducing traffic and helping fund the alternatives to the car. It should be introduced wherever appropriate as part of a comprehensive package of Green transport measures. [ 16 ] In Manchester, it is reasonable to conclude that a congestion charging scheme as successful as London’s could reduce city centre traffic by 13% and raise over £30 million in its first year of operation.
Notes
1. Commission For Integrated Transport –
Paying For Road use, 25 February
2002, www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/pfru/04.htm
.
2. Central Manchester
Traffic Levels October 2002. from GM Transport Authority.
3. Commission for Integrated
Transport, European Best Practice, Looking at Large UK Cities, November 2001.
4. United Kingdom Parliament Memorandum The Bus Industry April 2002.
Ibid.
5. Commission For Integrated Transport –
Paying For Road use, 25 February
2002, www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/pfru/04.htm
.
6. Prof John Whitelegg, in Far More Spin Than Substance: A brief critique
of New Labour’s enviromental record, www.greenparty.org.uk/reports
(2003).
7. See Green Party: The Strongest Link, www.greenparty.org.uk/reports (2001).
8. See www.m60jetts.co.uk
.
9. See Mori Poll www.mori.com/polls/2003/shtml
.
10. See Prof John Whitelegg, How local authorities can reduce traffic,
www.greenparty.org.uk/reports
(2003).
11. See www.greenconsumerguide.com article, “London gets a corporate thumbs
up.”
12. Making
the Connections report, Febuary 2003, www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk
.
13. Department of Health figures. See Stolen Life: Death and illness for air
pollution, www.greenparty.org.uk/reports (2002).
14. See Fair on Fuel, Fair on the Future: A social, economic and environmental
case for higher fuel taxes, www.greenparty.org.uk/reports
(2000).
15. See Prof John Whitelegg, How local authorities can reduce traffic,
www.greenparty.org.uk/reports
(2003).
16. See The Green transport revolution and how to pay for it, www.greenparty.org.uk/reports
(2001).
Published
and promoted by Spencer Fitz-Gibbon for the Green Party, both at 1a Waterlow
Road, London N19 5NJ.