Cambridgeshire County Council has dismissed reports that the public’s rejection of Greater Manchester’s Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) proposals means that other authorities will have to shelve plans for congestion charging.
Graham Hughes, Cambridgeshire’s director of sustainable infrastructure, told Surveyor that the proposals for a peak-period charge covering the city of Cambridge were ‘very different’ from Greater Manchester’s, and had public support.
However, the County Surveyors’ Society warned that, while work on TIF proposals continued, ‘the Government needs to review its tactics on TIF’ and divert more of the £9.5bn to ‘productivity TIF’ schemes to improve strategic infrastructure.
Cambridgeshire’s cabinet will consider recommendations from an independent transport commission in July, and decide whether to proceed with a TIF bid to introduce a £3-£5 charge and £500M rail, road, and local transport improvements.
Hughes said: ‘Greater Manchester’s charge was being proposed for a much larger area. Our scheme would be tightly focused on commuting trips into the district of Cambridge city.
‘Despite the downturn, our local economy is still fairly buoyant, and there is a general recognition that we are suffering severe congestion, and that this will only get worse.’
He highlighted that 59% of a sample of residents surveyed would support congestion charging, if attractive alternatives were in place (Surveyor, 15 May). He said there was ‘no pressure locally for a referendum to be held into the proposals’. The transport commission would hold evidence sessions to give ‘a public airing’ to the arguments.
A few other authorities awarded pump-priming money to develop congestion TIF packages, including Reading and Bristol, are also continuing to develop proposals. Not withstanding this, the CSS urged ministers to divert TIF money to schemes to revive the ailing economy.
Alison Quant, CSS vice-president, said: ‘Given the economic situation, there is a strong case for investing more of the TIF pot to strategic road and rail schemes designed to improve productivity.’
The regional development agencies had recommended a string of transport schemes which would ‘generate substantial benefits for national productivity’, but the DfT decided that only three major traffic management schemes, and four rail freight upgrades, would be taken forward. Quant said: ‘A recession is not the time to try to make the case for a national road-user charging scheme, given that congestion is reduced, and people are less able to bear additional costs.’
A spokeswoman for the DfT, commenting on the rejection of the TIF package, said: ‘Where local authorities decide that congestion charging is not the answer to their congestion problems, they will continue to receive significant transport investment.’
Register now for full access
Register just once to get unrestricted, real-time coverage of the issues and challenges facing UK transport and highways engineers.
Full website content includes the latest news, exclusive commentary from leading industry figures and detailed topical analysis of the highways, transportation, environment and place-shaping sectors.
Use the link below to register your details for full, free access.
Already a registered? Login
