Is congestion charging good for Liverpool?

Aug 21 2007 by David Higgerson, Liverpool Daily Post

Paying to enter may be inevitable, says David Higgerson

LAST week, the Daily Post revealed how transport officers working in Merseyside had conceded to Government officials that they now consider congestion charging to be inevitable, thanks to policy devised by ministers.

They insist that no final decision has been taken on whether to charge people extra to use our roads, but experts believe that several factors will leave local councils with no choice but to introduce what the Government refers to as road user charging.

Currently, an in-depth study is being carried out to work out when congestion will become so bad as to harm the region’s economic renaissance.

It is due to conclude early next year, but the early indications from it are that the economic boom in Liverpool and surrounding areas is likely to increase congestion – measured by how long journeys take on certain key routes – way above local targets.

One of the biggest drivers towards a congestion charge is the Government’s instance that funding for large-scale transport projects will only come from its Transport Innovation Fund in the future.

A condition of getting funding from that pot is that “an element of road-user charging” is used locally to help pay for part of the costs.

In Manchester, councils have agreed to go down the congestion charge route because it means they should get money to expand the Metrolink system. Merseyside last year said it would not consider congestion charging before Greater Manchester.

Council reports show it is seen as a possible solution to poor air quality. Now, the Daily Post is asking: Would road charging help improve Merseyside?

davidhiggerson@dailypost.co.uk

NO: The Case Against - Investment and jobs will move outside the zone

by Paul Biggs, of the Association of British Drivers

CONGESTION charging, no matter what form it takes, can only be bad news for a city like Liverpool.

Looking at the figures for London, congestion charging struggles to even cover its costs.

So this idea that by charging motorists to come into cities will help pay for better public transport is a myth.

In Manchester, they talk about a £3bn big bang to fund public transport. Most of that will be a loan from government they will have to pay back. Again, the congestion charge being proposed there will struggle to cover that.

The warnings from developers are already there. Investment and jobs will move to areas where the congestion charge hasn’t hit. Cities which play by the Government’s rules on congestion charging will struggle as a result.

As for being environmentally friendly and improving air quality, the London scheme has proved that it doesn’t solve that either. In fact, some of the worst-polluting vehicles are the buses and taxis which everyone seems to think are green alternatives.

This new investment for public transport which is the Government’s bribe for those cities which take on congestion charging will also make congestion worse – plenty of roads will become bus lanes, much cheaper than putting in trams. This is shown in the recent report from Transport for London on its congestion charge.

TFL’s fifth annual monitoring report admits that “during 2006, TfL has observed a sharp increase in congestion inside the central London charging zone.”

The report also says that “in addition, there is some evidence of longer-term background increases to congestion.”

So, in reality, the congestion charge in London has never worked and excessive delays caused by congestion are now as bad in London as before the charge was introduced.

Air pollution levels demonstrate that, too. Their figures show that 36% fewer cars travel through London’s congestion zone now than in 2002, yet the air quality is not improving.

Buses and coaches, however, are up 25% and taxis up 13%. In fact, there is not much difference in terms of pollution per occupant between buses and cars, taking the average occupancy of each type of vehicle.

In short, drivers pay heavily for the right to use the road already – and putting in congestion charging is just another tax.

The arguments in favour have already been exposed as flawed, and Liverpool must take note of that.

YES: The Case For - Without road pricing, levels of traffic will increase

by Tony Bosworth, transport campaigner, Friends of the Earth

FRIENDS of the Earth is urging the Government to do more to promote road pricing - and it will benefit areas by tackling climate change and cutting congestion.

Carbon dioxide emissions have risen by nearly 7% under Labour, while the cost of motoring fell by over 8% in real terms between
1997 and 2005. Over the same period, bus and train prices rose. Road pricing is not a magic bullet solution to Britain's transport problems, but it is part of the answer.

The biggest transport problem we face is not congestion, but climate change. Emissions from transport are growing, and tough action is urgently needed to tackle them.

Road pricing should be part of a package of measures to tackle climate change and congestion, alongside increased investment in
public transport, safer streets for cycling and walking, and better land-use planning. These measures are needed now.

We cannot wait for the planned introduction of national road pricing in a decade before we give people better alternatives to car use.

Without road-pricing, traffic levels will rise, congestion will get worse, and transport's contribution to climate change will continue to grow. Tony Blair said: "Climate change is the biggest problem facing the world". We agree with this view and believe tackling climate change must be a priority for every part of government.

Forecasts show carbon dioxide emissions from transport are set to carry on rising for many years yet, which is why the Department for Transport has a critical role in helping meet our targets to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

Tackling climate change should be a priority for all transport policies, although clearly the contribution of policies to tackling congestion and reducing transport-related social exclusion is also vitally important.

Congestion charging should be considered for metropolitan areas. Such schemes would: 

*Tackle congestion problems by encouraging people to change their mode of transport;

* Pave the way for a more widespread scheme if this is the course taken; and

* Help gain acceptance from motorists for road-user charging.

However, schemes would have to be accompanied by tougher landuse policies to ensure they do not lead to traffic-generating developments being diverted out of city centres to less appropriate greenfield sites so that people travelling to these developments avoid paying congestion charges.