Bristol congestion charge 'still on agenda'
Congestion charging for big cities outside London, such as Bristol, is still firmly on the Government's agenda, according to Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon.
He said he wanted councils to push forward with their plans so they could scoop up the cash that had been allocated for the failed Manchester congestion charge scheme.
-
The West of England Partnership, made up of Bristol, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire councils, has been investigating plans for a road pricing scheme in this area.
But the resounding 'no' vote when a referendum was held in Manchester last December had sparked widespread speculation it would be the end of the road for congestion charging and the £1.5 billion in the Transport Innovation Fund would be moved to other projects.
Mr Hoon said: "It isn't the case that the Transport Innovation Fund has been put on the back burner.
"The money is still there and is still available to local authorities who want to meet the terms of the fund.
"There are strings attached, but nevertheless it's a lot of money.
"I have left local authorities in no doubt that since Manchester is not having it, somebody else should."
Mr Hoon also outlined how he wants to come up with ways to give major cities a more flexible transport system like London has.
He said: "Coming to London, as I have done ever since I was a child, one of the things that was obvious about transport in London is that people most of the time have choices.
"They can travel by train, they can travel by tube, they can get the bus, and if they want to pay the congestion change they can get the car.
"One contrast I would make, in those other big provincial cities, is that generally speaking, unless you happen to live on a tram line, or you happen to live on the one line that goes through the city centre on the railway, your chances of getting into a big city from an outlying town or village by public transport depend on you being fortunate enough to be on one bus route. People don't tend to want to take more than one bus in the morning – if you've got to change, the chances are you use the car.
"Part of the challenge for us is to give the kind of choices that are available to commuters in London to people in other big cities.
"That's something we have got to work on, to provide the type of investment that is necessary."
44 Comments
View all
by Glenn Vowles, vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com
Tuesday, February 10 2009, 4:03PM
“Thing is that there are multiple pieces if research to verify my figures Peter/Rob, so it a questions of established facts not the view I take.
For example one European Commission document notes that a German study calculated that car travel produced 180g of carbon dioxide per passenger km, compared with 80g by public transport.
A Belgian study showed cars produced 126g per passenger km, compared to 50g for public transport.
What you seem to be asking me to do is accept figures provided by someone from the Drivers Alliance, who obviously defend car use, as more reliable than published data!!”
by Rob, Clifton
Tuesday, February 10 2009, 10:51AM
“Wasting your breath Craig. Greenies are like King Canute.
He thought he knew best too.
Rob, Clifton
Told you! Hurry up Glenn - the tides coming in........”
by Glenn Vowles, vowlesthegreen.blogspot.com
Tuesday, February 10 2009, 10:40AM
“Peter Roberts, Drivers Alliance -
The figures I quoted are from published work. The comparison I made is fair. You are choosing figures to suit your argument - no surprise given that you think buses are '..the most inefficient gas guzzling form of transport ever devised by man... '. Quite a rant.
Even if I accepted your figures they are in fact an argument for getting more people on buses to raise occupancy levels. To do this we need real investment in public transport, possibly accompanied by congestion charging, not car-focussed thinking.
Bear in mind we are only talking about fuel use and emissions here. Congestion is also about take up of land for roads and parking and safely managing the movement of a very large number of small vehicles with low occupancy - we simply cant sustain current car-intensive patterns.”
by Peter Roberts - Drivers' Alliance, UK
Tuesday, February 10 2009, 12:57AM
“Glenn Vowles,
Your facts on bus emissions are confusing and appear to be factually incorrect.
The average occupancy for a bus outside London is 9.2 ¿ evidence all the empty buses running about polluting the air for no benefit.
The CO2 emissions from a bus are 160g/passenger km for buses outside London (Source MH, 3). You will of course be aware that Nitrogen Oxides and PM10s (Particulates) are many times higher from a bus than modern car.
The average CO2 from cars today is 165g/km and the average occupancy is 1.6, so a car is emitting about 103g/passenger km which is some 64% more efficient than an average bus.
If you are not convinced, do the sums yourself; it comes out a lot worse than the published figures.
A litre of diesel produces 2.62kg of CO2 when burnt. A bus does about 1.42km/l which equals about 1845g/km of CO2 when a car is doing 165g/km.
With the average occupancy of a car at 1.6 people/km, you need approximately 18 people on the bus for every km it travels to equal the fuel efficiency of a modern car; and we all know most buses run pretty much empty.
So I restate my original accusation that a bus is the most inefficient gas guzzling form of transport ever devised by man and as an environmental champion, you should recognise this and stop your attempts to increase bus journeys which in turn will clean the atmoshpere.
It is not cars which make Manchester's Piccadilly and Bristol's bus station the two areas in the UK with the lowest air quality.
However, Bristol are proposing a CONGESTION charge which will simply make people drive further to avoid the cost and increase fuel use ¿ as seen in London around the charging zone.”
by Bluebaldee, Bristol
Monday, February 09 2009, 10:51PM
“Glenn,
It's too important and we've waited too long to accept a fudged solution or a botched compromise.
Yes, the money's on the table, yes, it's inadequate and yes, the BRT solution is being driven through by First (remember they had two people on the Board that was attempting to run BRT down the Railway Path even though Bradshaw insisted that no operator had been decided upon).
However, these things, as with all things political, are transitory.
There's a General Election next year, hopefully resulting in a hung Parliament. People shouting loud enough and kicking up enough fuss may well get what they want. It would sharpen Labour minds wonderfully if their majority was on a knife edge and public transport was enough of an issue in Bristol to threaten their local MPs' seats.
In addition, we really don't need to spend the hundreds of millions on BRT - we could have the same effect with buses and bus lanes for a fraction of the cost - after all BRT is just buses with bodykit and a bus lane with a kerb.
The money saved could go towards making a massive difference to our local rail services, expanding a line further into South Bristol, reopening the Henbury Loop to passengers, Portishead, bulding new stations etc etc.
Rail is the one mode, along with light rail, that is absolutely proven to get people out of their cars, and it's more reliable and less polluting than buses.
Walking and cycling and full integration of all these modes into several interchanges around the city should also be pursued. And it is essential that we have a PTA.
BRT is being driven by First and is a hideously expensive fudge.
I say call the Government's bluff, keep up the pressure and strive for a solution that will actually work - which is, after all, what we all want isn't it?”