Bower's Contract: 2. No Congestion Charge

My second main pledge to Coleridge if I am elected as city councillor on Thursday is to continue to oppose congestion charging for Cambridge.

Congestion charging is not the right answer for Cambridge. I have campaigned hard against the charge ever since it was proposed in 2007.

Cambridge badly needs funding for transport infrastructure to match the huge developments being forced on it but the Labour government's answer was to blackmail the county council saying funding would only be available if a congestion charge were implemented, via the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF).

Congestion charging would be a complete disaster for Cambridge, fail to raise enough revenue to pay for its network of spy cameras and adversely impact most those on low incomes who rely on motor vehicles for trade.

Many Conservatives on the county council voted against the TIF bid but Coleridge's Labour county councillor voted for congestion charging with a spirited defence of the Labour government. The Lib Dems and the Greens are also right behind this lunatic plan and are desperate to resurrect the now dormant plan for congestion charging.

Fortunately the TIF scheme has been proven to be unworkable and the government has found it necessary to replace it.

I will stay vigilant to the risk to Cambridge of any renewed attempts to introduce congestion charging.

Cambridge Conservatives Win Congestion Charge Battle

Cambridge Conservatives' long-running battle against congestion charging scored a win yesterday as the government belatedly admitted that its plan to force congestion charging on places like Cambridge was unpopular. The Transport Innovation Fund has been scrapped and Cambridgeshire's TIF bid was rejected by the government. There is a new replacement scheme going out for consultation that does not at first sight appear to include compulsory congestion charging.

Coleridge's Labour county councillor is left with egg on his face after voting for congestion charging for Cambridge with a declaration of praise for the Labour government, only to find his own party yesterday abandon TIF! Coleridge deserves better than "yes" men who will just follow their party line regardless of what local residents want. As candidate last year I pledged to vote against congestion charging and as prospective candidate for the city council elections this year I again pledge to oppose congestion charging for Cambridge.

We haven't heard the Lib Dem line yet - since they support congestion charging in principle we need to be vigilant for the likelihood that they will be lobbying to include congestion charging in any bid under the new scheme. We also need to watch out that the government doesn't include conditions that bring congestion charging back on the agenda.

Richard Normington has pre-empted some of the myths likely to be forthcoming in the pro-TIF propaganda.

Coleridge Betrayed

The letter from Chris Howell in today's Cambridge News (but not online) reminds us how Coleridge residents were badly let down when their newly-elected Labour county councillor voted for congestion charging in October.

I WELCOME Richard Normington's letter warning that we may now be heading for congestion charging in Cambridge, without further approval from councillors. The damage was done when a bid to the Transport Innovation Fund was agreed, which included the charge, and council officers have already drafted a report presenting options in detail for how the charge would work.

I would however go further. The problem is that councillors, sadly including the Labour county councillor for Coleridge, have already voted to approve this bid, including the charge. This was despite clear assurances given during the recent county council elections that he was opposed to congestion charging in Cambridge. The only solution is that we should hold a public referendum, free from all the spin of those obsessed with introducing the charge, and let the people decide.

I stood at the recent county council elections on a pledge to oppose congestion charging (Bower's Blueprint, no. 2), so I was really disappointed when I discovered that my Labour opponent, who had spent the whole campaign trying to imply that I would support congestion charging, went and voted for it himself.

While a Labour councillor suggested that pursuing my pledges would have led to me losing the whip if elected, it turns out that only Conservative members and the member for Ramsey voted against the TIF bid that included the government's congestion charging blackmail. Those Conservatives still take the whip. The Labour members for Coleridge and Cherry Hinton could have decided to vote against but they did not.

Conservative 'localism' promises renewed

A brief note from Manchester: I was pleased this morning to hear Theresa Villiers confirm again that the Conservatives do not support the government blackmail through TIF of tying road pricing to the vital infrastructure improvements that are needed in growth areas, while Grant Shapps confirmed that Conservatives would abolish regional spatial strategies.

Now rather than having housing targets forced upon them, the councils will be able to rewrite their plans, but rather than NIMBYism taking hold, will be able to build the sort of housing that is currently lacking, and will be incentivised to do so by being able to keep the extra council tax proceeds and more to enable adequate infrastructure provision.

Pictured: Richard Normington, Cambridge's Prospective Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for the general election and Coleridge Conservatives' Andy Bower in the conference foyer.

TIF bid split into two

The county council's cabinet met at the end of September to decide how to act on the transport commission's recent report on congestion in Cambridge.

They have decided to put a bid in now for the proposed new station at Chesterton, with the hope of it being built in 2012, three years earlier than planned. A second stage bid could then be made at the end of 2010.

Coleridge Conservatives are delighted that congestion charging has been kicked into the long grass, as if we have a Conservative government after the general election they have pledged to remove the link between TIF (that could provide the vital infrastructure that the Cambridge area needs as it grows) and unpopular congestion charging.

Whatever happens, Conservatives in Cambridge will keep pressing for the unwanted tax to be ruled out completely.

The full county council meeting on 13 October will ratify the cabinet's decision on the bid.

Transport Commission Report Published

The transport commission published its findings at 5.30pm today.

The key recommendations from the Executive Sumary were:

"1. Cambridgeshire County Council submit a full TIF bid to secure resources from Government to make improvements to cycling, walking and public transport, broadly in line with the proposals set out in Appendix 2 to our report.

2. Cambridgeshire County Council inform the Government that it has not ruled out the introduction of a congestion charging regime, but that it accepts the clear evidence that such a regime would be unacceptable without a programme of investment, including the TIF investment proposals, A14 widening and Chesterton Station and in any case no such scheme should be introduced without further public information and consultation, and not before 2017 at the earliest."

It is difficult to see how this moves things on much further. Congestion charging simply isn't acceptable to a large part of the electorate, as the full report (p48-49) acknowledges. Yes we will need the transport infrastructure improvements outlined in the recommendations - but if the government doesn't want to fund this without using Cambridge as a congestion charging guinea pig, then we should tell it we aren't going to co-operate with any of their plans to swamp the subregion with massive new housing developments - its as simple as that.

Bower's Blueprint #2 - No to a Cambridge Congestion Charge

This is the second of a series of posts on Bower's Blueprint for Coleridge - a set of pledges to which I would work if elected as county councillor on 4th June.

No to a Cambridge Congestion Charge!
I fully oppose congestion charging for Cambridge. We do not need another Labour stealth tax and particularly not one so inequitable that it would tax the poor off the roads. I have been campaigning against the idea ever since it was first floated and will continue to do so.

How did it get to be on the cards?
Having been forced by the government to build unimaginable numbers of housing in the "Cambridge sub region" Cambridgeshire County Council needs funding to put in place the transport infrastructure that the developments require.

Unfortunately the government compounded the problems by offering the requisite funding with the blackmail condition that the county must implement congestion charging in return.

Our record
Cambridge Conservatives have had some successes in opposing congestion charging:

1. Under our pressure the county council decided to set up a transport commission to look at all the options for transport in the county, meaning that congestion charging was not an inevitable outcome.

2. Richard Normington, the Conservative Parliamentary Spokesman for Cambridge, wrote to Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Transport, asking him to follow Conservative Party policy and drop the link between TIF and congestion charging. Cambridgeshire County Council then followed our lead. (There are signs that this could be successful - see below.)

Also to be congratulated are our neighbours, the Conservatives running South Cambridgeshire District Council, who have formally rejected the tax.

The other great development in the battle against congestion charging was the decisive rejection of a TIF bid for Manchester that would have included congestion charging. It was rejected by 84% of voters including a majority in every district.

Despite scaremongering from pro-TIF groups, i.e. all the other parties, recent news reveals that Manchester has been given £1.4bn of extra transport funding in place of the abandoned TIF bid.

Where do the other parties stand?
Labour - the government is blackmailing us with the charge and locally Labour have been in favour of road pricing in the past although at the moment they are appearing to oppose the charge, so we can't be sure exactly what they think. The Labour PPC was several months late making up his mind - sort of.

Lib Dems - in favour in principle. Not that you would have thought it from some of the literature they have put out. They are not known as the 'all things to all men' party for no reason... They are of course trying to get the best of both worlds by opposing specifics and stoking up the worst kind of nimbyism with irresponsible suggestions that their audience is not responsible for congestion and should somehow be exempt. This is a completely unworkable solution of course - even without a discount/exemption the charge would cost more to run than it would raise - with one it would be a complete financial disaster!

Green Party - in favour in principle and practice.

Transport commission response summary

The Cambridgeshire Transport Commission has released a summary of the responses it received from the public consultation on transport.

Coleridge Conservatives are pleased to note that the report seems to have been fair in representing the views of respondents from across the spectrum of opinions and to have aired some of the alternative ideas that people have come up with. Of course I remain completely opposed to congestion charging for Cambridge.

This is despite initial reservations by City Conservatives due to the duumvirate's history in recommending Labour's flawed TIF package in Reading.

The summary rightly starts off with some members of the public's criticisms of the premise of the questions and of the government's absurd regional housing targets.

1. With the congestion in and around Cambridge and plans to build a large number of new homes in Cambridgeshire, do you think transport improvements are needed?

Several respondents were critical of this question, which they saw as a leading question that would attract the self-evident response ‘yes’, luring respondents into then accepting the inevitability of a congestion charge.

“This is a leading question with all the subtlety of a double-glazing salesman - ask an opening question everyone… will say ‘yes’ to and leave the price (congestion charge) until question 5…” (email 9.2.2009)

Whilst indeed, many respondents did answer simply “yes”, accepting implicitly the growth agenda for Cambridgeshire and the consequent need for transport improvements, the survey found evidence of some very vocal opposition to Cambridgeshire’s development plans. There is concern that development is being pushed through despite the views of local people, and against their best interests.

“Why is Cambridge being forced into a policy of growth at all costs.” (427)

“We shouldn’t be building any more houses – the area is already ruined.” (18)

“Your first point assumes that this area is going to have thousands more houses built, because government and an unelected body (supposedly representing the Eastern Region) have deemed it to be necessary…” (email 5.3.2009)

“Building more homes should not be taken as a given but fought tooth and nail.” (737)

The commission also seems to have been perfectly willing to grill county officers in public meetings, confronting what sometimes seems like blind acceptance of the Labour Government's flawed plans for congestion charging and excessive and ineffective housing targets.

One thing missing from the summary, which various Conservative respondents had mentioned, was that it should not just be accepted that TIF requires congestion charging - the Conservatives have pledged nationally to abolish the blackmail link and the Conservative county council has asked Geoff Hoon to remove the link. Will Labour accept the challenge?

We look forward to the final report, due in June, as solutions to transport problems in Cambridge that do not involve punishing lower earning workers such as Labour's congestion charging would be highly welcome, such as the county's highly successful Park & Ride scheme.

Lib Dems try to bring in Congestion Charging by the Back Door

The Sustainable Communities Act started as a private members bill promoted in the House of Commons by Conservative Nick Hurd MP, and received cross party support. It aims to promote the sustainability of local communities, covering economic, social and environmental issues. There were high hopes it would help Councils to protect independent shops on local high streets, and saving posts offices or community pubs.

The City Council recently held a workshop to discuss the act and how the Council might try use it, and came up with a list of possible actions – none of which would help protect local shops, post offices or other things that build sustainable communities or the local economy, but instead a list focussing on misguided environmental measures, some of which can only be described as barking, and that have the potential to do real damage to the local economy. But this list seems to have been taken seriously, as it is now featuring in an agenda item at Monday’s strategy and resources scrutiny committee. From http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/councillors/agenda/2009/0316sr/14.pdf

Short list of potential proposals for consideration by Panel
1 Enable the Council to positively discriminate in favour of local companies/suppliers when procuring, where this would have local and/or sustainability benefits.
2 Give the Council the power to ban the use of plastic bags or ban free plastic bags in shops – charge to deter their use
3 Require supermarkets to give priority to local food producers and have food packed locally
4 Give the Council the power to ban single occupancy cars from certain routes at certain times
5 Return traffic planning to the City Council. Local areas to enact their own traffic restrictions (assumes existing funding stream also moves)
6 Give councils powers to make local decisions on road pricing rather than under the control of central government
7 Give Cambridge city council Integrated Transport Authority powers under the Transport Act to secure better regulated public transport
8 Charge supermarkets (e.g. Sainsburys, Tesco) retail parks and offices for their car parking space and let Councils reinvest the money on local services
9 Change current legislation to allow the local authority to keep all revenues from council house rents for the improvement and new build of council houses in that authority.
10 Let councils keep business rates to spend locally
11 Make it easier to bring empty homes back into use
12 Give councils powers to charge higher council tax for second homes that are not occupied for most of the year perhaps to help fund more affordable homes

I can see some potential for making progress on reducing plastic bag use, but otherwise there are some real shockers in here.

Yes it is terrible that half the Council tenants’ rents are shipped off elsewhere, but tell me the Council isn’t already doing everything it can to protest about this.

“Make it easier to bring empty homes back into use” – from the Council that has kept Tiverton House empty for 14 months! They can already use compulsory purchase to bring homes back into use, even if the owner is trying to make improvements and neighbours aren’t complaining, such as on Auckland Road in the City. What more do they want - take a 4 week holiday and come home to find the Council has taken your home off you?

“Require supermarkets to give priority to local food producers and have food packed locally”. Supermarkets already do promote locally produced food – as a response to consumer demand. But insist food is packed locally – what planet are these people on? Do they have any idea how it is that our supermarkets are full of a wide variety of food at cheap prices. What next - a state controlled National Food Service anyone?

But it’s the transport measures that have the potential to do real damage to business, as many have been in considered and rejected in the past, and all have the potential to do real damage to the local economy. Last Council meeting, we passed a resolution calling on Cambridge University Press to do all it can to avoid job losses in Cambridge. Now we are telling them that their staff shouldn't drive in to work without finding someone to share the journey with, could be charged for entering the City, and then charged to park when they arrive at work. Employers won’t have to worry about needing to make people redundant – they will find it impossible to find staff prepared to work in Cambridge.

City Conservatives are fighting hard to ensure congestion charging is ruled out for Cambridge – the last thing we need is the Lib Dems trying to bring it in via the back door through the Sustainable Communities Act. And what a wasted opportunity to use what should be a very useful bit of legislation...

Congestion Charging in Cambridge: Have your say

I have just responded to the Transport Commission appointed to look at the issue of congestion charging in Cambridge and the County Council's TIF bid. They have been asking for responses to 5 questions, shown below.

The deadline for responses has just been moved to the 13th of March - more details on the Commission and how to respond are available on their website http://www.cambstransportcommission.co.uk/ - if you have strong views on this issue, we recommend you get in touch.

Coleridge Conservatives are completely opposed to plans to introduce congestion charging in Cambridge - the Labour government is trying to force Cambridgeshire into introducing the charge by blackmail - claiming there will be no money for transport infrastructure if we don't agree. We think this blackmail should be rejected - as the residents of Manchester have already done - not least because the policy of a new Conservative government would be to drop all requirements for congestion charging in these transport bids.

The questions are as follows, with my responses to the commission below:

1. With the congestion in and around Cambridge and plans to build a large number of new homes in Cambridgeshire, do you think transport improvements are needed?

2. What do you think should be done to improve public transport, walking and cycling facilities, and the road network, to cope with congestion in and around Cambridge now and in the future?

3. Cambridgeshire County Council has bid for £500 million from Government under the Transport Innovation Fund scheme. What are your views on the proposals? Do you think it will help solve congestion in and around Cambridge?

4. Is Cambridgeshire County Council planning to spend the £500million for transport improvements in the right way? What changes would be better, or more acceptable, for local people and businesses?

5. To obtain the £500 million of Government money to improve public transport, walking and cycling facilities, and the road network in and around Cambridge, a form of demand management, such as congestion charging, is needed. This is part of Cambridgeshire County Council's proposals. Does the need to tackle congestion justify a charge for most vehicles coming into Cambridge in the morning peak (7.30am until 9.30am)? Are there alternative ways of reducing congestion and greenhouse gases?

My response follows:

1.

1.1. Yes obviously. There is currently a deficit in transport infrastructure, so investment is required to fill this deficit and support new growth, both in terms of housing demand and the needs to support business and other economic activity.

1.2 It should be noted however that there is already transport investment planned outside the TIF bid, e.g. to improve the A14, through the cycling demonstration town funding etc.

2.

2.1 The key to reducing congestion is to significantly increase transport capacity of all types. The effectiveness of this investment can be increased by planning new developments to reduce the demand for travel.

2.2. Transport improvements within the current City of Cambridge boundaries:In many areas of the city, potential for improving transport infrastructure is already constrained by the physical layout of the historic city, although even here there are measures that can be taken to increase total transport capacity rather than merely reallocating it (e.g. new cycle routes, making best use of existing corridors such as Newmarket Road, and possibly more radical steps such as bus tunnels).

2.3 Transport improvements outside the historic central areas:There are numerous areas where increases in capacity can and should be achieved – upgrading the A14, an Eastern Bypass, new station at Chesterton, new public transport corridors in new developments, but we should particularly focus on building cycle infrastructure into new developments consistent with the very best in continental Europe, such as areas of Holland or Denmark, not merely slightly better than the UK average as is current practice.

2.4 We can reduce congestion by reducing the natural demand to travel, particularly at peak times, through sensible planning policies – for example housing and jobs close to each other or to major public transport corridors.

2.5 Building employment near to housing will not however work on its own. We need to ensure the right types and tenures of property are built. The 2007 Hills Report into Social Housing provides important evidence on the likelihood of residents moving for job related reasons. “the rate of employment-related mobility within social housing is strikingly low. Nationally, one in eight moves is associated with work, but only a few thousand social tenants each year move home for job-related reasons while remaining as social tenants (even within the same area), out of a total of nearly four million.” (Hills Report, p5)

2.6 It is clear from this evidence that merely building housing near to employment is not remotely sufficient to ensure shorter, more sustainable journeys. Overall, the vast majority of people put factors other than proximity to employment such as suitability of housing as higher priority when deciding where to live. From this I would conclude that to avoid a transport problem from significant daily commuting, we need to ensure that the right types of housing (including family housing of all types and qualities) are available near to employment.

2.7 But we also need to recognise from this evidence that the obsession in planning circles for ever higher levels of ‘affordable’ housing, in particular in the social rented sector with high security of tenure at significantly below market rent levels, is disastrous for work related mobility which as noted above is almost non-existent in the social rented sector. This leaves those likely to be hardest hit by congestion charging plans least able to move for employment reasons, and thus providing a double barrier to social mobility. We need to find a way to ensure everyone has access to a choice of housing suitable to their needs at a cost they can afford, but current policies towards affordable housing are clearly not the answer.

3.

3.1 The current TIF proposals are completely unacceptable, because theyinclude congestion charging for Cambridge.

3.2 The proposals would be helping to solve congestion by taxing the poor off the road, which is completely unacceptable on social justice grounds.

3.3. The proposals say to businesses thinking of locating here or relocating elsewhere that we do not and will not have sufficient infrastructure to solve transport problems, so we are attempting to reduce demand – in other words, we aren’t fit for business. Recently announced job losses at employers such as Cambridge University Press are a timely reminder that the Cambridge economy cannot be taken for granted by policymakers assuming that the local economy can continue to be successful no matter how business unfriendly we make the area.

3.4. The Congestion proposed is another tax on motorists, who are already overtaxed, in a country that is already overtaxed, and a very inefficient to collect tax at that – it may even cost money to collect it by the time the infrastructure, possibly including yet more snooping cameras, is paid for and maintained, and the scheme administered. Congestion charging is completely unsuitable for a small city like Cambridge, that lacks the significant public transport infrastructure including urban railways, underground and buses of a city like London.

3.5 Not unrelated to all these factors, congestion charging will make the current TIF bid impossible to implement politically, so it can’t contribute to the solution. When you don’t try to rig consultations in favour of people concluding we should accept congestion charging, you realise that it is deeply unpopular.

3.6 We already have plenty of evidence for this from Manchester. I dare say proponents of their TIF bid used responses such as the following from a survey carried out by Manchester evening News: "Is congestion charging a price worth paying to get £3bn Government cash to improve public transport in the region – including the expansion of the Metrolink to Ashton under Lyne, Oldham and Rochdale, as well as South Manchester and Manchester Airport?": Yes – 55%; No – 44% (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1002/1002412_congestion_charge_survey__manchester.html). However, when the question of congestion charging was put to a straight referendum, over 78% of the electorate opposed congestion charging despite the linkage to the TIF bid funding, including a large majority in every part of the region. Congestion charging is deeply unpopular in Cambridge, and will not be accepted by local residents.

4. My comments on transport investment required are as per question 2.

5.

5.1. Having lead people in to this question by encouraging people to reflect on the current state of transport infrastructure, possible future demands, and the improvements proposed in the TIF bid, your consultation now suggests there are only two ways forward – accept congestion charging as part of the TIF bid, or have no further investment in transport despite the levels of house building that the Government is trying to force on the Cambridge sub-region. This is a false dichotomy, and such an obviously false one at that it frankly discredits this whole consultation exercise, in the same way that the previous sham consultation exercise that you quote on the Transport Commission website was discredited.

5.2 There are many scenarios in which money will be available to support transport improvements in Cambridgeshire without requiring congestion charging.

5.3 For example, if the General Election due by June 2010 at the latest results in a Conservative government, then the County Council will be free to pursue a TIF bid without the congestion charging element, as this is the current Conservative party policy nationally. The Conservatives will also abolish much of the regional planninginfrastructure that is attempting to force unsustainable levels of house building on us, thus removing another element of the appalling blackmail that the Government is trying to use to force Cambridgeshire to be its congestion charging guinea pig.

5.4 Even if the current government continues forever, it is nonsense to suggest that we will end up building huge numbers of houses without any transport investment if we reject TIF – as we should just say no to the housing if the transport funding isn’t available (or not even worry about saying no - its not as if the current regional spatialstrategy is remotely deliverable). It will have been a nice try from the government to persuade us to help with its desired social engineering experiment, but if everyone just calls bluff, there will be no choice but to go back and look again at how best to allocate central resources to transport in the areas that desperately need those resources.

5.5 The solution to the ‘problem’ in so much as there is a problem is simple - significant increases in the transport infrastructure of all types, including roads, cycling and public transport must be built as part of any significant increase in the number of houses in the sub-region, coupled with sensible planning policies that reduce the need for journeys. If the alternatives are in place so that it isn’t necessary for people to sit in traffic jams, then people can either make a personal choice appropriate to their personal circumstances, or the question of congestion charging can then be put to the electorate in a separate referendum, to be considered on its merits uncoupled from the outrageous blackmail of the current TIF proposal.

5.6 How could we pay for the required transport infrastructure? Even in troubled economic times, it is likely there always be an uplift in value from granting permission for new developments in an area like Cambridge, and new residents will provide a new stream of local taxation revenue – the rules, be they local or national could be changed to ensure that these economic benefits from development are channelled into transport infrastructure, rather than being remitted to local Councils via s106 agreements or central government via changes in the Council tax base, to be spent on things that aren’t transport – if these policies were to change to allow existing local residents to benefit from new developments (which again is current Conservative party policy nationally), it might have the happy side effect of making new housing development rather easier to deliver than the current situation, with Arbury Park a half-completed monument to the failure of current planning policy, Northstowe barely off the starting blocks, and the southern fringe on hold.

Manchester says NO!

Coleridge Conservatives are delighted to read today's news that a referendum in Manchester has voted to reject plans for a congestion charge, with a massive 79% voting against the charge.

The plans were rejected by all 10 boroughs, despite the outrageous Government blackmail attempt of offering £2,800 million pounds of transport improvements, but only if they implement a congestion charging scheme, with the suggestion that nothing will be available for much needed transport improvements without introducing congestion charging. There was also a massively publicly funded publicity campaign to support the yes side, but the people have sent a clear message to the government that they aren't going to be bullied into participating in their flawed social engineering experiment.

Cambridgeshire County Council is facing the same dilemma as Manchester, with the Government's blackmail over transport improvements leading to the TIF bid being considered by a recently appointed transport commission. It is now clear that the public are having none of it, and any charge here will be deeply unpopular with local residents.

Cambridge Conservatives have been consistent in their opposition to congestion charging in Cambridge - it is completely inappropriate for a City of Cambridge's size, and will have a disproportionately damaging effect on lower paid workers commuting into the City who are vital to the local economy. With this firm rejection of the plans by Manchester, Coleridge Conservatives are calling on the County Council to immediately scrap any plans to introduce a charge here.

And to Gordon Brown (and his parliamentary candidates charged with defending his policies at the next election!) we say, if you are listening at to anyone at all any more - people don't want your damaging congestion charging schemes, stop trying to blackmail Cambridgeshire and give us the money we need for transport improvements without string attached, or we won't co-operate on your demands to build thousands of houses. Roll on 2010 when we will have had a chance to get rid of the dreadful bankrupt Labour government and put a stop to all this nonsense.

Manchester residents have sent a clear message to the Government about where they can stick their congestion charge, the County Council in Cambridgeshire should do the same.

Congestion Charge Rethink - Time for some Lib Dem honesty?

As has been reported in the Cambridge Evening News, the result of the Conservative County Councillors group meeting last Friday is a rethink on congestion charge plans. Whilst they have not ruled out congestion charging immediately (by far my preferred option!), they are going back to the drawing board and setting up a commission including the district Councils and various other interests in the local economy to look at what transport infrastructure Cambridgeshire needs going forwards - this commission will gather evidence and then advise the County Councillors, who will then take the final decisions. I understand this new policy will be debated and approved at the next County Council cabinet meeting/full Council meetings.

I hope this new approach can start by identifying the serious investment that is needed in all types of transport, and will result in the County asking the government for this investment without any strings attached. It will also give time for more public reaction to the Manchester congestion charge proposals, that have already seen one high supporter of congestion charging lose his Council seat, getting trounced into third place.

It is also time for the Lib Dems to come clean about their plans for transport in Cambridge. Surprise, surprise, their first reaction to the news was to condemn the County Council's plans, but yet again they won't tell us what they would do instead. Its not surprising, because as a party the Liberal Democrats are actually in favour of a form of road pricing like congestion charging - and locally have said: "The Liberal Democrats recognise that a transport strategy which includes substantial improvements to public transport and some form of road pricing is essential". Yet you wouldn't think that from any of their literature distributed in the last local elections - when you will just have read about how opposed they were to the County Councils congestion charging plans. Nobody reading their literature would have guessed that the Lib Dems were only disagreeing with the detail of the congestion charging plans, and are actually in favour in principle. This is a disgraceful abuse of the electorate in Cambridge - as the debate continues, its time for the Lib Dems to come clean and be open about their support for road pricing in Cambridge.

Congestion Charging Consultation

This morning at a packed presentation including Councillors, Council Officials and Press, the County Council announced results of the consultation exercises undertaken relating to congestion charging. I asked some questions about how the surveys were conducted, but have many more left to answer!

For me, the key result was from the question asked in door-to-door interviews (i.e. not a self selecting set of people), to what extent do you support the principle of congestion charging: (MRUK report, p56):

Strongly support: 7%
Tend to support: 24%
Neither support nor oppose: 19%
Tend to oppose: 16%
Strongly Oppose: 33%

I.e. opposing 49%, supporting 31%, in a statistically valid survey conducted across Cambridgeshire. In Coleridge whilst door-knocking, we found approx two-thirds against, one-third in favour. We also found that a lot of those in favour in principle became anti in scenarios in which they would be affected by the charge.

The Council's online survey (i.e. self selecting respondents) was even more anti-Congestion Charging, so those less happy with the plans were more likely to go out of their way to make their view known.

Despite these results, I also believe the questionnaire was designed to make it as hard as possible to disagree with congestion charging. The in 'principle' question was followed by the question: if all money raised was spent on improving transport, would you be in favour. Of course, more were then in favour, but the question is nonsense - there won't be any money raised, it will all go on administering the scheme - it may even cost money to operate. Why not ask, if the Congestion Charging scheme involved your car number plate being constantly tracked as you drove round Cambridge, would you still be in favour, or if the scheme didn't cover its costs and Council tax had to go up as well as paying the charge, would you still be in favour.

To me the result is clear - Cambridgeshire residents do not want congestion charging, and any politicians going to the polls next May still supporting it could be in for a rocky ride with the electorate - we must drop plans for Congestion charging now.

There was a slightly conspiratorial air to the meeting - the next big step for the Congestion Charging debate is the County Conservatives group meeting on Friday, when a new leader will be elected - this could trigger a change of tack from the County. I could tell you the gossip, but I'll be sensible...

Meanwhile I'd be interested to know what brief the market research company was given, and who came up with some of the blatantly biased questions. I feel some Freedom of Information requests may be coming on...

Full results and reports should be available from 5pm here.

Congestion Charging Consultation

The closing date for the Congestion Charging Consultation is today (Mon 24th). I've just completed the survey that was available here. I think its fair to say some of the questions didn't provide an adequate opportunity to say what I really think, but this was the comments I made at the end:

We are being blackmailed by the Government to include congestion charging in the TIF bid and think it is outrageous we are being expected to absorb massive growth without no strings attached commitments to funding transport improvements.

I am strongly opposed to congestion charging - it will be expensive and bureaucratic to administer with most revenue taken by operators, will be intrusive as people are tracked round the city, and could potentially do great harm to the local economy (a matter not even touched on in this questionnaire), with the biggest losers being the least well off.

Congestion in Cambridge should be tackled by significant increases in capacity of all types of transport infrastructure - road (especially the A14 but also significant new roads to support new developments), off-road public transport (guided bus and/or rail), support for existing bus routes, and cycle facilities (e.g. dedicated and convenient off road routes, secure cycle parking in existing and new destinations).

If the government doesn't want to pay for this, agree to this or make it the priority obligation put on developers, we should totally oppose new developments of the scale being proposed. The current deal being offered to existing residents of massive development, wholly inadequate transport infrastructure, more congestion and then have congestion charging as well is totally unacceptable.

Congestion Charging

Last night I went to an internal party meeting to discuss congestion charging – it wasn’t a decision making meeting, just a chance for City Conservatives to talk to our County Council Colleagues.

I think our Conservative County Councillors do a great job running the County Council. They are continually dealt a bad funding hand by the Government and deal with it in a way that tries to protect Council Tax payers now and in the future. (In the disasterous period of Lib/Lab control of the County in the 90s, some of the budgets set we’re clearly not designed to think about who would be picking up the mess again a few years later…). With the Guided Bus, they are delivering on a multi-million pound transport scheme that will bring real benefits to the County, when many critics would have sabotaged these plans without any way of delivering an alternative.



But when it comes to the tentative plans for Congestion Charging, I have to admit to considerable disagreement with my County Colleagues. Don’t get me wrong – I drive very little, cycle to work, and would like to see serious action against climate change. But the proposition being put to residents in areas like Coleridge is not one I can sell on the doorstep – here, have a high density housing estate parked on your doorstep, with transport in Perne Road and Newmarket Road predicted to be chaos even under best case scenarios, and we’ll tackle this by charging you for driving to work in the morning.

The case is made that Congestion Charging is the only way to make other transport improvements work in Cambridge i.e. people would prefer to sit in their cars on congested roads rather than use viable public transport/cycling alternatives, unless you setup some hugely bureaucratic system to track cars every move throughout the City and charge them £3-£5 for the privilege - in addition to the car tax, fuel tax, VAT, insurance, depreciation, parking charges etc etc already being paid, when miraculously the drivers will get out of their cars and do something else. I don’t buy this argument – mainly because I think the argument has been constructed around the fact that the County is being blackmailed by the Government. They have said, please make a so called ‘TIF bid’ for millions of pounds to spend on transport improvements, but only if you ask for congestion charging as part of the bid.

Cambridge is too important for Gordon Browns bankrupt government to treat in this shoddy way. Residents are being fleeced for all the new taxes introduced to fund feckless Labour areas elsewhere. We are being forced to accept thousands of new houses when existing residents are very concerned about the effects of this rapid development, and the government is saying we can’t have sufficient funds for the transport infrastructure unless we take part in one of their pet social engineering schemes. This stinks.

My alternative plan – tell Gordon Brown we must have the funds needed for transport improvements desperately needed now, for the A14, buses, cycle routes etc, or we’re not even going to think about building the 60,000+ houses you want to us to build in the Cambridge sub-region. Only after this happens, local residents should decide if they think it would then be a good idea to introduce congestion charging as well.

I again let County Councillors know my views. I am encouraged that they are clearly going to listen to the public consultation (that now closes on 24th March – please make your views known here). I hope the plans will be quietly (or even noisily) dropped after that!