GREEN MEANS GO
SHOCKING WASTE AS OVER £60M SPENT ON GTR MANCHESTER’S CAZ WHICH NEVER HAPPENED
More than £60m has been spent so far on Greater Manchester’s CAZ despite the controversial scheme still never having gone ahead. The plans to charge the most polluting taxis, vans, lorries and buses on the city-region’s roads were paused earlier this year following a public backlash. Mayor Andy Burnham said the scheme became ‘unworkable’ post-pandemic because Covid made the cost of upgrading to cleaner vehicles unaffordable. Local leaders are now calling for all charges to be scrapped, favouring an incentive-led scheme which they argue will be enough to lower pollution. The whole scheme is supposed to be funded by the government, but Greater Manchester is now facing a multi-million-pound shortfall because it’s tied into contracts with no money coming in from charges while it draws up new plans. More than £20m has been spent so far on implementing the scheme which was set to start in May, but remains under review. These costs, which include paying contractor J McCann & Co Limited £120,000 to put up stickers saying ‘under review’ over outdated signs, will be covered by a £26m government grant for the implementation of the CAZ. However, according to govern- ment guidance, all operational costs, such as the contractual and staff costs, were supposed to be covered by the revenues generated from the scheme. This includes the cost of deploying 407 ANPR cameras for which £3.5m has been paid out to contractor Egis.
PHTM NOVEMBER 2022
The ANPR cameras are now in use and gathering data which is informing the ongoing Clean Air Plan review by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM). But keeping the cameras on is costing the city-region £375,000 a month. These day-to-day costs, which were supposed to be covered by the revenue generated from the charges, are now forecast to total £7m by March 2023. In addition to this, TfGM says it needs another £4m from the government for the additional feasibility work required as part of the Clean Air Plan review. Since 2017, more than £30m has been spent on developing the plans, with all the work carried out funded by the government’s Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU). The government also awarded Greater Manchester £131m worth of grants to help upgrade lorries, coaches, buses, vans, taxis and black cabs. So far, £19.1m has been committed and £11.6m has already been paid out. But TfGM says it will require another £2m of funding from the government by March 2023 to cover operational elements of the financial support scheme. In total, £62m had been spent on the CAZ by the end of September. All of the spending is supposed to
be covered by the government, but Greater Manchester is forecasting a funding shortfall of £13m within this financial year. The figures were revealed in a report to councillors on the Greater Manchester Air Quality Admin- istration Committee which is scheduled to meet this week. The report says TfGM is in ‘active discussions’ with JAQU over the funding required to fill the gap that would have been covered by the CAZ revenues. A Clean Air GM spokesman said: “All costs to date have been covered by, and agreed with, government, with no cost requirement or contribution from local authorities in Greater Manchester. This is a significant and complex challenge and the economic impact of the pandemic on the cost of clean vehicles meant the plan originally agreed by government might not have worked but could have caused financial hardship for local people. “The case for a new investment- led, non-charging Clean Air Plan has now been submitted to government and seeks to build on the work already done towards cleaning up Greater Manchester’s air through government invest- ment in development of the GM Clean Air Plan, including funding for over 100 cleaner HGVs and more than 700 buses. “It also outlines how the investment-led approach will continue to clean up the region’s air without creating financial hardship for local people. GM’s leaders are awaiting government’s response to this proposal.”
51
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
