Date published: 2007/08/18
The Cambridge News says:
Critics of Cambridge's controversial congestion charge have been given a tough message from the city's cyclists - on yer bike.
Cambridge Cycling Campaign, the body which campaigns for better cycle facilities in and around the city, says opponents of the pay-as-you-drive proposal are "ignoring basic realities about the development of Cambridge".
In a statement to the News, the organisation said: "The proposal must be seen as part of an unprecedented £500 million up-front proposed package of public transport, Park and Ride and cycling improvements.
"Many opponents of the congestion charge seem to be unaware of these potential improvements."
Cambridge Cycling Campaign's co-ordinator, Martin Lucas-Smith, said: "Some 50,000 new dwellings are planned for the outskirts of Cambridge in the coming decade. That amounts to perhaps 125,000 new people, very many of whom are likely to want to travel in and around Cambridge.
"We already have huge traffic problems on major routes, and that's without the vast influx of new residents expected in the next 10 years. Radical measures are needed."
Jim Chisholm, the organisation's liaison officer, added: "There are two forms of demand management on the table.
"Either drivers can sit in total gridlock, or the city can potentially get an enormous £500 million of new transport investment.
"This would be coupled with a weekday morning-only peak congestion charge to make people think more carefully about how they travel.
"With 50,000 extra new dwellings around the edge of the city in the coming decade, a radical change simply has to be made. The reduced levels of congestion would make Cambridge a far more pleasant place to live, work, and play."
The cycling organisation is urging opponents of the congestion charge to spell out how they would deal with the "intolerable congestion" it claims extra housing will bring.
It says people should realise that the charge of up to £5 would be 7.30-9.30am only, Monday to Friday, so there would be little effect on people travelling for shopping.
Its statement adds: "The £500 million of transport investment would benefit all road users, including motorists, by vastly improving the alternatives to the car. But the Government is only offering this money on condition that congestion charging is introduced.
"The estimated £30 million which we understand would be raised annually from any charge would be ploughed back into local transport provision.
More propanada on behalf of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign (CCC). Indeed, this particular publicity piece is just a longer version of one that appeared in the Cambridge News only two weeks ago.
The CCC do not represent "the city's cyclists", they only represent a minority of the city's cyclists, and are a typical special interest pressure group who try and put their interests above the interests of society as a whole. Needless to say, they are no friend of the car driver, and much of their propaganda (e.g. in their newsletter) consists of trying to denigrate motorists as much as possible.
It should not be up to the CCC whether or not congestion charging is introduced into Cambridge. It should be up to the people of Cambridge and more specifically motorists. Motorists should be the ones who decide whether they pay this tax or instead sit in queues. It has nothing to do with cyclists, who should be grateful that motorists pay so much tax that cyclists get to use the roads for free.
Of course one of the problems with the congestion charge is that it is hugely expensive to collect, so hardly any of this tax money actually ends up doing any good. Instead, most of it ends up in the pockets of the company that runs the scheme. This is the case in London and will be even more of the case in Cambridge, given how small Cambridge is. And how does the CCC know that £30 million will allegedly be raised annually, given that the County Council has so far refused to divulge any business plan supporting (or not) the congestion charge. (At least that is what they tell you if you email them, perhaps the ruling elite like the CCC has access to more information.)
And how pathetic can you get to claim that a positive point of the congestion charge is that "there would be little effect on people travelling for shopping"? Yes, the congestion charge is going to hit the workers, not the consumers. What a brilliant concept. The congestion charge is a totally regressive tax which will kick the workers out of their cars for the benefit of the academic middle class. Does the CCC hate the working class?
And the CCC should be condemning the national government for insisting that this alleged £500 million which is allegedly forthcoming will only be handed over if Cambridge introduces a congestion charge, independently of whether or not a congestion charge makes any sense (financially or otherwise). This is just blatantly poor governance, and should be condemned by all. But the CCC so hates motorists that they are happy to see this second-rate bribery be used as an excuse to bring in the congestion charge.
The proponents of the congestion charge always get hysterical that "something must be done". But it is up to them to justify this massive change to life in Cambridge, it is not up to opponents to come up with a "solution" today to a far-off problem. But of course there are plenty of things that could be done to reduce congestion already, such as reverse most of the transport decisions made over the last twenty years. The Cambridge ruling elite have spent all that time reducing the capacity of the roads and so making the congestion worse. Not only have they closed several roads, they have also made the Newmarket Road area a complete disaster, not only by introducing a wacky bus lane (effectively reducing the capacity by half) but also allowing more and more retail to pile into the area. It would have been far more sensible to allow retail sites on the Arbury Camp (now Arbury Park) site next to the A14 and also where the Park-and-Ride site is in Trumpington next to the M11. But the ruling elite refused to allow that to happen. So the crocodile tears and patronising statements from the CCC (and others) cuts no slack. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").