Rival claims it leads race for roads cash

Adam Hewitt • Published 9 Mar 2010 09:00 2 Comments

Share this

READING and Cambridge's duel for transport cash has taken a new turn with the Government scrappage of the Transport Innovation Fund (TiF).

Both councils claim to be in "pole position" for money under its replacement, the Urban Challenge Fund (UCF), which will dole out cash for transport projects but without the need for congestion charging.

It is unclear if the new fund will be as big as the £200m a year TiF, created in healthier financial times - but there are large Whitehall hints that it will not be.

Reading officials said the borough is in "pole position" for money from the new fund - but Cambridge County Council told the Cambridge News the exact same thing about its £500m TiF bid.

Reading transport leader Cllr Tony Page said the town's existing £59m phase one TiF bid, centred around a Low Emissions Zone covering the IDR, will be "tweaked" and considered under the new fund.

He said: "We are very confident that the Reading TiF bid addresses all the important elements in this new funding stream, namely economy, health, environment and, of course, congestion."

Transport minister Sadiq Khan said Reading's TiF bid "has informed the emerging processes for the UCF" and "is an exciting and worthwhile bid that should move well into the UCF process".

Opposition councillors in Cambridgeshire fear the change from TiF to UCF puts cherished public transport projects in doubt.

Cambridgeshire Lib Dem Cllr Nichola Harrison told the Cambridge News that TiF would have offered "100 times" the money that the UCF will and said: "It's a major blow that the Government has backed out at this late stage."

But in Reading, Tory transport spokesman Cllr Richard Willis was slightly more optimistic.

He said: "I'm pleased to see that the congestion charging requirement is being removed from the fund, but I'm concerned that the new fund will have different terms and conditions which may or may not be favourable to Reading."

Lib Dem transport spokesman Cllr Ricky Duveen accused the Government of "constantly shifting the goalposts", adding: "Lots of councils have spent lots of money working on these bids and now who knows what's going to happen."

Wokingham borough transport leader, Tory Cllr Keith Baker, welcomed the change but slammed the Government for "political opportunism", having dropped its six-year obsession with unpopular congestion charging just weeks before a General Election. His council unanimously signed up as a top-level partner to Reading's TiF bid in January.

Oxfordshire, Hampshire and Bracknell Forest are committed at lower levels. West Berkshire refused to sign up while congestion charging was involved - but the Government's latest announcement may change minds.

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

Howard Thomas
Unregistered User
Mar 10, 00:44
Report comment

Election spin to change the name from TIF to UCF and 'remove' the congestion charging clause. But after an election I bet con charge would be back on the agenda with a vengance! Lying load of sods.

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0
Mischievous
Unregistered User
Mar 10, 10:36
Report comment

Councillor Antony Page should be given a good tweaking not the LEZ plan which should be s****ped. It is a given that any ideas coming out of transport planning have to include large chunks of fiction - a tweak by any other name. I wonder where this policy comes from. Silly me â€“ they come from councillors and the head of transport, everyone. As an example, I have noticed that the 20 mph signs are already up on the Shinfield Road, so the Council can create more congestion with their new traffic lights for roundabout scheme.

Why is the transport department so incompetent? Probably because the policies that are being created by these Christopher Wrens of city planning, our local councillors, are a bit off the wall; heads full of spin and no substance. They forget that what they put into the plans comes out of their plans. Here is some food for thought - if the plans were right why do they need tweaks? I call it pasting over the cracks.

The one thing for certain is we will soon learn how gullible the Department for Transport is and whether they have really evaluated the schemes or have more of good taxpayers' money to burn for a good tweak.

What is a tweak? Answer: the sound of another bird brain scheme!

Recommend? Yes 0 No 0

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.

Follow @rdgchronicle