Cambridge: Congestion charging continues to fuel arguments

Councillors at Cambridgeshire County Council argued this week whether road charging should be kept on the table in the future. 

Conservative members argued road charging should be left in the “rearview mirror”, but some others said they needed to be able to “look at all the tools in the box”. 

A motion that was put forward by Cllr Steve Count to the county council full council meeting this week (October 17), also highlighted that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority’s transport plan had not been approved. 

Cllr Count said after the GCP and Combined Authority plans had “stalled”, he believed the political leaders in the county needed to meet to “discuss how to arrive at potential solutions that do not rely on any element of road charging”. 

Presenting the motion on behalf of Cllr Count at the full council meeting, Cllr Mark Goldsack said the road charging plans were now “clearly visible in the rearview mirror”. 

He said: “It is time to unite, we simply must unite and find solutions that go beyond road charging.” 

Cllr Chris Boden said it was “inevitable” the Combined Authority Local Transport and Connectivity Plan would be rejected due to the “weaknesses within it”, arguing it included “many elements of the narrative of the war on motorists”. 

Cllr Boden said the motion asked for the political leaders to come together to agree a way forward. He said that would require “some degree of compromise” and said he was “more than willing to compromise”. 

Cllr Bill Hunt said councillors were “servants of the people” and said they should be guided by the people ‘who put them here’, who he said “clearly” did not want a congestion charge. 

However, some councillors said they needed to be able to consider everything in the future. 

Cllr Susan van de Ven said she supported the motion’s “principle of collaboration”, but said its “core rings hollow” due to the GCP proposals having been “undermined for political self interest”. 

She said: “True exploration of the options looks at all the tools in the box, and that is what Making Connections has done, meticulously and methodically over seven to eight years with a final set of recommendations recently published, and they should have been on our table today. 

“In the GCP’s exploration, road charging came out as the most effective tool for cleaner air and better transport and access around Greater Cambridge. 

“Road charging keeps roads open unlike road closures and provides transformational boost to public and active travel.” 

Cllr Lucy Nethsingha, leader of the county council, said a government transport committee with a Conservative majority in 2022 had supported road pricing in principle to replace declining tax volumes and to improve congestion. 

She said: “When we are hearing here that the Conservatives are anti-congestion charging and anti-road pricing, that was not the policy framework that we were operating in in February 2022, six months before the Making Connections scheme consultation was launched.” 

Cllr Nethsingha said she recognised there were people angry with her for the part she played in stopping the GCP scheme, but said she remained “100 per cent committed” to addressing the issues it had been designed to tackle. 

Cllr Neil Shailer said no one had wanted a congestion charge. However, he said without enough central government funding he said was needed to encourage people to change how they travel, he said there had to be some form of “ongoing income system”. 

Cllr Elisa Meschini, deputy leader of the county council, highlighted that it was the Conservative led Peterborough City Council who had vetoed the Combined Authority’s transport plan. 

She also said it was the Conservatives who before the 2021 elections had been responsible for highways and transport for many years. 

She said: “I would question in the strongest possible terms the right of some of the people and some of the political parties who are the problem to masquerade as now wanting incredibly enough to be the solution, after shooting at the knees every solution we have brought up till now. 

“Do me a favour and stop pretending you want to solve the problems that you have created. 

“I would like to ask the opposition who brought this motion, I would like to ask them for once, please tell me what you want, I don’t want to hear about wanting solutions, yes we all do that, I don’t want to hear any vagueness and I don’t want to hear any restatement of the problem. 

“We know what the problem is, tell me what you want, tell me what you actually think should be done, start taking some responsibility for once.” 

Cllr Brian Milnes questioned whether the offer of collaboration was “real or illusionary”. 

He said: “Most obvious of all this motion before us shows the current Tory obsession with road charging. 

“It is clear that the motion’s primary aim is to prescribe to refute road charging as a component of any congestion relief plan, or as a component as a route to better bus services provision. 

“That is denial of the inevitability of road charging from a government of any colour to compensate for the multi-billion-pound loss of vehicle excise duty and fuel tax, it is on its way.” 

Cllr Anne Hay accused some of the councillors of being “more interested in Tory bashing than putting politics aside to work together to find a sustainable transport solution”. 

The motion fell after 31 councillors voted against it and 21 voted in favour.