Cleaned out?
Huge cost of pollution-busting plan:
IMPOSING a clean air charge on Tyneside could damage the region’s economy to the tune of £140m, according to shocking council predictions.
Local authority bosses in Newcastle, Gateshead and North Tyneside want to avoid having a Clean Air Zone (CAZ), in which high-polluting vehicles could face daily charges of up to £50, enforced by the Government in order to cut air pollution – and have instead suggested a toll on three bridges across the River Tyne.
On top of fears that a CAZ would disproportionately penalise poorer families who cannot afford new, more environmentally-friendly cars, the potentially catastrophic impact on the North East economy has also been revealed.
Local authority analysis suggests that a combination of added costs, such as those to upgrade high-polluting vehicles, and factors such as the time lost by drivers taking longer routes to avoid the charging area could cause a “significant negative impact” totalling £140m over five years.
That is despite the fact that the CAZ itself would generate massive profits, with the councils clarifying that the system would produce a huge estimated yearly surplus of £43m in its first five years of operation. A bridge toll system would produce a £17.5m-ayear profit, rather than over five years as previously reported, and the cash from either would be invested back into highways and public transport improvements.
The councils have also pointed out that the Government “will override other considerations, including the impact on the local economy” in order to deliver compliance with legal pollution levels by 2021.
On Tuesday, the three local authorities submitted their findings about the impact of a CAZ to the Government, arguing that it would damage communities and not be sufficient to comply with ministers’ orders to cut pollution levels to within legal limits.
As an alternative, the councils have suggested imposing tolls on the Tyne, Redheugh, and Swing bridges that would affect almost all drivers – though the full environmental and economic impact of that idea is still being assessed.
A spokesperson for the three councils said: “As part of our analysis of different charging options we have looked at the potential impact they might have, not just on air quality but also on people, businesses and the economy.
“In relation to the potential economic impact of a charging CAZ D – the Government’s preferred approach – the analysis indicates that this could be around £140m over five years.
“It is important to note that while this amount does include direct costs, such as the cost of upgrading vehicles, it also includes other estimates of indirect costs, for example, by quantifying the value of time people would lose through choosing to make longer journeys, or cancelling journeys to avoid a charge.
“The legal order from government means that the requirement to improve air quality as quickly as possible outweighs any potential economic impact when considering which measures to implement.
“However, it is still essential that we understand what that impact could be so that we can look at what support could be provided to help people and businesses affected.
“It is really important that people take part in the consultation starting next week so we can understand the impact of different options on them, their families and their businesses and use this information in our discussions with government.”
A CAZ would mean that high-polluting vehicles would pay a daily charge to enter a certain area –currently proposed to include the centres of Newcastle and Gateshead, stretching up to Gosforth and also down part of the Coast Road.
Based on charges elsewhere in England, the daily fee could be £50 for buses, coaches and HGVs and £12.50 for taxis, vans, and some private cars – diesels made before September 2015 and pre-2005 petrol cars.
Gateshead Council chief executive Sheena Ramsey said on Tuesday that a CAZ would have a disproportionate impact on low-income households, areas of high deprivation, and small businesses including taxi firms and drivers
Newcastle City Council leader Nick Forbes also warned on Monday that the CAZ could have “unforeseen consequences” and was an “utterly nonsensical approach”. A bridge toll could be “more equitable”.
It is still essential that we understand what that impact could be so that we can look at what support could be provided