2. I don’t think that government is so remote and immoveable that the people of Cambridge cannot influence it. I think we can make the argument that this region is one of the places it ought spend the money it has earmarked for transport improvements. David Howarth clearly doesn’t agree, he’s not mentioned the TIF once in Parliament yet.

Why can’t we put a TIF bid in with a non-congestion charge form of demand management? Why is the government insisting we have a congestion charge? Restricting traffic going over Magdelene Bridge and Silver Street Bridge has been effective; restricting access to more roads, creating more “dead end” areas of the city would reduce traffic in the city centre. Why can’t we propose spending the money on schemes like the link roads and unrestricting junctions rather than on a congestion charge? One problem I have with the TIF proposals was that they were not presented as a set of options but as a single proposal. I understand that it is because of the impending government deadline.

Of course I would regret Cambridge losing out on £500m of investment; but it’s no good having that money if the proposals for how it is to be spent are not in themselves expected to significantly impact congestion in the city (they’re only to improve alternatives and so make the congestion charge more palatable), and I don’t think a congestion charge is a worthwhile price to pay.

I, like all other Cambridgeshire residents, have been asked by the Government if £500m, to be spent as outlined in the TIF proposals is enough to buy my support for a congestion charge. In my view it isn’t.

3. I don’t think congestion currently threatens the economic viability of the area in the same way as a congestion charge would. The costs of congestion are less direct. I realise we have to look to the future, and account for the expansion of the city and new development, but we should not link that too closely with the TIF bid. Already we have had cumulative expansion of the city of Cambridge which has added significantly to the pressure on the transport infrastructure and we have not ensured that there have been transport improvements associated with those developments. As Cambridge is growing, it needs to demand at least its fair share of taxation raised in the area back to spend here; we need a strong representative in Parliament making the case for investment in the local area on the grounds it is in the national interest. I don’t see any other option other than for government to “change the rules” and think we have to fight for that.

*While I think the Cambridge and the surrounding area can expand. How, and how fast, we build new homes is a key part of what needs to be decided. I would prefer to see more decisions made locally on the details, top-down targets ought only be used as a last resort.

1) You say this is bribery. Why is this alone ‘bribery’ when every other Local Authority funding pot surely comes with strings attached too?

2) The refusal of a charge would result in the loss of £500m of transport investment. What if the government continues not to change the rules? It’s all very wishing that the rules were different - but they are not. Do you think that loss of such massive investment would be regrettable?

3) You say “A congestion charge threatens the economic viability of the area.”. What about the fact that *congestion* also threatens the economic viability of the area? Both have costs on business and the public, just apportioned different ways.