Richard Baum

Last night’s meeting on congestion charging was very interesting. Once again I was very impressed with the public transport improvement suggested. But once again I was left thinking that it is just plain wrong for the people of Manchester to have to pay again for public transport that they have already paid for through taxation.

Of course congestion charging will deter people from driving their cars, which is the type of behavioural change necessary for economic and environmental reasons. But the method proposed is very blunt and absolutely unfair. The “Transport Innovation Fund” of which the congestion charge is part is not in the least bit innovative. Innovation might include charging based on engine size, vehicle size, pollutants given off by vehicles, or even income. It might even involve not charging to drive at all, but offering incentives to take public transport (like making it very cheap), or imposing an effective car tax regime which really does punish high-polluting vehicles. The charge as proposed does nothing like this.

There were also some interesting revelations which I didn’t realise before. The system of recording drivers entering the charge zone will be both cameras AND tag and beacon. It is necessary to have both because a tag will be needed for regular commuters, and a camera to catch those without a tag. Since tags will probably cost drivers money to obtain, and since they will be responsible for them, I can’t see how they will appeal to anyone at all. Why bother having two costly systems rather than just one?

I also found out that the charging rates will be the same for all vehicles including HGVs. This seems very odd if congestion reduction is desired. Businesses have far more flexibility at their disposal to try and ensure that their goods arrive by other means or at other times than HGVs in the rush hour.

It was also revealed that the data used to inform the projections on income from the charge and numbers affected is very old! It came from the last census in 2001, already 7 years old. The data will be 12 years old by the time the charge is introduced. I don’t think it is acceptable to base decisions on data this old.

Overall my stance against the charge has hardened if anything. Whilst the improvements will indeed make a big difference, the fact that they’re needed at all show just how badly let down local people have been by successive governments not investing money in public transport properly. In effect we are now being asked to pay a congestion charge to bring Manchester up to the level it should already be at. My stance is, has been, and will remain, that we should campaign for the investment without the charge. That is fair and just, and in-keeping with economic and environmental needs.

Unfortunately the current consultation doesn’t give us that option. The “take it or leave it” offer from government prevents this. I know the risk we take in leaving it, but I believe strongly that we have to show government that local people cannot be bullied. Being against the charge does not mean being against public transport, and I continue to hope that those who really believe in public transport investment will vote “no” in the referendum and campaign for real improvements without charges that increase the financial burden on those already struggling to get by.

Rick