by Will Palmer
Ever since I started university in Manchester and first got involved in local politics the number one topic of debate has been congestion charging. I have been to numerous debates and heard an infinite number of arguments for and against the proposals. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these proposals, for me the argument boils down to one crucial fact: it is has been designed in such a way that it can only fail.
Forgetting the proposals for Manchester what is the main argument for congestion charging generally? Well you would think it would be to reduce congestion.
Coming back to the Manchester proposals, therefore, if THIS congestion charge achieves our number one objective it will fail. That is because these proposals contain a huge carrot in the form of £3bn worth of ‘investment’ into public transport (and probably a few hundred million into implementing the charging scheme itself). Hidden away , however, is the fact that £1.2bn of this money comes in the form of a loan which is to be paid back over the course of 30 years. It is proposed that this money will be paid back using the congestion charge. So, yes, in order for this scheme to work and pay back £1.2bn , we need congestion.
But I thought that was why we wanted a congestion charge, to reduce congestion? Obviously not in Manchester. It seems clear to me these plans have nothing to do with reducing congestion. In fact , as Rob Adlard argues, the whole scheme relies on congestion, if it is going to be sustainable. If its not sustainable then the loan will have to be repaid by increases in council tax. I would imagine before this happens, however, the vote inducing charging times will be increased – and then it will be much more than 1 out of 10 who pays.
I could list another 5 arguments here why you should vote ‘no’ but they pale into insignificance when you realise the whole scheme is a paradoxical mess that can only damage Manchester’s future.
We are being bullied (there is a very good example here) into putting another £1.2bn on the never never. I thought the follies of excessive borrowing would be clear by now but as we will find out on Monday some people never learn!
December 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
The congestion charge effectively says that the tax that we pay is not sufficient for good public services and this is ‘cloak and dagger’ way of getting more money from us. The Government should handle its budget better rather than dipping its hands into our bank accounts to pay for services that we should get anyway. The proposed 3 billion pounds one off payment would be paid off very quickly by the continuous income from the congestion charge which will be enforced for the foreseeable future. The plans are self-defeating in the way that they plan to get more people using public transport and out of their cars, but less cars mean that they will be getting less income from the congestion charge to supposedly pay for the public services. I f the government wants more money for public services then it should raise ‘tax’, not charge people for using the cars that they have bought themselves.
December 12, 2008 at 6:43 pm |
[...] of Greater Manchester were not fooled by the ridiculous congestion charging plans. As I have pointed out before and reiterated in Student Direct the plans were completely flawed and would have jeopardised [...]