Manchester Congestion Charge: The vote!

[Sput]

Well all, I've had my ballot for some days now and hate myself for being racked with doubt about which box to tick. I've got no substantial reason at all to tick "No" except for thinking "oh, what if things don't pan out like they say?". That's a shit argument and it's one the no camp have been throwing out time and time again.

Practically speaking, the plan seems quite sound: improve and extend public transport infrastructure, add park and ride, only charge at actual peak times on weekdays and after 80% of various measurable means are implemented will they invoke the charge. What really baffles me is the people commenting on various articles saying "public transport is shit, say no to the charge" because that's counterproductive.

Would anyone like to offer me some food for thought? I've not got a car and won't be living in manchester after a few more years so I feel a bit guilty about having this power. I could abstain but where's the fun in that?

[Dr Lobster*]

tick no.

before imposing a congestion charge (which i am not ideologically opposed) the full public transport infrastructure must be in place. it's my understanding that it won't be in the case of manchester and in my mind this is not satisfactory and lets just remember when it comes to throwing inordinate amounts of money at things this government has proven it can find a way, it's nonsense to suggest that the charge will have to be in place first to help pay for improvements.

[Sput]

Well that's not true, there is that 80% thing that I mentioned. I couldn't tell you why it's 80% and not 100% though.
Here we are: 80% of...
- additional passenger capacity at rush hour of trams and railways
- capacity of new dedicated school buses (this appeals to me as I hate kids)
- number of park and ride spaces

I do wonder if the improvements will work at a sort of exponential decay though, so once they hit 80% things slow down. Again though there's nothing to base that on.

Oh, and it's a cross, not a tick

[Lorns]

Tick/X no. Congestion charge has done shit bugger all for London. Except the local authorities get shitloads more money which won't be spent on improving roads, public transport blah blah blah. You'll never see that money again, it will just end up in some icelandic bank.

[Mr Q]

In principle, congestion charges are a good thing. Generally, people use roads without any regard for the cost they impose on others - they have free access to them. For each additional road user, the time it takes for other road users to reach their destination increases - ie. the more congestion you have, the worse the problem gets. To address this, you impose a price (the congestion charge) which helps to promote efficient utilisation of the existing capacity. Now, sometimes that still isn't enough - you might need to build new roads at some point - but you're better off proceeding with those capacity improvements only if you have efficient user pricing in the first place.

In terms of what the money gets used for, I happen to like the idea of imposing congestion charges while reducing other taxes. Taxes distort markets, but where a market is already distorted (as is the case with congestion), taxes can actually be welfare-improving if they help to correct the problem. Of course, that's not what's being talked about here. Spending the money on improved public transport could be a good use of the money. Obviously if there's a congestion problem, providing better alternatives to the road network might be of some benefit. Indeed, I would argue that viable alternatives are essential to ensuring the efficacy of any congestion charge. If you simply place a tax on road usage and people have no other option but to use the roads, then the government just makes money without actually reducing congestion. That's obviously a problem from the perspective of motorists, and since they'll form a sizeable proportion of the voting population, it should be regarded as a problem for politicians as well!

From what Sput is outlining, the proposal sounds reasonable enough. I don't know what the amount of the charge is that they're proposing, nor do I know the extent to which congestion is a problem in and around Manchester. Really, it comes down to this: if you think the congestion charge is just a tax grab which will yield no real benefit, vote no. If you think the plan is a reasonable one, leading to improved public transport and reduced road congestion, vote yes.

[Gavin Scott]

Really, it comes down to this: if you think the congestion charge is just a tax grab which will yield no real benefit, vote no. If you think the plan is a reasonable one, leading to improved public transport and reduced road congestion, vote yes.

That's the easy part.

The question is - once you mandate a charge in principle, can you trust that the delivery of a *genuine* improvement to public transport will occur?

The cynic in me says that their "80%" may not feel like that on the ground - and by then you're stymied.

Some improvements will inevitably develop via other ways. Edinburgh's trams and park and ride schemes have started, and we voted NO in the referendum of 2005.

[Sput]

Certainly the big government have hung a lot of promises about things like extra trams on the condition that the charge gets passed, and they are rammed at rush hour. So are the roads, though, and there's not any way that you can put more roads in a city centre so to my simplistic brain the logical solution is more public transport funded by this.

[Mr Q]

Really, it comes down to this: if you think the congestion charge is just a tax grab which will yield no real benefit, vote no. If you think the plan is a reasonable one, leading to improved public transport and reduced road congestion, vote yes.

That's the easy part.

The question is - once you mandate a charge in principle, can you trust that the delivery of a *genuine* improvement to public transport will occur?

The cynic in me says that their "80%" may not feel like that on the ground - and by then you're stymied.

Some improvements will inevitably develop via other ways. Edinburgh's trams and park and ride schemes have started, and we voted NO in the referendum of 2005.

Sure - improvements can take place independent of a congestion charge. But that's not going to ensure that your existing capacity is being efficiently utilised. Public transport improvements are in fact a secondary issue when it comes to road user pricing - they only matter to the extent that you want to have a viable public transport alternative.

So are the roads, though, and there's not any way that you can put more roads in a city centre so to my simplistic brain the logical solution is more public transport funded by this.

Well, you can put more roads anywhere - it's what you have to take out to fit them in that's the issue!

Although being slightly less glib, you can build tunnels underground, or you can create bypass routes around congested areas (particularly important for road-based freight, which might not need to access a city centre).

[all new Phil]

Vote no.

I have to go to loads of meetings in Manchester and I don't want to have to pay any more than I do already!

Is that what you'd want, Sput? IS IT?

[iSon]

Listen to Phil, you know it makes sense.

Incidentally, I would also urge you to vote no - Manchester, is a wonderful city and is hardly the nightmare that London is. I'd hardly describe Manchester as congested - no more than any other major city in the UK anyway.

[Sput]

Vote no.

I have to go to loads of meetings in Manchester and I don't want to have to pay any more than I do already!

Is that what you'd want, Sput? IS IT?

That WOULD be quite funny.

Mr Q: They can't build underground things in Manchester because there's a load of bunkers from the cold war. I believe that's why they went for trams rather than a tube (so I've heard anyway!).