Until the unveiling of the proposed Manchester congestion charging scheme in 2007, motorists and public transport users alike agreed that something must be done about Manchester's public transportation system. With a proposed 3 billion investment in the system, one would think Manchester residents would be singing the praises of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority's (GMPTA) plans, but the congestion charging element of the proposal, which is expected to generate around 180 million of revenue each year to repay the 3 billion investment, has caused a deep divide between those in favour, and those not.
Those in favour of the scheme cite the huge public transport investment and potential saving of 30,000 jobs (which Manchester City Council's leader, Sir Richard Leese, claims would be lost if the hidden tax of congestion is sustained much longer) as the primary benefits of the scheme, along with the advantages of shorter, reliable travelling times, a cleaner, healthier environment for all, and a reduction in road traffic accidents.
Those against the scheme, many of whom are passionately fighting the proposals, such as the National Alliance Against Tolls, Manchester Against Road Tolls, STOP! The Charge, and the Forum of Private Businesses (FPB), are continuing to sign up thousands of Manchester residents to petitions. Their main arguments are that motorists are already paying billions in road tax, VAT, council tax, insurance and other charges that makes its way into the local Governments coffers, and it is this money that should be used to improve the public transport system, not additional taxes generated through road tolls.
What both parties do still agree on is that Manchester's public transport system is in need of investment. The congestion charging scheme is the only practical solution to this problem and few, if any, decent alternatives have been suggested by the various opposing groups.
The opposition also argue that much city-centre business would be lost, with many people opting to spend their money with local businesses instead. Firstly, this would surely be a very positive development for many small, local business owners - exactly the type of businesses that are being pressured by the larger city-centre brands. Secondly, however, this argument fails to address one of the biggest benefits of the congestion charging scheme - behavioural change.
If the public transport system becomes many times more efficient and practical, as is proposed, then it may in fact be much easier, cheaper and quicker for residents to venture into the city centre. Residents of north-east and south Manchester for example, who do not currently benefit from the Metrolink tram service, have to endure a lengthy car or bus journey through majorly congested routes such as Oxford Road to make their way into the city centre. A relaxed and reliable Metrolink service to these areas would in fact bring more business into the centre, rendering the argument of Manchester becoming a 'ghost town' somewhat lacking.
Improved public transport could result in a significant shift in the behaviour of thousands of residents. If the need for using a car is reduced, then the congestion charge may be a non-issue for many people who can instead opt to use the greatly improved public transport. With fuel costs expected to continue rising, it is likely the public transport option will also prove cheaper, as well as being faster and more environmentally friendly. For those Manchester residents that absolutely must drive to and from the centre each day, this will be little consolation and we can all expect this fierce debate to continue up until the vote that will take place between the ten district councils following the end of the consultation period in October 2008. Seven of the ten councils must vote in favour of the scheme for it to go ahead.
Congestion charge is not a very new idea. Cities such as Seoul, Kuala Lumpur, Orange County in California and even Stockholm have been trying and testing this idea since the 1970's through to early 1980's. Economists first mooted these ideas in the 1920's. Serious research into this idea was done in the 1960's. Historically, private toll roads, funded by turnpike trusts, were common from the late 1600's until the Local Government Act 1888 passed ownership and responsibility to county and county borough councils. The idea gained currency in the 1950's when Friedman, a free market proponent, put forward the view that people should pay in proportion to their use of the highway.
In the year 2000, the government's Transport Act 2000 gave local councils powers to bring in congestion charges. Britain's first congestion charge zone began in Durham the same year, targeting motorists visiting tourism-related areas. Motorists were charged varying amounts ranging from 2 to 5 pounds depending on location. The aim was to reduce the number of cars on specific roads. The scheme reportedly cut traffic by 90%. Several councils employed the same scheme while others even introduced electronic tagging. On Monday 17 February 2003 Congestion charging started in central London, with motorists having to pay 5 pounds for travelling in the designated zone or face fines.
As expected, the scheme drew public protest. Whether one is for or against the scheme depends on what your interests are. The business community have their own view and so do the motorists. Each section of the society feels cheated in some regards. It is a very subjective debate. There has been an argument that motorists should be charged a sliding fee depending on the size and type of car they drive. The cars that have low emission are being taxed less. Some of the most taxed, owners of the gas guzzlers, have a different argument.
The argument is that a poor person's car causes just as much damage to the environment as a rich person's car. It does not matter how often or how much petrol is in the tank. A big car can make one trip whereas a smaller car can be used to make several trips thus fouling the environment more. Besides a smaller car, usually seen as better and more environment friendly, if older might be less fuel efficient and thus worse polluters.
The other contentious issue is whether this is a genuine serve charge or a disguised consumer tax. Some people have argued that the tax is not for a service of using the road to get into the cities, rather it is a tax for making access to the city centre using a motor vehicle. This thinking is the central thrust in advancing the conceptual differences between use and access. Some city dwellers argue that "Access" is not a "service." Some Londonists argue that the Government is taking away from the public their constitutional right to use the roads, an amenity for which they have already paid for through other tax regimes such as road tax.
This argument has seen the system getting challenges from the most unlikely quarters. You might have read about the the City of New York cracking down on diplomats abusing the parking rules in Manhattan near the United Nations. Through Plate Recognition, those breaching the rules by not paying were hounded down and made to pay. In London some diplomats have asked questions whether this is a form of tax. It is of concern to them because diplomats are exempt from taxes. They are arguing that they can not use alternate routes to central London, so they have no choice and at the same time, they have a right to be there and a right not to pay any taxes as well.
Well, diplomats do pay toll charges all over the world, some argue and therefore they should pay for accessing London. But then, if going to London was not a matter of duty rather than a choice, isn't this a punitive measure discouraging people from going to work by the most convenient means? The stockholders trying to define this scheme can not agree whether this is a form of access charge or form of road tax.
The question is, is this a good idea? The argument for this charge is that the revenue is used to improve the public transport infrastructure. Councils are, supposedly Ring-fencing the money raised to funds projects related to transport facilities and amenities. But the public can not easily see or differentiate projects funded from this charge from projects funded by council tax, road tax and other taxes. As the debate rages on, the bottom line is that this idea is an idea whose time has come.
The challenge to the authorities is to raise public acceptance to a reasonable level and also try to overcome the political difficulties that the local governments face in implementing the scheme.
Both Geoff Marston & Patrick Omari are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Geoff Marston has sinced written about articles on various topics from Manchester Travel. To have your say about the scheme, visit the official website at GMPTA's Future Transport site.. Geoff Marston's top article generates over 2400 views. to your Favourites.
Patrick Omari has sinced written about articles on various topics from Celebrities, Hotels and Hostels and Science. Patrick is an expert Research and Travel consultant. His current interest is in and. Patrick Omari's top article generates over 823000 views. to your Favourites.