Congestion charge opponents get down and dirty in Manchester
Article published: Sunday, December 7th 2008
Decision day looms for Manchester’s congestion charge referendum. After more than two years of planning, consultation and often heated debate, residents now have until 11 December to cast their vote. Results are due the following day. The NO campaign has been vocal and controversial throughout. YES campaigner The Ferret delves into the murky world of the anti-congestion charge lobby.
Over the last three decades the UK has seen both increasing car ownership and a decrease in the average car occupancy. By 2007, the average car occupancy for Greater Manchester vehicle commuters had declined to 1.3 people per car trip.
Put simply, more people are using their cars more and sharing less. Result? More traffic congestion.
Central government has made millions available for investment, in public transport in the form of a Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). This fund can only be accessed by local authorities if they agree to introduce measures to reduce traffic such as congestion charging or a working place parking levy.
Greater Manchester authorities have made a bid to the TIF fund for just under £3 billion. This is made up of £1.5 billion from government funds, £1.2 billion from a peak-time-only congestion charge, and £0.1 billion from other contributions. The congestion charge would only be introduced once at least 80 percent of the transport improvements are in place 2013 at the earliest. The proponents of the TIF bid argue that Manchester has no option but to revolutionise its transport systems and funding regimes to support a significant shift away from private car use and towards more sustainable alternatives.
But even before the TIF bid was submitted, a vociferous coalition had been campaigning against the introduction of a congestion charge. The early running was made by Manchester Against Road Tolls (MART) who, with assistance from Trafford Centre owners Peel Holdings, ran a series of billboard posters some of which were subsequently banned by the Advertising Standards Authority on the basis that they lacked “truthfulness”.
MART are part of the Association of British Drivers (ABD), a small but loud car drivers lobby. The ABD no longer list Freedom to use your car without restraint as one of its key publicly stated aims but it neatly sums up the ABDs position.
From climate change denial to congestion denial
The ABD believe that congestion is caused by local councils rather than by too many vehicles, and that climate change is not happening. Consequently, they see no need for public transport improvements and policies to reduce car travel.
The ABDs manifesto states that: Given overwhelming evidence that climate change remains well within natural limits, that on every instance of global warming or cooling studied the carbon dioxide change follows the temperature change, and that zero use of all cars in the UK would have no measurable impact on carbon dioxide levels, no justification of taxation and restriction on car ownership and/or use on these grounds can be justified. Existing restrictions, taxes and duties based on them should be removed, and car taxation frameworks based on carbon dioxide emissions should be scrapped.
Elsewhere ABD and MART have commonly argued that councils deliberately cause congestion, and that increased traffic levels may indicate improved sustainability.
Politicians and businesses in the No campaign
Big players campaigning against the TIF bid have ranged from the Liberal Democrats in Stockport, Conservatives in Bury and Trafford, the BNP, and the Greater Manchester Momentum Group (GMMG). The GMMG includes companies such as Bestway, Hydes and United Biscuits, but the key companies seem to have been Kelloggs and Trafford Centre owners Peel Holdings. The same Trafford Centre that paid for MARTs advertising billboards, which is a major contributor to the traffic congestion on the Greater Manchester road network, and whose business model is based on easy and cheap car access and free parking in its 10,000 car parking spaces.
The NO camp have run a advertising campaign that has ignored the public transport investment benefits and has regularly used misleading figures and arguments.
How high will the NO campaign go? Unpicking the false claims
2/3 of households will have to pay this tax
Graham Stringer MP, a prominent opponent of the TIF proposals, has claimed that: According to surveys of real people, 2/3 of households will have to pay this tax. But according to the national census, between 25-35 per cent of Greater Manchester households do not even own a car. To arrive at his 2/3 figure, Mr Stringer appears to be arguing that everyone with a car will travel to work during the peak charging times, and pay the charge. Why discuss the facts when you can make up your own numbers?
Spot the Congestion Charge
Graham Stringer also seemed to be howling at the moon when he claimed that the Referendum question would not even mention the congestion charge. Strange then, that the ballot paper says:
Please read the leaflet enclosed with the ballot paper, which provides details of the Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund proposal. This involves both major investment in public transport improvements in Greater Manchester and a weekday, peak-time only congestion charge scheme. Congestion charging would only be introduced after 80 per cent of public transport improvements are in place, and not before the summer of 2013. Do you agree with the TIF proposal?
There are no prizes for spotting the words congestion charge but it does give an indication of how little care the NO campaign has taken with some of their arguments.
You will pay £1,200 a year
This claim neglects to mention that nobody pays anything until 2013, and only a minority of car users will pay the full charge.
The worlds largest congestion charging zone
According to NO campaigners the TIF proposals would create the worlds largest congestion charging zone – the entire area within the M60 motorway – that’s 80 sq miles compared to the original London zone of 8 sq miles.
But this too is totally misleading. The area within the zone is not an ‘exclusion zone’ at all, unlike in London, where you are charged if you drive anywhere within the zone, at any time between 7am and 6pm, Monday to Friday. The proposed Greater Manchester zone is completely different: even during peak hours, if you travel entirely within the cordons (i.e. within central Manchester), or go against the peak traffic, there is no charge. In any case, the charge would apply at peak-times only: 7:00am 9:30am (travelling towards Manchester) and 4:00 pm 6:30 pm (travelling away from Manchester).
So the Greater Manchester scheme is not an 80 square mile ‘exclusion’ zone like London: charges only result from crossing two cordons (whose actual area is about 0.5 square miles, to be precise). The NO campaign know this but continue to use misleading arguments.
Over-inflated claims? You bet not 80 square miles but 0.5. Out by a factor of 160. Perhaps GMMG could take note of its website, which states that they take care to ensure that all information available on our Website is accurate and up to date.
How low will the NO campaign go?
On 25th November the Manchester Evening News reported that Sonassi Media had been suspended from GMMG, after posting a video on YouTube which depicted a young girl apparently being assaulted because her father was unwilling to pay the congestion charge.
The video had been filmed at the Trafford Centre with the permission of Peel Holdings. It showed a young girl phoning her dad after being followed by a menacing figure in a hood. The girls father refuses to come to pick her up, claiming he ‘cannot afford’ the charge, and instead urges her to make her way to the motorway, which would be outside the proposed charging zone. The video ends with the sound of the girl screaming as the screen fades to black with the message ‘Stop this madness! Vote no’.
As well as the misuse of images of violence against women to promote the NO campaign, it seems beyond belief that any parent would refuse to pay £1 to keep their children safe.
So what would the NO campaign do instead?
The ABD believe that building more roads is the answer to easing congestion, rather than introducing pay-as-you-drive to the city.
The NO campaign’s other key solutions include getting rid of bus lanes, which they claim create congestion; and asking the government for the money without the strings of congestion charging.
Our solution Vote Yes
The ABD’s answers fall far short of the complex transport and climate change challenges facing Greater Manchester.
The TIF bid does not have all the solutions but a £3 billion investment in public transport and travel behaviour change programmes is a more positive place to start than a No Vote that will give us nothing. Voting no will not mean the status quo. Other cities (such as Bristol and Bath) are preparing their bids for the same pot of money. Boris Johnson is complaining of a major shortfall in funding for London’s transport system. And there is, of course, a recession, leading the Government to push public debt to breaking point.
In short, there is no Plan B, no undisclosed consolation prize, and other cities and Government departments are looking to make the most of the TIF funding if Greater Manchester says No.
And finally there is Greater Manchester’s transport system: overloaded and under-funded, with no alternative funding package in the foreseeable future, and with congestion levels set to soar 3 billion reasons to vote yes.
More: Manchester
Comments
No comments found
The comments are closed.
