For a long time I have steered clear of the subject of the Manchester Congestion Charge, but on reflection I guess it is a tax, which makes it fair game for this blog. So here goes..
Whilst this will fill my business partner Sharon Nash with horror, (she is on the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce congestion charge committee, which is not in favour), I started off this process fairly firmly in favour of the idea of the congestion charge. As we are an employer with 14 staff (most of whom drive to work) with an office inside the outer congestion charge area, self interest would tend to make me an anti, but I could see the environmental benefits of the idea, and I liked the idea of an improved Metrolink service. Again this was not self interest, because the Altrincham Metrolink service, which I use as often as possible, is a very good service anyway and I would not expect any of the congestion charge money to be spent on that line.
Also, when I dislocated my thumb last year and couldn't drive for several weeks, I discovered that even using the existing public transport system I could get to most places I needed to, although it obviously took extra time, as a result of which I still often use public transport to get to appointments where practicable. So in principle I was always going to be a 'yes' voter in the forthcoming referendum.
However, the 'yes' campaign have now achieved the unlikely feat of changing my mind on the subject and turning me into a potential 'no' voter, which is presumably the direct opposite of what they are hoping to achieve! There are two aspects to this, one of which relates to the proposal itself and one to the 'yes' campaign.
I had not really thoght very deeply about the area covered, beyond taking note of the fact that our offices at Old Trafford Cricket Ground would be in the outer congestion charge area. However, I now discover that in fact the area covered will be the largest congestion charge area in the world. Whilst I am normally all in favour of Manchester aspiring to be the biggest and best in the world, in this case I don't think that biggest is necessarily best.
The outer cordon is going to catch people who are in no way contributing to city centre congestion (I am thinking particularly, but not exclusively, of staff who work at the Trafford Centre, Chill Factor, Sale Waterpark etc) but who nonetheless have to travel to work at peak times. This also begs the question as to what will happen with smaller roads across the M60, which I understand from the proposals on the website will not be covered by the scanning system.
Are they going to be closed off to avoid people using them as 'rat runs' to avoid the charge, in which case congestion on main routes will presumably get worse rather than better and people for whom those routes are the most logical route will be greatly inconvenienced? Or will they be left open, in which case human nature tells me they will become clogged up by charge avoiders looking for a free route into the outer zone? I think we should be told.
I also understand that the idea of using the M60 as the outer cordon is based on it being the easiest cordon to police. One might have thought that more persuasive reasons than this should be advanced for creating the world's largest congestion charge area, but apparently not. Imagine if you will London deciding that it is easiest to use the M25 as the outer congestion charge zone cordon and you will get the idea of why this doesn't make a lot of sense in practical terms.
However, the real turn-off for me has been the widespread poster campaign, based on the tag line "I won't pay the congestion charge when...." If you bear in mind that I was initially prepared to bear the additional cost that would be imposed on myself and our staff (and I wonder who they will be looking to to cover the cost of the congestion charge, and can you blame them?) because self-interest should not be the motivating factor in considering issues on this scale, you will start to see my fundamental issue with the campaign.
If the 'yes' campaign is going to resort to appealing to the "I'm alright Jack" mentality to get votes, then why on earth should I try to be public spirited and vote 'yes' against my own self-interest? The referendum question might as well be "are you going to pay the congestion charge" if that is the level at which the 'debate' is going to be conducted. I think it is a sad day when issues of this magnitude are dealt with on such a simplistic level, and I also find the campaign extremely patronising, precisely because it does not address the real issues at stake.
So when we consider whether to renew our lease (up in 2012) will the congestion charge be a factor in the event of a 'yes' vote? You bet it will. And faced with a choice between sticking with a location that happens to be very convenient for me but not for a number of our staff, or finding somewhere outside the M60 which would probably suit the staff much better, which option are we likely to go for? After all, unlike the 'yes' campaign, I don't always opt for self interest as the motivating factor in my life.
So if the congestion charge is voted down, don't brand Mancunians as environmental criminals, but look at those who lead us and consider what a fantastic opportunity they will have carelessly wasted. I will vote with a heavy heart, because I for one don't see that Manchester can win whichever way the vote goes.
Mark Simpson
3 November 2008
Comments