Manchester congestion charge: Critique of the GMPTE document and proposal

Congestion charging is the hot topic in Manchester in mid-2007. Government bodies have come up with a proposal for an ambitious expansion of public transport in and around Manchester, but at at a cost: the introduction of road tolls. Does this document make sense? Is congestion charging in Manchester necessary?

The GMPTE leaflet was sent out to households throughout the Greater Manchester subregion. The proposal is also presented on a website.

www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk.

Does this proposal - and the document and website - make sense?

Given the stagnation in local public transport development over the past 50 years, these proposals look startling in their ambition.

But in my opinion, they are nothing more than the public transport system that should already have been in operation for years.

Here are my impressions of the document and website:

There is extensive use of internal transport industry buzzwords and jargon such as 'key objective', 'strategic', 'multi-modal' 'high quality' 'BRT' 'QBC' 'the bus product', 'TIF' and many others. If the authors wanted to get through to the general public, they should have 'translated' the jargon into a more accessible form of language.

The document has not been properly proofread and there are errors, such as: "While the journeys some goods vehicles journeys may be time sensitive others will be able to be undertaken at times outside the charging period."

Much of the proposal contains repetition and waffle. For instance the proposals for each of the local areas contains the same sentence copied and pasted. For instance: "...would further benefit from extra and more frequent bus services, as well as a significant improvement in bus times and reliability, the introduction of real time passenger information, on-bus passenger information, passenger security and safety and improved traffic management and control systems." The proposals are only an outline, a sketch, without very much local detail, but seem to be presented as something more than this.

Two charging circles are proposed in the document, but a third has since been added, suggesting the plans are not fully mature and are being amended 'on the fly'.

The proposals appear to be only partially thought out, and there are inconsistencies. For instance the outer charging boundary is said to follow the M60, which passes through Stockport, but on the opening diagram, the outer circle cuts north of Stockport.

There are inconsistencies in the text. For instance, the FAQ page mentions 'less congestion' and 'reducing congestion', but further down, the phrase: 'freeing our roads of congestion' is used. I find this to be totally misleading and unacceptable. The congestion charge will not free our roads of congestion.

The proposal makes exclusive use of kilometres. The UK Department for Transport road signs are in miles and that's the measurement still used and preferred by most people. The authors should have had the courtesy to use miles as well as, or instead of kilometres.

The text makes unfortunate use of the word 'we' and 'our' which suggests a 'We know what's best' relationship between 'Us' the decision makers and 'You' the general public. "In our package of measures, we are reinvesting...". Who, may I ask, is 'we'? The road system belongs to us, the people who use it, and pay for it through various types of taxation.

It is not made clear whether the people presented in the case studies are fictitious, with models posing for photographs, or whether they are real people. There are only four case studies, not a convincing argument for a subregion with 3 million people and (since 1974) 10 local authority districts. It would have been much better to use real case studies and more of them.

See the screenshot below for my 'teacher'-style annotations of a sample of the text

On the plus side, at least the document is concise and reasonably well laid out. But it's the 'meat' of the proposals that counts.

Central proposal: Transport expansion in return for a flat rate congestion charge

I'm not going to try and summarise everything, but the proposals put forward many sorely needed and long overdue schemes, such as the Metrolink extensions, Park and Ride schemes, bus service improvements and many others.

The authors ask the public 'What do you think?'

And yet there is one question they appear already to have made their mind up about, otherwise they wouldn't have written:

Why is congestion charging necessary in Manchester?

They should have left the 'why' off the beginning of the sentence. In the opinion of many people, it isn't.

Peel Holdings, owners of the Trafford Centre are against it. They put forward a proposal whereby Manchester Airport and other municipal assets would be sold off to pay for the scheme. That proposal was rejected by bosses at Manchester City Council, and others in neighbouring local authorities.

Opinion polls indicate that a majority of people are against it.

Having read through the proposals carefully, and tried to visualise how they will pan out, given my very good knowledge of the Manchester conurbation, I have come to the conclusion the particular congestion charge proposed here would be extremely damaging and have a very negative impact on the Manchester area.

There are many models of congestion charging. GPS technology makes possible a 'smart' road charging system covering the whole country that might, some day, replace the Road Fund Licence (Road Tax).

If a 'smart' system had been proposed, then that would be a different matter altogether.

But that's not what is being proposed.

The GMPTE congestion charging model could be described as a 'barrier method' of road charging, with three invisible rings or partitions placed in concentric circles around the centre of the conurbation.

In this model, everyone passing a toll point during the charging times - roughly the rush hour periods - and in the peak direction - towards the centre in the morning, out of the centre in the afternoon - will have to pay.

It's like a return to the days of the turnpike of the 18th and 19th century, when travellers would have to stop at a toll bar and pay a penny, tuppence or whatever more to use the road. There are tolls today, for instance on the Mersey tunnels and on the Warburton Bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal.

There will be no physical barrier - charging will be done electronically - but this is still a 'dumb' charging model that will punish individuals unfairly. For instance, if the toll boundary runs along the M60 through the centre of Stockport, then someone living in south Stockport and drives to work in north Stockport will be penalised. The same for the inner boundary. If you live and work between the boundaries you are OK. This is a grossly unfair system.

A congestion charge applied according to a zone system is a blunt instrument which attempts to reduce traffic levels by pricing people off the road. It will hit those less well able to pay, leaving the roads slightly clearer for more affluent drivers.

The congestion charge, as proposed here, would be yet another modern day financial burden to be placed on people who use cars - i.e. the vast majority of us. That's in addition to punitive city centre parking charges and fines, speed cameras and fines, speed bumps on main roads, blocked off roads, reduced lanes and all the other restrictions placed on motorists of today. Some of these measures are unfortunately necessary, but the congestion charge would be a charge too far.

After all, one of the reasons why there is so much traffic congestion is because the authorities responsible for public transport have allowed the system to stagnate for so many years.

A powerful lobby has formed with the intention of scuppering the congestion charge, and they will win.

Take a look at www.manchestertolltax.com.

But the anti-congestion charge lobby also fall short of expectations, because like many single issue pressure groups, they put forward no alternative plan. I'll turn my attention to their campaign in another article.

I have an idea of my own for an alternative system and plan, which I will be putting forward in a forthcoming article

But as far as this document and website are concerned, as well as the proposals contained therein, I'm afraid that, as an ex-teacher who hasn't forgotten his old ways, I will have to cover the document with red marks and return it to its authors with the words 'Unfit for assessment. Do it again!'.

There will be no Manchester congestion charge and, I fear, there will also be no improvement in public transport for another generation, or two. That is, unless an alternative plan can be drawn up, and a spare two or three billion pounds can be found from somewhere. I'll have a look in the biscuit tin!

2007-07-06