Congestion Charge - Home Thoughts From Abroad

[Phil Blinkhorn]

With the referendum about to take place I've put together the following thoughts:

There is a definite need to reduce congestion in much of Manchester

The private car as a means of getting to and from work has many advantages for the occupant(s) but few for the environment. That said, drivers already pay large amounts of tax and £3 or £5 per day is a great deal to pay.

The bus, rail and tram systems are to be greatly improved and the improvements are promised to be in place prior to the introduction of the charge. There should be caste iron guarantees about this and every bus stop/tram stop/station should have adequate shelter provided against the weather and live information as to the state of the service.

There should be a guarantee that the service operators cannot arbitrarily increase fares and certainly should not be able to raise fares above the rate of inflation.

The standard of vehicles provided should be both up to date and clean. Great strides have been made by operators since the dark days of clapped out buses in the late 1980s and 1990s but there are still some very old vehicles on the road and, in recent years, the trams and some trains have become dilapidated.

On board and station security needs to be looked at.

Massive, secure and free car parks need to be placed all around the two cordons.

The System One ticket system needs revising to include all operators and all type of public transport and be available 24 hours a day on a daily, monthly, quarterly and annual basis.

Ideally the operators in the area should all carry the GMPTE brand - as bus and tram operators in London have to use predominantly red vehicles.

Finally, and most importantly, the upgrade to services and the referendum should embrace the whole of the North West as the travel to work areas for Manchester/Liverpool/Rossendale/Burnley/Blackburn overlap and millions of journeys a year will be made from outside the referendum area by people working in Manchester who are disenfranchised but, with a yes vote, will be expected to pay.

I'm not against the scheme and its promised advantages but I'm not yet convinced that the improvements promised following a yes vote are guaranteed, particularly prior to the introduction of a charge and the disenfrancisement of so many who will be charged is appalling.

On balance I would vote no and expect the politicians to go back and deal with the issues I've raised and any others that may occur.

[aidanorourke]

It's 10 past four, and I've just got off the 192 bus in south Stockport after travelling from Longsight. After the charge comes in, that journey, taken in a car, would incur the 2 pound congestion charge - not on the bus of course.

Adverts in Stagecoach buses encourage people to vote YES.

Adverts on Wellington Rd in front of Stockport town hall say: 'Want to pay? Have your say.'

More info here: Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council |Congestion Charge - Your Questions Answered

I like the bus but I like the car as well. It's a dilemma. I will post more thoughts soon.

[John]

The pro publicity has been badly handled with the emphsis being allowed to rest on the CC as a means of repaying the loan rather than its more major function of persuading motorists to be less dependent on their cars.

The referendum was a bad idea unless the proposers wanted to scupper their own plans, many will vote against out of self interest and ignorance. For example, somebody claiming that a trip from Leigh to Sale would incur the CC, that leaving the M60 for Stockport would incur the CC. That Ellesmere Port will be affected by the CC but Bolton, being further away from M/c would not!!
On the self interest front, there is the best part of a full page in the MEN by the deputy editor saying why he will be voting no. Every reason he gives is based entirely on what's in it for him. Forget all the bus passengers who subsidise his life style choices.

If I choose to travel by train/plane/ long distance bus at peak times, it costs more.

I've seen the suggestion that bus lanes cause congestion, not if you're on the bus they don't and as many opponents of the scheme are quick to point out, public transport is more expensive that the petrol element of a trip by private car.

Part of this extra cost of PT is caused by, ahem, congestion caused by private motorists.

With the impending recession, wouldn't the best part of £3 billion into the local ecomomy be welcome?

I can't help thinking that the rings are the wrong way round though, surely it should cost more to cross the inner boundry, not less. As it is if you live on one side of the city, between the two charge zones, and work on the other, between the two charge zones, your cheapest and quickest option is to drive right through the centre.

OK, chew the bones of that, I'll be back later.

John

[John]

Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn

With the referendum about to take place I've put together the following thoughts:
.

Phil, £5 a day is a lot to pay as a none essential car user, for somebody who works from their vehicle, it is peanuts.

With regard to those afected by the charge but unable to vote, isn't this the West Lothian Question?

If somebody chooses to live outside Manchester but use the resources should they really be allowed a say in how Manchester handles congestion? Don't remember being asked for my opinion on the CC in London.

[aidanorourke]

I am finding it very difficult to decide whether to vote yes or no. I hope to talk about the congestion charge and local public transport in my Channel M Breakfast Show interview slot this Thursday.

I can see the arguments on both sides. I'm very keen to see an improvement in public transport and would love to use the car less.

But the main problem from my point of view is the way the charge is collected. It targets some people arbitrarily and in my opinion unfairly. It would be much better if the charge was spread more evenly across all drivers.

I have an alternative charging method whereby there are beacons at major intersections across the conurbation. Each time you go through an intersection, your in-car smart card is charged a small amount.

How much this would cost or the technical considerations I have no idea. I think the technology will take us in that direction anyway.

If the vote goes in favour of the charge, it could have huge implications for the local economy and the negative could outweigh the positive. In the words of the great Patrick Moore, we just don't know.

If the charge is voted down it will be the last opportunity for public transport improvement in a generation.

I think the vote is going to be 'No'.

By the way, my photograph of an anti C-charge poster was used in Today's Independent newspaper.

Manchester anti-congestion charge billboard ad

[Phil Blinkhorn]

Phil, £5 a day is a lot to pay as a none essential car user, for somebody who works from their vehicle, it is peanuts.

Peanuts it may be but, if you are working from your vehicle you, or your employer, have to find £25 a week from either your bottom line or from your customers. If you have a large fleet, you also have to look at the effect on your cashflow.

I see that there are to be a handful of exemptions or reductions for various car users. The opportunities offered for just about every argument and excuse not to pay are legion and these will no doubt spawn another bureaucracy.

With regard to those afected by the charge but unable to vote, isn't this the West Lothian Question?

No. The West Lothian question is in regard to MPs outside of England and Wales voting on matters which have nothing to do with, and with no effect on, Scotland (or NI for that matter).

The congestion charge and the outcome of the referendum will effect the pockets of everyone in the regional travel to work area. The congestion charge, if implemented, will be a tax without representation on many tens of thousands of people who, everyday, have no choice but to travel within the zones to get to and from work and currently, and for the future, have no choice but to use their cars. Thus all those who regularly work within the cordons should have a vote.

If somebody chooses to live outside Manchester but use the resources should they really be allowed a say in how Manchester handles congestion?

That's a very naive question. People working in Greater Manchester contribute to the economy of the area and to do so have to travel into the area and suffer the congestion. Manchester (rightly) promotes itself as the regional capital and makes much of how the region works, shops and plays in the city and its environs. If it wants the status and the economic input from outside its immediate boundaries it must let those in its region who use the facilities and contribute to its economic status have a say.

I've seen the suggestion that bus lanes cause congestion, not if you're on the bus they don't

Of course they don't - because the way bus lanes are operated at present is a nonsense.

The mathematical argument for bus lanes is excellent - single and double deck buses can carry between 50 and 100 passengers in the same roadspace as 3 cars, cars carrying a maximum of 15-21 people.

On the other hand - and I base this on 33 years driving around the UK on a daily basis up to 1998 (averaging 35,000 miles a year) and very regular visits since - bus lanes turn usable roadspace into sterile areas and cause congestion in the remaining lane(s).

They inhibit parking for deliveries, the markings make left turns at busy junctions difficult in many cases where the lane ends less than 50 yards from the junction and there are often many hundreds of yards of bus lanes unoccupied even at peak times.

Bus lanes are fine on roads with multiple routes on frequent headways and in those instances the maths can be shown to work. On the other hand there are many bus lanes in British cities on roads with just a couple of routes working a ten minute headway. In addition, whilst anything other than a bus, taxi or cycle will be fined for entering a bus lane, buses pull into the non-bus lane and expect to have right of way whenever they wish to pass another bus - normally stopped collecting fares - and often do not return to the bus lane if they see buses ahead or have a right turn within a half mile.

Don't remember being asked for my opinion on the CC in London.

How many times a year do you cross the cordon in London? Had you regularly (more than a couple of days a week) worked within the cordon though living outside the Greater London area, there is every argument that you should have had a say.

I can't help thinking that the rings are the wrong way round though, surely it should cost more to cross the inner boundry, not less.

Logically, you are correct. If this is truly a congestion charge, the inner cordon would be much more expensive but, of course, this is not a congestion charge, it's a travel tax to raise revenue to pay for infrastructure changes and the bulk of the money will be raised in the outer zone where there are numerically many more journeys.

It is very interesting to look at what is happening in the Greater Toronto area. This takes a bit of reading but makes for an interesting comparison:
Metrolinx - Regional Transportation Plan

If the charge is voted down it will be the last opportunity for public transport improvement in a generation.

Aidan, I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Economic times change, administrations with ideas come and go (it was only 17 years between the establishment of SELNEC and bus de-regulation, a complete volte face which totally ruined the cohesive bus system in Manchester) and should the vote be no it won't be too long before another pitch for funding will be made on either a modified or radically different basis.

[mr angry]

I am quite strongly opposed to this C Charge, and, again am disenfranchised as I live just outside the Greater Manchester boundary.

Firstly, I feel that the zone, bounded as it is by the M60 is too big at 80 square miles, the London one is only 8 square miles. A better idea would be to make the boundary the inner ring road, approximating to the route of the 53, say Cheetham Hill/Queens Road in the north, Wilbraham Road on the south side.

Secondly, what is the money going on and where is it going to? Bus improvements. As the buses will remain in the hands of the private sector, ie Stagecoach, Arriva and First, I can not see there will be much in the way on any improvements. As we know they just operate for private profit, not public service and they just concentrate all their efforts on the most heavily used and, therefore, profitable routes, ie loads of 192s following each other down Stockport Road during the day, but try getting a bus after about seven at night.

While the private sector is involved in public transport, all that will happen is that they use public money to bolster their profits and I think that all buses should be returned to public ownership and a reconstituted Selnec or GMT.

Thirdly, trains. Proposed improvements to stations and provision of more rolling stock, but surely this will come from Network Rail and Northern Trains? I use the train myself, between Handforth and Stockport and have no particular complaint about the service, apart from the frequency in the Crewe direction, where there are two within about 10 minutes of each other, followed by a 50 minute gap. Although, once again I thought the service better when BR ran it.

Finally, Metrolink. I run the risk of negativity here as I have never been overly keen on it. What benefit it brought to the Manchester-Bury service has always been a mystery to me. When BR ran it and I used it regularly, it was the most reliable service you could ask for. 6 coaches were provided in the rush hour and I never once failed to get a seat, the trains and stations were well kept, apart from towards the end when it was allowed to deteriorate.

When Metrolink took over, the fares increased and the trams were much less comfortable than the trains and by the time the tram reaches Heaton Park or Bowker Vale people are crammed in like sardines. Also, you can not take bikes on them or pay on the tram. The city centre link between Victoria and Piccadilly is also VERY slow, I have walked quicker on several occasions, presumably the same comments would apply to the Altrincham line in BR days as I used this a few times in the late 1980s when I worked briefly in Sale and found that to be a decent service as well.

To me, it was a cheap and nasty compromise to resolve the lack of a direct link between Victoria and Piccadilly after the Picc Vic tunnel proposal was rejected in 1973 on cost grounds. A later idea was a curve at Castlefield between Deansgate and Salfors stations which would allow thorough running but as it by passed the city centre, Manchester City Council objected to it and it was dropped, which was a pity as it would have been a simple common sense solution.

Also, even if public transport was improved, some peoples journeys are not conducive to it. It would be seen as a tax on going to work and I also anticipate a no vote, despite the Evening News being a mouthpiece for the yes campaign

To summarise, I would do the following if I was in charge of transport.

1, Reregulate and renationalise the buses, completely getting rid of the private sector (Paint them orange and white again, not the later livery incorporating brown, that was awful)

2, Build the Castlefield curve to link Victoria with the electrified lines south of Manchester and revert the Bury and Altrincham lines to Network Rail and Northern Trains.

3, Cancel the conversion of the Oldham/Rochdale line and electrify this, and the Bury line at 25kv, running through services from Crewe/Alderley/Macclesfield

4, Allow the Metrolink extension to Droylesden and retain the city centre and Eccles lines, but no more



stoj

[aidanorourke]

Aidan, I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Economic times change, administrations with ideas come and go (it was only 17 years between the establishment of SELNEC and bus de-regulation, a complete volte face which totally ruined the cohesive bus system in Manchester) and should the vote be no it won't be too long before another pitch for funding will be made on either a modified or radically different basis.

17 years is about a generation in modern terms. And it's 18 years from bus deregulation to the congestion charge proposal. I reckon the next major proposed revamp of public transport in Manchester will be in the year 2026! I hope you're right and I'm wrong!

[Phil Blinkhorn]

Aidan, being an old codger, to me a generation is 25 years

Mr Angry:

Reregulate and renationalise the buses, completely getting rid of the private sector (Paint them orange and white again, not the later livery incorporating brown, that was awful)

There was an excellent reason for that colour scheme. The white lower panels of the MCTD Mancunians had a major drawback in as much as they showed a great deal of dirt and just about every scratch. When SELNEC came along the lower panels were orange and needed repainting less frequently though the original "sunglow" orange faded quickly. GMT replaced the "sunglow" orange with a more robust shade which needed even less touching up but lower panel repair and repainting costs were still high and, by 1980, it was decided to paint the lower panels brown, with a much more extensive use of orange, topped off by white for the roof and, on double deckers, upper window surrounds.

The cost of dealing with unsightly scratches and dirt was immediately reduced. The question of tree damage to a white roof was raised at the time, but tree lopping in those days was carried out on a regular basis and this was a minimal problem.

Today of course, modern double deckers are equipped with (to me) unsightly tree guards. The lower panels on all the major operators are of a darker and more solid colour than much of the rest of the vehicles though the use of lighter colours for the mid panels is welcome on Stagecoach and First. Arriva is just awful and Magicbus is all blue for for exactly the reasons GMT went for the brown scheme.

[mr angry]

Phil,

I can see the practical benefits but I just did'nt like it!