A postal referendum is currently being held in Greater Manchester to approve or reject the GMPTA's Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) Bid, which includes the controversial introduction of a peak time congestion charge.
Although it was agreed that as a campaign we would not take a position on the question of the congestion charge itself, since there are supporters of the campaign for free public transport on both sides of the congestion charge debate, we nevertheless think it fair that both sides of the argument should be aired, so that supporters of our campaign, and the public in general, might make a more informed decision in relation to how they vote in the 'TIF' referendum.
Responding to the £3milllion plus media campaign in support of the TIF Bid and the congestion charge, and starting off the debate on this website, Stephen Hall a member of the Wigan Against Road Tolls campaign argues the case for a NO vote in the forthcoming referendum.
Road congestion in Greater Manchester is a major problem, as is the increased pollution and CO2 emissions associated with it.
Greater Manchester also needs a major boost in public transport investment, as does the rest of the country.
However, no matter how attractive an 'incentive' it might appear is being offered by the Government, and however rosy a picture is painted of the transport infrastructure improvements we might get, the peak time congestion charge that is also being proposed, is neither a solution to the long term problem of road congestion, nor a price worth paying by Greater Manchester residents.
* Congestion charging, at the 'peak times' proposed, especially penalises those people dependent on their own cars to get to work in the city centre, and especially those from areas such as the Wigan Borough which is entirely outside the proposed M60 'outer' charging ring.
* Congestion charging, like the Poll Tax, is a flat rate tax which disproportionately hits the worst off in society. In this instance, the least well paid of those commuters.
* There is no guarantee that the introduction of congestion charging will actually reduce congestion whatsoever. Indeed, the construction of the charging gantries on the access 'corridors' outlined, the blocking off of 'back streets' and the reduction of road space through the introduction of new bus lanes and various other traffic calming measures could well lead to increased congestion despite a drop in the volume of vehicles entering the congestion zones, as has been seen in London.
* Neither the proposed transport infrastructure investment proposed, nor the congestion charge will do anything to reduce the currently high fares charged by private bus companies and rail operators, which are to be frozen (after a further higher than inflationary hike in rail fares early in the New Year) despite the recent drop in the price of oil, diesel and other fuel costs.
* Wigan Metropolitan Borough as a whole will benefit little from the proposed investment in transport infrastructure, improvements such as the "Leigh Guided Busway" having been given the green light by the GMPTA long before the TIF bid and the congestion charge was placed on the political agenda. It is consequently dishonest of supporters of the proposed charge to say now that it's go ahead will be one of the benefits of our supporting the introduction of the congestion charge.
* Greater Manchester is merely one of nine areas being targetted for 'road pricing trials'. If a congestion charge is succesfully introduced here, then similar schemes willl no doubt follow in other major cities like Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, and so on, and then later perhaps even in large towns like Bolton, Wigan, Oldham, Stockport and Rochdale. Then, who knows? ... from a peak time 'congestion' charge to an around the clock road toll?
* There is also no guarantee that the charge to be levied, which based on the current proposed rate could cost commuters in this area up to £25 extra per week to get to work in the city centre from 2013, won't increase in the future as it has in London, adding a further strain on commuters' pockets.
* Over £300 million of the Government's £1.5billion contribution to the scheme will be spent on setting up and operating the various toll charging gantries, an amount which would surely be much better spent on direct public transport improvements rather than lining the pockets of private construction and toll collecting companies.
* Rather than attempt to seriously tackle and find a solution to the growing problem of road congestion, worsening air pollution, and burgeoning green house gas emissions (and not just at peak times but 24/7), the proposed congestion charge is in reality nothing more than a cynical levy on congestion, the revenues from which will do more to service the interest charged by the banks on the huge loans it is proposed are to be taken out to help fund the improvements, than anything else.
THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE!
As many as 72% of people interviewed in a recent survey by market research company TNS UK said they would not give up their car until they could use public transport without charge.
* These findings point the way to the real long term solution to road traffic congestion and all its attendant evils. It's not rocket science and it doesn't take a genius to work it out. The answer lies in FREE & BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORT throughout Greater Manchester and throughout Britain.
* In the Belgian city of Hasselt where such an approach to the problem has been adopted, road congestion has been almost eliminated and public transport usage has increased by over 1000%, We should follow their example in Manchester.
* Hundreds of thousands of people would benefit immediately by saving £hundreds a year in transport costs to and from work. They and many more would also be given the incentive to use their cars less for all of their other journeys.
* Our roads would be safer and communities less isolated.
* The need for hundreds of new buses, trams, and trains, and for bus, tram and train drivers and guards will create thousands of new jobs in Greater Manchester and elsewhere.
* Less car usage = less petrol usage = less air pollution = less CO2 emissions = less respiratory illnesses = less of a detrimental impact on the environment.
* Less car usage = less need for imported oil = a huge saving on Britain's balance of payments.
* Less car usage = less car related deaths and injuries and less congestion 24/7, the combined financial savings from which alone could likely finance entirely what we are proposing.
* The introduction of free and improved public transport throughout Greater Manchester alone would be one of the biggest pro-environmental policies enacted by anyone anywhere on the planet given the contribution of transport to overall CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
* This should be our vision for the future of public transport in Greater Manchester and not a move backwards in the direction of road tolls which do nothing more than extort more money from motorists on top of what they pay already in various car taxes, including the 'road fund license' and fuel duty.
* Ideally, we think such a policy should be combined with progressively expanding city and town centre car free zones, the greater use of our canal network, the introduction of more and better cycleways, more walking bus schemes for primary school children (where appropriate), even the recycling of cooking oil for use in school buses and many other measures.
DON'T BE BULLIED OR DUPED BY THE PRO TIF PROPAGANDA
* The entire case for the TIF proposals, including the congestion charge, which essentially, is that of the Government, has as we say, nothing really to do with reducing congestion in Greater Manchester generally speaking, nor in providing us with the public transport system we really do need, but primarily in getting those peak time commuters still reliant on their own cars to get to work within the M60 outer charging ring in 2013 to pay for some of the transport infrastructure improvements being proposed, as well to help divert otherwise 'public' funds to the banks, private bus and rail operators, construction and toll collecting companies .
* To get us to go along with the idea of introducing it, there is the promise of a Government grant which amounts to £1.5 billion. Implicit in the equation is if we don't go along with the idea then Greater Manchester won't get the money and we won't see the improvements that are being proposed.
* Aside from the fact that we shouldn't have to compete with other cities to get the transport infrastructure we all desperately need, why should any investment also be conditional on us having to support the introduction of yet another tax on poorly paid commuters, most of whom likely have no other practical option but to use their own cars to get to and from work within the two charging rings during peak hours?
* We say why can't we have the money without the strings? Why the bullying? Or is it bribery?
* Additionallly, the Government could find £billions to bail out the Banks at the drop of a hat, and can find the money to wage War in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as to replenish our nuclear arsenal, so why can't it find the money, which is much smaller by comparison, for all the transport infrastructure improvements being proposed? Why even if we went along with the congestion charge must the GMPTA, AGMA or whoever, have to borrow almost half of the money needed from the banks and/or other lending institutions? The whole thing would look to be one big scam all round!
THE REAL HUSTLE
* The Government in reality, is offloading part of its responsibility for transport infrastructure improvements on to peak time commuters and Greater Manchester council tax payers at the same time as providing a financial 'slice of the action' to the banks & other private lenders who will effectively make a 'rake off' from the interest charged on those loans over 30 years or more. The £1.5billion in loans (i.e. just short of half the cost of the overal proposed transport infrastructure improvements) and the interest charged, being directly paid for by congestion charge payers, and Greater Manchester Council taxpayers, if the revenue raised from the congestion charge falls short of that necessary to service and repay the debt.
* Their aim is to try and dupe us into believing that what they're offering is something altogether different, an 'extra' to the fair share of central Government spending we already get, whereas the fact is we only ever receive a small fraction of that currently.
* The private bus companies and rail operators will continue to rake in £millions in public subsidies and from profits made on the back of high rail, tram and bus fares.
* Hidden also will remain what actually happens to all the £billions paid annually already by Greater Manchester road users via car, fuel and other transport taxes, less than a third of which nationally, is ploughed back into transport, including the roads. Greater Manchester's fair share of that revenue (let alone its fair share of general taxation!) would likely finance most of the proposed improvements proposed, removing the need to borrow any money at all from the Banks whatsoever.
* That's why we say the Government should finance all the scheme and more, and why we say there's already more than enough money to finance what we are proposing - FREE & BETTER PUBLIC TRANSPORT locally and nationally.
A DEMOCRATIC REFERENDUM OR ANOTHER POLITICAL CON TRICK?
* Whilst we generally welcome the idea of a democratic referendum on the issue of the TIF proposals and the congestion charge, as we would indeed on the introduction of free and better public transport for everyone throughout Greater Manchester if not throughout Britain as a whole, (and on many other issues as well) - the question we ask is, whether that is what we will get with the referendum we are now being asked to participate in December?
* Less than two months ago, during the GMPTE's sham so-called 'public consultation' exercise on the congestion charge, we asked "What question will be asked in the referendum? "
We said; "The phrasing of the question will have a colossal impact on the likely outcome of the thing and will we suspect, amount to something worthy of a completely cynical, political con-artist." and we weren't far off the mark, were we? Even former City Council leader Graham Stringer MP has called it a "fiddle" as the congestion charge isn't even mentioned at all in the referendum question!.
* There's hardly a political balance either, with an estimated £3.5 million plus of OUR money having been spent on the overtly pro-congestion charge propaganda we've seen and heard on the TV and radio, as well as in print already, and likely to see and hear more of in the coming weeks in the run-up to the 11th December close of poll.
Ultimately also, the referendum is only advisory and its decision not binding on anyone, consequently, even if we do reject it at the ballot box, the powers that be might still decide to go ahead with the idea regardless. Although this scenario would seem unlikely in so far as it would expose the entire exercise as a complete an utter sham, it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
Nevertheless, rather than boycott the thing, or just simply abstain, which are also alternatives, we are calling for a NO vote in the referendum and will be campaigning for such in the 3-4 weeks ahead, simultaneously arguing for our own policy of free and better public transport as the only realistic long term solution to the issues of road congestion generally, as well as to worsening air pollution and growing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
If you live in the Wigan Borough, why not invite us to come and speak to at one of your community, tenants/residents, or trade union meetings? You can contact us on 01942 886645 or 07724 139278.
Stephen Hall
15-11-08
|
