Dec 28 2008
Congestion - An alternative, including a c-charge
Yesterday, I criticized the TIF (Transport Innovation Fund) bid effort this year. Today, I will offer a Plan B, which I believe would have satisfied both the government and local electorate.
Step 1 - a single tier congestion charge zone following the inner ring zone of the proposed bid. The original proposal of an inner and outer ring had several drawbacks; psychologically, it seems unfair to pay four charges just to visit the city centre and return home, and creates a perceived overcharging to visit your own city. Physically, it requires twice the roadside equipment and a more complicated computer software system (let’s face it, government computer contracts are infamous for being over budget, late on delivery, and, unworkable). Most importantly, governmentally, it seemed to lack direction, begging the question ‘where are we tackling congestion? Motorways or A & B roads?’ The whole plan seemed a second rate stealth tax.
There is considerable congestion at peak times throughout the citys roads, especially the A6 and the Ardwick and Worsley roundabouts, and also on the motorways, M60/61/62/602 junctions. However, these two problems must be tackled individually. When Alistair Darling cancelled the promised Metrolink extension, he chose to widen the M6 instead. If he had carried out the proposal, Rochdale and Oldham would have been connected, and alongside Bury, these towns create a large share of the traffic heading west along the M62 towards the M6/M61. These towns also contribute to the inflowing traffic that clogs up the northern A and B roads into the city. Instead, the government extended the M6 by one lane in each direction, then increased road tax, and will indubitably bring in tariffs for motorways soon.
Step 2 - re-regulate the bus services. It is no use proposing additional bus services when the existing ones do not run. When de-regulation came into force, we were told that this would promote competition, cheaper fares, and, better services. Of course, economists know that this is the short term case, then the large swallow the small. There are now basically three bus companies, two in the north and west, and just one for the south and east. I live in the east of the city and used to live in Longsight and Levenshulme, so can only address the issue of Stagecoach. Every year, the bus companies receive hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling of tax-payers money to provide their services and each year, Stagecoach receive fines for failing to deliver these services. As the fines come from profits (and rather healthy profits, too), it means that the bus user is paying them from their fares. It does nothing to deter Stagecoach from continuing to cut services and fail to deliver, as the fines are small in comparison to their profits, and as such, does nothing to help the commuter. The TIF bid claimed that there would be more buses and more routes, but this would only be on paper, as the reality would be that the bus companies would not deliver these services properly. More taxpayers money down the drain, and a perfect example of ‘throwing good money after bad’. Incidentally, Stagecoach have kept upping prices, claiming this is due to increased petrol costs. The global price of oil has fallen sharply over the last six months, yet Stagecoach have not cut prices, in fact, they are raising them again!
Unfortunately, New Labour is too right wing to consider this option, as it is old Labour and reeks of nationalization. There is one other alternative; drop the fines, and where a bus company fails to supply the services that it is contracted to, remove the most profitable routes and award them (along with the government funding) to small local companies. For example,with Stagecoach, firstly remove the Oxford Road to Withington routes, then secondly the A6 to Stockport ones, before thirdly the Manchester to Ashton ones. This would hit profit margins, wake up shareholders, and ensure the timetabled buses would turn up.
Step 3 - de-Beeching. I am not a trainspotter, and this area is not my speciality. What I am aware of, though, is that our once proud railways were butchered by successive governments of both parties on a flawed report by an economist, Lord Beeching. I have also read many informed and well written letters in the Manchester Evening News, which explained how several disused old lines could be reclaimed for just a few million pounds. These proposals are not about long tracts, but short connecting tracks, that could link areas that we already need to enter the city and then head out to. It appears that about four such tracks could alleviate overcrowding on trains at commuter times, and also create alternatives that are currently far easier and reduce car traffic at the fringes of the city.
Step 4 - the current government swept in on a wave, promising a whiter than white alternative to sleeze. I have been a lifelong Labour supporter, but have found the majority of the current cabinet to be no less greasy, smarmy and backstabbing than the Tories. The whiff of corruption hangs over the whole party and many Labour politicians individually. Lord Mandelson has had to resign twice, but is back for a third time. Stephen Byers, David Blunkett (twice) have behaved despicably. The whole funding fiasco for the Deputy Prime Minister stank, and similar in the Scottish Labour Party. Lord Levy and Tony Blair being questioned by police, though, strangely not anti-terrorism police, and at a pre-arranged time (not dragged down the station and held for hours), and with no police access to Tonys office nor the House of Commons! Finally, John Prescott, the bumbling buffoon, adulteror, champagne socialist. Wasn’t his late appearance to urge citizens to vote ‘Yes’, a complete and utter failure. I felt that he was as welcome as whooping cough at a glass-blowers convention.
Politicians have to realize that most people no longer trust nor respect them. As such, it should have been stated in advance, the cost of the charge (and by how much it could be increased per annum) and the hours that it would be in operation. Having stated these, they MUST be enshrined in law, with a legal guarantee that neither could be altered without a further referendum. Remember, this is the government that claimed the police needed new powers to combat terrorism, then used those powers against Iceland! Give the politicians power and they will abuse it.
Step 5 - ensure that ALL the work involved in the programme goes to local business, not London. If it’s our money paying for it, keep the benefits for our economy. Far too many Southerners were involved in the bid, and do not understand the Northern psyche. We are warm and considerate people, but will not be patronized and treated like bumpkins.
I think I’ve addressed most things above, but if you feel I’ve missed something, or think my plan is unworkable, please comment.
