Congestion charge proposed for Manchester - how was it for London?

[Roadkill]

Actually I think the idea of asking people to vote on something on which they are not experts, was the mistake.

What? So people should only be entitled to have their say if they're 'experts' - even on something that's going to affect them directly? What nonsense, and what contempt for some pretty basic democratic principles you're displaying.

Besides, I can't help thinking some of the Manchester posters are likely to point out that they're far better clued-up on their city and its transport needs than you are. And they'd probably be right.

 

[roryer]

What? So people should only be entitled to have their say if they're 'experts' - even on something that's going to affect them directly? What nonsense, and what contempt for some pretty basic democratic principles you're displaying.

You are taking it out of context, what I went on to say was....

I prefer the way that Stockholm approached the question, firstly implementing the scheme, and then asking for a vote after people had a chance to experience what the changes meant to them personally. When they were initially asked if they want CC it was 70 - 30 against, after a 6 month trial they voted for it.

 

[Roadkill]

So all of the money should have been spent and the charge implemented - without any of the improvements it was supposed to fund - before people get to have their say? yes, that's just great.

The people of Manchester were the people who were going to be affected by a congestion charge, not you, and it's still rather rich for you to go hectoring them about their lack of 'expertise' when it's a city they know and live in, and you don't. It was put to the vote, and they voted against. Maybe they were wrong to do so, but the fact is that they were asked for their say, and they said no. Deal with it.

 

[teuchter]

So all of the money should have been spent and the charge implemented - without any of the improvements it was supposed to fund - before people get to have their say? yes, that's just great.

The people of Manchester were the people who were going to be affected by a congestion charge, not you, and it's still rather rich for you to go hectoring them about their lack of 'expertise' when it's a city they know and live in, and you don't. It was put to the vote, and they voted against. Maybe they were wrong to do so, but the fact is that they were asked for their say, and they said no. Deal with it.

I think what roryer is suggesting is that the charge and the improvements should have been implemented before a referendum on whether the charge should stay.

I agree with what he says about people voting about stuff by referendum. It's a stupid way to implement transport policies. I seem to remember writing a post earlier in the thread about how these decisions don't just affect people in the (slightly arbitary) area where they were given the vote. We should have a consistent transport policy applied by (a democratically elected) central government across the country.

 

[Roadkill]

I think what roryer is suggesting is that the charge and the improvements should have been implemented before a referendum on whether the charge should stay.

Given that the PT improvements were scheduled to take place over a period of years that's hardly practical. Moreover, I can't help thinking a lot of people would not take kindly to having the charge implemented and being told they could vote on it at some indeterminate point in the future. I think there'd be a fair amount of scepticism that the vote would ever happen or, if it did, that its outcome would be respected. They'd see it as being presented with a fait accompli, and they'd probably be right. It's always easier to prevent something happening than to stop it once it's well under way.

I agree with what he says about people voting about stuff by referendum. It's a stupid way to implement transport policies. I seem to remember writing a post earlier in the thread about how these decisions don't just affect people in the (slightly arbitary) area where they were given the vote. We should have a consistent transport policy applied by (a democratically elected) central government across the country.

You're conflating two things. Of course there should be a national transport policy to cover nationwide and interregional transport, and that's something the present government, never mind its predecessors, has singularly failed to come up with. But no-one in their right mind thinks local transport can be run to a single policy implemented from Whitehall, do they? Different areas have different needs, and they can be responded to best on a local level. That's why the PTEs and other organisations exist. There has to be some local decision-making, and that's what's happened here.

Maybe you have a point about referenda not being a great way to decide things either on a local or national level, but frankly, I can't help thinking that you, roryer and others are showing a fine old contempt for what people who will actually be affected by this want when you say or imply that it should just have been imposed.

 

[teuchter]

What I'm trying to say is that central government should have a national transport policy and this policy should set the level of public transport that should be provided at a local level. It should then allocate money consistently across the board, to allow improvements to local transport throughout the country. Of course the PTEs have a role; this should be to use their knowledge of local conditions to decide how they spend the money within their area to achieve the level of service that the central government has deemed desirable/affordable.

The "local decision-making" should be made by the PTEs, who employ people with the necessary expertise to do so in an informed way, rather than by referendum by a bunch of people who might have an idea of what they'd like but little understanding of the practical implications and complexities of everything that needs to be considered.

Do I have "contempt" for what the general public "want" in terms of transport? I wouldn't use the word "contempt" but I hear enough misinformed and selfish opinion day in and day out from people, to make me have a preference for decisions about transport matters being made by people who actually know what they are talking about. I don't think we'd really want decisions about healthcare funding to be made according to referendum, would we? Think MMR...etc.

 

[Roadkill]

What I'm trying to say is that central government should have a national transport policy and this policy should set the level of public transport that should be provided at a local level. It should then allocate money consistently across the board, to allow improvements to local transport throughout the country. Of course the PTEs have a role; this should be to use their knowledge of local conditions to decide how they spend the money within their area to achieve the level of service that the central government has deemed desirable/affordable.

I don't disagree with this entirely, but it does seem to be an argument for a greater degree of centralisation than I'd be inclined to think is necessary. It isn't only a matter of PTEs and local authorities spending central government money: there's also funding from local taxation, the farebox, charges and fines on motorists, and so on. Nor is it feasible to expect central government to set the level of service to be provided in every area. Do we really want Whitehall deciding how many bus services run from town A to villages B, C and D? Those are decisions on levels of service that are far better made at a local level, using the sort of expertise you refer to here:

The "local decision-making" should be made by the PTEs, who employ people with the necessary expertise to do so in an informed way, rather than by referendum by a bunch of people who might have an idea of what they'd like but little understanding of the practical implications and complexities of everything that needs to be considered.

See above for resnpose to the first sentence. As for the second, I'm not about to dispute that a lot of the opposition to the CC might well have been misinformed, but perhaps not as much so as you'd like to think. It's easy for you to sit and lecture Mancunians on transport provision, but you're not the one who knows the city and you're not going to be affected. Nor are you in much of a position to judge the competence of those charged with implementing the scheme. From what I gather from this thread and elsewhere, distrust in the local authority and a suspicion that the PT improvements projected for the future might well not happen even if the charge were to be implemented were two good reasons for people to vote against the scheme.

Do I have "contempt" for what the general public "want" in terms of transport? I wouldn't use the word "contempt" but I hear enough misinformed and selfish opinion day in and day out from people, to make me have a preference for decisions about transport matters being made by people who actually know what they are talking about. I don't think we'd really want decisions about healthcare funding to be made according to referendum, would we? Think MMR...etc.

Of course not, but referenda do have their place. Meanwhile, looking at your dismissive comments about 'numpties' and 'provincials,' is it any wonder that some people aren't all that disposed to take your opinion very seriously?

 

[teuchter]

I don't disagree with this entirely, but it does seem to be an argument for a greater degree of centralisation than I'd be inclined to think is necessary. It isn't only a matter of PTEs and local authorities spending central government money: there's also funding from local taxation, the farebox, charges and fines on motorists, and so on. Nor is it feasible to expect central government to set the level of service to be provided in every area. Do we really want Whitehall deciding how many bus services run from town A to villages B, C and D? Those are decisions on levels of service that are far better made at a local level, using the sort of expertise you refer to here:

I'm not arguing for more centralisation - just that the method of distributing funding from central government should be based on a consistent policy about, broadly, where the funding should go, not based on whichever areas happen to "vote" for or against it.

For example, central government decides that a certain region needs more funding for rural public transport, and then the local PTE or whatever decides what routes a new bus service should follow, or which rail stations should be upgraded, and so forth.

 

[Roadkill]

I'm not arguing for more centralisation - just that the method of distributing funding from central government should be based on a consistent policy about, broadly, where the funding should go, not based on whichever areas happen to "vote" for or against it.

But you said, and I quote, 'central government should have a national transport policy and this policy should set the level of public transport that should be provided at a local level.' That is an argument for centralisation, isn't it? Surely the level of public transport needed depends on the locality, and those closest to it are probably better placed to judge that than policy wonks in Whitehall.

Take a very successful example: Transport for London. That works because it's a London authority, planning London transport for London requirements. Doubtless you'd not be very happy about London transport being squeezed into a national policy framework - and rightly so, because it wouldn't work as well. Why should Manchester, or any other city or region, be any different?

As I said above, I think national transport policy should principally cover inter-regional and international transport, and perhaps set some broad objectives for local authorities, but I think the details of local planning - a congestion charge here, a new tram line here, a bus service there - is best decided at local level.

 

[teuchter]

Roadkill, I don't think we fundamentally disagree here at all. I was mainly talking about the ways in which central funding is distributed. In this case the case was being offered on the condition that the voters said yes to a deal being proposed. This seems a kind of silly way to determine transport policy (and allocation of funds) because I don't think those voters were best placed to judge the benefits and costs of what was being proposed. It's a rather feeble approach on the part of central government. If their policy is to improve public transport, and they think that schemes like this are the way to achieve it, then they should have the balls to implement them without messing around with this kind of design-by-committee nonsense.

I just find it really frustrating how so many of these kinds of schemes in this country seem to end up getting binned, or watered down to the point where they hardly work well enough to demonstrate to the doubters that they are a good idea at all. It's one of the reasons I had a lot of respect for Ken Livingston because, having been elected, he stuck to his guns and introduced stuff like the congestion charge even though he knew it was going to make him unpopular with many. And because he did it properly, it has, on the whole, worked well. In contrast the national government seems to be terrified of sticking their neck out on anything transport-wise. Look at the way they've given in to the Heathrow lobby, for example.

I think that history has shown us many times that half-hearted schemes and piecemeal policy doesn't work when it comes to transport. I don't think you would disagree with me there.

Perhaps it's not directly comparable but the other day I was reading something about the ideal size of a committee. Somewhere between 12 and 20 people, as it happens, if I recall correctly. More than 20 people and they become unable to agree on anything, and they become completely ineffective. That's what happens in these cases, except that it's not just that you are asking too many people to agree on something, you are asking a bunch of people largely unqualified to do so.

I totally agree that the details of local things are generally best worked out at a local level. Like you say it has worked pretty well in London. All I'm really asking for is the kind of strong policies that Ken applied to London transport to be applied at a national level. Give regional authorities cash and support them in investing in their public transport - let them work out the details of course but don't undermine them in doing so by forcing them to justify themselves at every turn to people mainly pre-occupied with (possibly ill-informed) selfish concerns.

People have tried to explain the opposition to this Manchester scheme as a result of people not having faith in the authorities to deliver what they promise. Well, it's a kind of vicious circle, isn't it - propose scheme, consult on it/chicken out, water it down to the point it's ineffective, people note that it's ineffective, propose another scheme, people object because they don't believe it'll be effective, chicken out, etc etc etc. In my more pessimistic moments I think it's a hopeless battle really, because private transport has become so entrenched as part of so many peoples' lifestyles that the amount of effort needed to really properly swing things around is just too much for any government to take a risk on.

 

[Roadkill]

I think you're right: we're arguing from positions that are pretty close to one another and I agree with much of what you say above, particularly the need for a clear and coherent transport policy on the part of national government.

However, I still think that decisions on congestion charging (and many other things, but let's stick to the issue at hand!) have to be made at local level. There can be no one, national policy for urban transport because circumstances differ so much between cities. Therefore, I think it was absolutely right for the Manchester congestion charge to be a Manchester matter.

Whether they should have put it out to referendum is a slightly stickier issue, but I don't think there's any getting away from the fact that a congestion charge would cost a lot of people a lot of money, and it's only fair that they be consulted. There was no direct referendum on the congestion charge in London, but I think it was pointed out further up this thread that Ken Livingstone made it clear in his manifesto for his first election as Mayor of London that a congestion charge would be introduced, and people voted for him anyway. A separate referendum would have been beside the point. But that's London, and public transport here is more comprehensive than there. The people of Greater Manchester evidently took the attitude that they wanted to see some definite public transport improvements before they were forced to pay to drive cars, which many of them see little alternaitve to using. I don't actually think that's an unreasonable attitude to take, and frankly I thought some of the comments you made about those in Manchester who did take it (and many who didn't, actually) were well out of order.

 

[josef1878]

Somebody up above suggested the people of Greater Manchester didn't believe they would get all the improvements promised - absolutely spot on.

Get the improvements done and lets have another £24 million propaganda campaign and another vote.

They will still be told to fuck off, trust me. People just didn't want to pay it, they are not thick, under informed or stupid.

 

[teuchter]

I thought some of the comments you made about those in Manchester who did take it (and many who didn't, actually) were well out of order.

Which comments exactly do you take such exception to? I don't recall saying anything terribly offensive.

 

[teuchter]

Somebody up above suggested the people of Greater Manchester didn't believe they would get all the improvements promised - absolutely spot on.

Get the improvements done and lets have another £24 million propaganda campaign and another vote.

They will still be told to fuck off, trust me. People just didn't want to pay it, they are not thick, under informed or stupid.

So you're saying they would reject the proposals for a CC even if they were voting after all the transport improvements had been completed?

 

[HackneyE9]

There was no direct referendum on the congestion charge in London, but I think it was pointed out further up this thread that Ken Livingstone made it clear in his manifesto for his first election as Mayor of London that a congestion charge would be introduced, and people voted for him anyway.

Or even "because of"..

 

[HackneyE9]

People just didn't want to pay it, they are thick, ignorant and stupid.

Corrected that for you.

 

[Roadkill]

Which comments exactly do you take such exception to? I don't recall saying anything terribly offensive.

Well, for a start the 'numpties' remark was one of the stupidest things I've read on these boards in a long time, although perhaps it was particularly striking since it came from a poster of whom I thought better.

People in Manchester didn't vote against a congestion charge because they're 'numpties:' they voted against because they saw it as all cost to them and no benefit. Would you vote for a major expense in the short term on the strength of some vague promises of benefits in the long term? I wouldn't - and I'm generally pro-congestion charging.

Or even "because of"..

Livingstone won that election by a landslide, and I don't think you can put that down to one issue. Doubtless some voted for him on the strength of the CC, but some would have voted against for the same reason. How much of a factor it was in building support for him is hard to say, although it's fairly clear it didn't turn people away in large numbers...

 

[teuchter]

Well, for a start the 'numpties' remark was one of the stupidest things I've read on these boards in a long time, although perhaps it was particularly striking since it came from a poster of whom I thought better.

Well I've searched for that post and here it is:

I think this question illustrates why deciding these kinds of things on a referendum type basis is hardly ideal.

It's difficult to decide just who is affected by a measure like this - just the people within the zone, the people just outside the zone, the people commuting in from a fair distance away (some of whom will come by car and some by public transport) ... and how do you balance each of these groups views against one another - should the vote be weighed more in favour of one area than another... and so on.

Really, deciding transport policy in a piecemeal way like this, area by area, is silly. The clue is in the word "transport" surely; the nature of transport is that it links places together and each link in the chain doesn't just affect the area it passes through.

We ought to have a strong and consistent transport policy set by central government that is applied across the country in an integrated fashion. This is what London manages to do within its boundaries; a travelcard for example works on trains, buses, tubes, trams, the lot.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had something like the oyster card that worked nationwide? So if I went to another UK city I wouldn't have to spend half an hour working out how the local PT ticketing system works before I could go anywhere.

Countries like Germany or the Netherlands manage to run something approaching a fully integrated transport system. Why can't we just sort it out?! People going on about how it would only work if we renationalised everything therefore it will never happen - that's a complete red herring. London, and other European countries prove that private operators can run a perfectly good service as long as they are effectively regulated and co-ordinated by a central, public body.

I don't know what it is with people in this country, that makes them so apathetic and unwilling to consider investing in alternatives to the private car, as demonstrated by the folk of Manchester. Germans love their cars too... but somehow they manage to do that at the same time as running one of the best public transport systems there is.

Perhaps it's the London brain-drain effect, leaving the rest of the country populated by nothing but numpties.

I would have thought it's obvious that the last sentence isn't supposed to be taken terribly seriously. For clarification purposes, I don't actually believe that the entire population of the UK outside of London is composed of numpties.

I do however believe that for whatever reason people, in general, in this country are more resistant to the idea of proper investment in alternatives to the private car than they are in many other European countries. Which was the point I was trying to make.

People in Manchester didn't vote against a congestion charge because they're 'numpties:' they voted against because they saw it as all cost to them and no benefit. Would you vote for a major expense in the short term on the strength of some vague promises of benefits in the long term? I wouldn't - and I'm generally pro-congestion charging.

They weren't presented with a "major expense" in the short term nor were they presented with "vague promises". The promises were explicitly set out, and the CC charge implementation was subject to them being honoured.

 

[Roadkill]

They weren't presented with a "major expense" in the short term nor were they presented with "vague promises". The promises were explicitly set out, and the CC charge implementation was subject to them being honoured.

But a congestion charge is a pretty major expense if you have to use the car every day and, although 'vague' may have been the wrong word on my part, what use are promises if you don't trust the people making them to carry them out? As moose said, Manc voters effectively said 'show us your money first.' I don't think that's unreasonable, really...

 

[teuchter]

Do you really think that most people thought:

I am not going to vote for this because I have good reason to believe that, having made a big deal about how the CC will not be brought in before a specifically defined amount of improvements are made, these people are in fact going to do the opposite, and get away with it?

If so what is the good reason?

If the promise had been: "We are going to introduce a CC and then carry out improvements in the years following" they would have good reason to be sceptical.

I reckon the reason most people voted no was that they could see what a CC charge is and that it might cause them incovenience and expense if they didn't change their traveling habits, but they couldn't see the wider benefits that improved public transport would bring to offset this. In addition, they probably couldn't see how the CC charge would be intrinsic to the long term success of the improvements.

We can make judgements about whether that is due to stupidity, ignorance, selfishness, apathy, reasonable suspicion or simply not being transport experts but I would argue that in the end, it doesn't really matter - the "no" vote was probably inevitable and trying to do this kind of thing by referendum is a bit of a hopeless excercise.

Of course it's possible that what was being proposed simply didn't stack up in terms of delivering the benefits they were claiming it would deliver, and if I were to see someone who knew what they were talking about explain why, then I'd be perfectly prepared to listen. I haven't seen anyone coming close to doing that on this thread though.

 

[josef1878]

Corrected that for you.

Cheers, i bet you wish you could edit the ballot result in the same way.

 

[Roadkill]

Do you really think that most people thought:

I am not going to vote for this because I have good reason to believe that, having made a big deal about how the CC will not be brought in before a specifically defined amount of improvements are made, these people are in fact going to do the opposite, and get away with it?

If so what is the good reason?

If the promise had been: "We are going to introduce a CC and then carry out improvements in the years following" they would have good reason to be sceptical.

People are sceptical of politicians in general these days, and unsurprisingly so given the number of broken promises we see. It's especially unsurprising that they're cynical with regard to transport policy, since despite all the government's hot air on public transport a lot of it remains substandard, expensive and unreliable.

I reckon the reason most people voted no was that they could see what a CC charge is and that it might cause them incovenience and expense if they didn't change their traveling habits, but they couldn't see the wider benefits that improved public transport would bring to offset this. In addition, they probably couldn't see how the CC charge would be intrinsic to the long term success of the improvements.

We can make judgements about whether that is due to stupidity, ignorance, selfishness, apathy, reasonable suspicion or simply not being transport experts but I would argue that in the end, it doesn't really matter - the "no" vote was probably inevitable and trying to do this kind of thing by referendum is a bit of a hopeless excercise.

Of course it's possible that what was being proposed simply didn't stack up in terms of delivering the benefits they were claiming it would deliver, and if I were to see someone who knew what they were talking about explain why, then I'd be perfectly prepared to listen. I haven't seen anyone coming close to doing that on this thread though.

I think it's pretty clear to most people what a congestion charge is! the principle of it is hardly complex, after all.

But evidently what happened is that a lot of people didn't believe that the congestion charge would be matched with sufficient improvements to public transport. Perhaps they were wrong to think so, but perhaps they weren't. Perhaps attachment to being able to drive without paying a charge did play a part in people voting against - indeed, I'm sure it did in some cases - but that's probably inevitable.

I don't think that people would just have accepted having a CC foisted upon them without consultation, and FWIW I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. For some people it'd be a considerable expense, and using public transport in its present state to avoid the charge would be a considerable inconvenience.

Like you, I would be interested in seeing more detail on why the charge was rejected, though.