‘No’ vote might not be the end

Congestion charging has been coming by design for the past ten years or more.

Witness the gradual systematic narrowing of major arterial roads from dual capacity to single file, the rephasing of traffic lights to minimise, not maximise traffic throughput, the introduction of bus lanes where there was previously no congestion, coincidence perhaps … I think not.

Let us also not forget the millions of pounds of our money spent on these ‘environmental improvements’ and maybe consider what the real purpose was.

It’s also instrumental to consider in the event of a ‘No’ vote Gordon Brown’s reassurance to AGMA officials that TIF money would still be available should AGMA wish to re-apply, but only if the new bid is broadly ‘in the spirit and nature’ of the original bid, ie congestion charging .

Looks like a ‘No’ vote might not be the end of it after all.

Some might say the revenue raised by congestion charging would revolutionise public transport, but please remember that vehicle excise duty started out in the same fashion, a tax to maintain the highways. That tax rapidly mutated to just another tax straight to the treasury.

There have been various reassurances from Lord Peter Smith that Bury wouldn’t introduce its own congestion charge , but unfortunately he won’t catagorically rule it out, merely inviting us to believe that a so-called independent co-ordinator would make any necessary changes to the scheme.

Are we really expected to believe an applicant for the job won’t be briefed on what is expected of them? Should there be a ‘Yes’ vote, how long will it be before Bury, or indeed other surrounding councils, succumb to the lure of huge sums of money per day for doing precisely nothing and lobby for their own charging zones? The temptation would be enormous.

Mark Hickson Prestwich