Conflict escalates between key advocates and opponents of Manchester’s C-Charge as D-Day looms for the plan and the last salvos fly from heavyweight letter writing brigades. The pro corner are espousing a ‘yes’ vote to the TIF proposals in the Guardian. They say this will deliver a “state-of-the-art transport system, help to tackle congestion, climate change and air pollution, and make Greater Manchester a better place to live, work and do business”. ‘They’ are; Tony Bosworth, Friends of the Earth, Anita Goldsmith, Greenpeace, Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport and Mikis Euripides, Asthma UK. TC notes that what they say sounds lovely at least in theory, but that there is another way of looking at this situation in practice… The opposing corner say the package is “not worthy of Britain’s second city”. They say that editorial comments in the Financial Times about the principle of road pricing have merit “but only a limited relevance in Manchester where volumes of traffic on arterial roads, far from being chronic, are actually falling” and that 20 % of 460,000 people, on average net pay of £15,000 a year, would “incur a daily charge of £6″. And, “every taxpayer will also be expected to take on a share of a £1.2bn, 30-year debt without any guarantees that congestion-charging revenues will pay this back” – and for benefits that would be “so thinly spread as to be worthless”. The ‘they’ in this corner are a cross party group of local MPs; Graham Stringer, Labour, Manchester Blackley, Graham Brady, Conservative, Altrincham and Sale, Andrew Gwynne, Labour, Denton and Reddish Andrew Stunell, Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove. TC notes the value in claimed benefits according to vogue Road Pricing scheme theory – but still believes that the majority of Mancunians will feel right to be cynical and vote accordingly this Friday.
labels and tags