Despite clear opposition from the majority of Manchester residents, it seems our council leaders continue to express their "nanny knows best" attitudes and are marching ahead with congestion charging that will affect most people in the Manchester area in some way or another..

I have a few issues with the scheme, which largely lead me to believe that this is just another tax - pure and simple.  Having reviewed the no doubt expensive literature from the scheme that will be paid for out of my pocket in some way or another, it appears to me that the plan is designed to maximise revenue without actually benefitting the travelling and working public.

And in no particular order:

1) Why does the scheme start at the M60 (Manchester ring road)?  If the scheme is aimed at reducing congestion in Manchester the boundary should be starting inside the ring road.  This means that the area covered by the Manchester congestion charge is larger than that covered by the London charge.  Is our problem bigger than London's?  Or is it so the councils can maximise the number of travellers who will pay the charge?

2) Why does the outer ring have a higher charge than the inner ring?  Again if this scheme was to discourage travellers into Manchester itself and to reduce the knock on effect, it would be the other way around.  Or is it so the councils can maximise the number of travellers who will pay the charge?

3) Why do all the park and ride facilities exist within the outer charging ring (e.g. Ladywell park and ride on the Metrolink)?  If the scheme was to discourage city car use and to promote public transport, using park and ride facilities would be encouraged by not making drivers have to pay a congestion charge first.  Or is it so the councils can maximise the number of travellers who will pay the charge?

4) Why are all the new transport junctions inside the charging zone - this is particularly bad if your destination isn't city centre   Is this so any journey which doesn't have a destination in the city centre is so awkward that you take the car anyway so the councils can maximise the number of travellers who will pay the charge?

5) Why are the councils being disingenuous about the charge?  Figures of £2 and £1 per boundary crossing are being quoted, however, when you read the small print, this will actually be more when the scheme comes into effect.  What they aren't saying is that they are already planning to raise the price based upon those figures being subject to inflation from today.  If it actually going to cost £6-7 a day, why aren't they saying that explicitly?  Or is it that only a fiver a day sounds affordable, whereas £45 a week to stump up is actually a lot of money in anyone's books.

There's a load of guff being talked about how there will be investment into public transport befoire the charging scheme is implemented. Surely the routes and needs of the travelling public should be consulted on before we start consulting whether the idea of charging the crap out of everyone who needs to travel in order to work is a good idea?

I have serious doubts about how effective this investment will be given that Manchester, unlike London, does not own its own transport infrastructure.  Private tram, bus and train companies are going to focus on the most profitable routes and ramming as many passengers per vehicle as they can get away with  - which, as an aside is why bikes aren't allowed on the Metrolink in my view.

If you need convincing, just read their annual reports to verify this - they are focussed on shareholder value, not on providing a service to their revenue stream paying customers.

Anyway, did I mention that I think its a crap idea?