Manchester Congestion Charge Referendum

[Rick]

I can confirm that the train services from Rochdale to Manchester via Oldham will cease as of October 2009 and will not recommence for 3 years, so those of us who use the train already to go to work are being forced onto the roads while they convert the line. Incidentally, the stopper from Oldham Mumps to Manchester Vic take 19 mnis and all but the Autumn timetable. Anyone confirm how much longer the tram will take to make the same journey?

 

PS Funding is ALREADY| in place for the Metrolink extension from Manchester To Rochdale, it's only the extra section which diverts through the town cente which is subject to TIF.

 

That's what I was going to say too....The proposed Metrolink expansion adds just 18 miles of track (the extensions to the airport and Trafford Park) but accounts for around half of the councils' total transport spend under TIF - a massive £1.2 billion. Virtually all of the Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside extensions have already been funded and will be built regardless of the TIF package. Is 18 miles of extra track really the best way to spend £1.2 billion?

 

So vote YES, if you want everyone to fund extensions to Manny Airport and Trafford Park. This is fundamentally what you are voting either For or Against.

[Hometownclub]

Also, can we confirm whether the Metrolink covers Castleton, Mill Hill and Moston? Because trams and trains will need to share the track and I'm not sure that's doable. I suspect Metrolink will only cover the Oldham side of the loop.

The Metrolink doesn't cover any of those Stations.

 

It comes up from Victoria through to Rochdale via Oldham.

 

Proposed stops will be Monsall, Central Park, Dean Lane, Failsworth, Hollinwood, South Chadderton, Freehold, Werneth, Oldham Mumps, Derker, Shaw & Crompton, Newhey, Milnrow, Kingsway, Newbold, Rochdale.

[Ackey]

Regarding Tram size. When I lived in sale a rush hour commute on the Met would at worst involve missing one tram, waiting upto a max of 10 minutes for one I could get on and took around 15minutes to make town. This compared to a 41 bus which took at least 60 minutes, often 90 in bad traffic!

 

As part of the original budget there was money allocated to introduce rush hour trams, which had additional standing space. Allowing for almost double the people per Met.

[stewrat]

Regarding Tram size. When I lived in sale a rush hour commute on the Met would at worst involve missing one tram, waiting upto a max of 10 minutes for one I could get on and took around 15minutes to make town. This compared to a 41 bus which took at least 60 minutes, often 90 in bad traffic!

 

As part of the original budget there was money allocated to introduce rush hour trams, which had additional standing space. Allowing for almost double the people per Met.

I attended one of the propoganda events and the transport people admitted that in day time there would be less seats per hour on the metro than on the trains from Shaw which are currently every 15 minutes. Only in the evening after 6 pm would the situation improve. So when you don't pay the congestion charge you would get an improvement.

The bus improvements for Shaw are very minimal.

The original metro scheme was for Oldham to have its centre based on Union Street with a cultural quarter on one side and the shoppiung centre on the other witha bus station and metro station in between. The cultural centre has died a death and the bus station has been built on the other side of the shopping centre so is useless as an interchange. Moving the station to the site of the old Central station where there would be room for park and ride and sticking with trains would have been much more cost effective. When asked why they had not done this they said they would have had to buy more trains and improve the line and signalling.

When asked what difference that made as they were buying trams and completely rebuil;ding the lines and signalling they admitted that that was a good alternative but the had already spent millions on work in North Manchester when they had been previousl promised the money. In point of fact this current government has announced the funding for the metro extension 4 previous times and on all occasions had reneged on the promise as soon as a local election had passed.

There are over 1200 schools in Greater Manchester. Which ones get 1 yellow bus.

This is a scheme by an organisation that in various guises has been promising an integrated transport system since 1970. It has singularly failed to provide one or even get the political will to start the task.

AT the end we will have massive debts and a still inadequate public transport system where all the extra cash has been squandered and the bus companies will be even richer than they are now.

The charges will not affect me. I have my free pass and do not have to go to work.

I think that it is immoral to ask people who will not recieve the benefits of the system to pay for the people who will. We either all pay for it through council taxes or those who use it pay by their fares.

I have voted no and I have only pity for people who think that shovelling the cost onto other people is good because of some belief that this will help the environment.

If you really want to do that then the real way to do it is to ban all private cars in Manchester and give free public transport to all paid for out of local taxes.

Now all you Yes voters, are you prepared to do that? I assume you will not be as this is only a good idea if someone else is paying.

The reality is that we will all end up paying as costs will increase which will be passed on to us. Companies will move from Manchester to cities that do not have the charge. People will be put out of work. This is a policy disaster made by people who do not think out the consequences of their ideas. Most of the congestion has been caused by the very councils who now wish to take advantage of it to tax us all.

In all the propoganda there is no mention of the fact that when the extra metro lines are built that futher charging zones are to be introduced on the Rochdale, Oldham Aston corridor to help pay for them or that further charges are to be introduced arounf Manchester Airport.

As I said the proposals do not affect me so far but they may do then. If you want to know what it will be like on a tram from ldham in the rush hour I suggest you try to get on one as the cricket finishes at Old Trafford between 6 and 6.30. A series of trams from Altrincham will pull up which are already full and if you are lucky you just may eventually get to squeeze on one and stand crushed together until you get to Victoria and peopl;e, get out to get onto......trains.

[rudemedic]

As someone who probably lives closest to an already in use Congestion Charge zone, (the London branch of OASIS would do well to remember that Durham was the first city in the country to have a congestion charge) I can tell you the amount of effect it has had on that bit of Durham's traffic- zero. I would guess by observation 99% of those people who go into the congestion charge zone live there or are visiting people that live there. Admittedly Durham's congestion charge zone is tiny and would take about 10 minutes to walk across but that's what congestion charges are supposed to be about.

 

Now moving on to the current plans for the one in Manchester. In my last act as a registered voter of Heywood (I'm changing my registration next year- I get most of my money from Tax payers in Heywood and being a student I don't pay council tax in Durham so thought voting in Heywood is more apt). I voted No. I agree with the policy in principle that those people who want to use their cars to go to work in the morning and come home in the evening should maybe have to pay more (bearing in mind that a lot of people still have to pay for their parking). However for the area to include all that inside the M60 (plus other bits - like the Simister off-shoot) is wrong. My parents house is about 7 minutes from the M60, but what do my parents get for having to pay for the priveledge of crossing the M60- nothing. Heywood is not getting a Metrolink (despite it being bigger and closer to Manchester than a lot of places which are), the bus service from near my parents house to Manchester is not great- one bus route which goes every 10 minutes but takes over an hour for a journey which should only take 30 minutes as it goes round the houses and goes from a bus stop which is at least 15 minute walk from my parent's house or a bus which goes every hour (admittedly it goes twice an hour twice a day) which isn't exactly frequent. Now what would my parents have to pay for in terms of crossing the M60, the nearest Metrolink station for one, their nearest Sainsbury's, the nearest hospital (and where my Dad used to work and where if I was to work anywhere in Manchester would be top of the list, which doesn't have a bus link to close enough from anywhere mear my parent's house).

 

I have no problem with them introducing a charge to go into the City centre and would have happily voted for that even if it lasted all day. (I'd get the very infrequent bus or park at a convienient Metro stop and take that in- something I do 50% of the time if I'm going to Manchester alone anyway). Like someone already said the congestion charge zone in London is not inside the M25 its for very central London and most of the people who go there already use public transport to do so and thay have a lot more stops within the area. When Ken changed the plans to include a larger area and for it to be dependent on size of car that is when he became unstuck (and some political people would argue why Boris Johnson is now Mayor), even so the larger area wasn't much larger than the area of the inner ring for Manchester.

 

A point has been made that the congestion charge will not affect big business, but I will be a monkey's uncle if the Sainsbury's at heaton park (currently inside the outer congestion charge zone- although I wouldn't be surprised if it was convieiently to become the border) and the stores in the same place loose money. As why would people pay to go shopping at one supermarket when they can go elsewhere for free. A lot of fuss has been made about people getting money for visiting an NHS premises via crossing a charge area, but if you want a well run NHS this is the last thing you want as it will become someone's (more than likely more than one person) responsibility to sort out the forms and make sure people aren't fiddling the system. Plus it will add time in terms of red tape that clinicians (ie the people who see patients) have to spend instead of seeing patients (the argument of whether the NHS is better or not since 1997 is one which I have a good, educated, based on first hand experience, opinion on is for another time). All of which will add to the cost of the NHS without improving patient care. Plus if patients get money to go to a hospital why shouldn't the people that work there get some money (or things like outpatient appointments start when the congestion charging is no longer in effect). If nurses are getting money why shouldn't fireman or policeman. If some public sector workers are getting money why not all public sector workers and if public sector workers are getting money why not private sector workers after all it doesn't matter who you are working for the same amount of tax is paid.

 

If you want me (or my Dad having spoken to him about it) to vote for something which will gives us no benefit despite costing extra then I suggest you look at where the transport system is not improved (Heywood is not the only area but it is the one I'm most familiar with) or you make the area a whole lot smaller and allow for park and ride (something not catered for in current plans). Not having looked closely but I would imagine all Manchester's hospitals which are inside the outer ring are outside the inner ring. I know the greater good argument is one which has been branded about but for those people who don't get any benefit to vote for this scheme is like getting a turkey to vote for xmas.

[real]

12 pages means no-one's probably going to read this.

 

NO.

 

I live a bout 100 yds inside the outer ring. Kids go to school outside.

 

If I have a day off and run the kids to school I have to pay for the 1 mile journey home.

 

Someone from Shaw cn drive 7/8 miles to hollinwood and pay nothing. Who causes more pollution, traffic and congestion?

 

Is it really that bad on the hollinwood / failsworth borded compared to roads into oldham? So why pick that border, it's not even anywhare near Mcr - and notice how the "yes" campaign concentrate on it being "mancheser city centre" that means you have to pay - er, no - that's a LIE.

 

Live in Chadd or Hollins and work in failsworth - ohh pay for the 2 mile journey twice a day.

 

And now red-nose says it's a good idea - if he spends the next 12 months useing buses, I migth start listening to the rich man who drive a fuel guzzling car all over the place.

 

It's all a load of *%##%&$

 

Rant off/

[Jumping Jimmy Thunder]

whodathowtit? Best read on this board for a long time. I've barely glanced up to watch Liverpool v West Ham.

 

I live in Chad but work in Manchester city centre. I mostly travel by bus, but once a week drive in. When I initially heard of these proposals I was all for them, but having read up on what is actually planned, I am amazed at the lack of foresight and at the financial cost of minimal improvements.

 

I lived in Helsinki for a year in the mid 90s and the public transport system there, then, was better than what is being proposed for Manchester in 2013. I'm also very fearful of allowing the councilors of the various boroughs a mandate to spend this sort of money. I think a lot of them are a bit daft.

 

I'm voting 'no'. Actually I already have.

[Prendy_1984]

Real you could walk your kids to school. I never understand why there are many cars outside primary schools when most people live within walking distance of them.

[oafc0000]

Ive read every page of this discussion and I can summarise the NO vote as follows:

• Its going to cost me money so not a chance...
• I cant be arsed lowering myself to using public transport...
• I dont trust the government...
• It wont lower congestion (even though its going to cost people about £100+ a month on top of what they already pay - the mind boggles how people think it wont have a impact lol)

I wonder what the worlds going to look like in 25 years time... Its kind of scary to think about really... Oh well, we will all be lying in the bed we make for ourselves.... Edited December 2, 2008 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Real you could walk your kids to school. I never understand why there are many cars outside primary schools when most people live within walking distance of them.

 

Combination of cotton wool children and lazy parents unprepared to make changes...

 

People seem to not understand that its the pointless 1 mile journeys that are one of the biggest problem and which has lead to us needing to take action...

Edited December 2, 2008 by oafc0000

[stewrat]

Combination of cotton wool children and lazy parents unprepared to make changes...

 

People seem to not understand that its the pointless 1 mile journeys that are one of the biggest problem and which has lead to us needing to take action...

Many of these one mile journeys to school are by parents whose only way to get children to school and then get to work on time is to use a car. I note you live in Warrington so you are obviously well placed to comment on things that don't concern you. Like all the green Mafia you do not consider other peoples logistical problems relevant and think all car owners are rich barstewards who deserve to be taxed. If you were really interested in the environment then you would ban the car not tax it as experience has shown that taxing it does not lead to less overall use just more tax revenue. This would also include taxi's and private hire cars as they are just as polluting per mile as a car. Now of course all those people could not fit onto your wonderful transport system as envisaged by the cretinous GMPTE. They have now had over 30 years to improve our transport system and they are still not allowed to discriminate between forms of transport and are forced to subsidise competing journeys between bus, tram, and train. If you choose to belief that after all these years they are going to grasp the nettle and take on the now mighty bus companies so we can achieve a properly integrated transport system then I would vote no just because you are voting yes. I suggest you walk to Munich (must not increase our carbon foot print) and see what a really efficient and integrated system looks like. They of course have had this system for many years and it has been kept in good order not allowed to decay like much of our system.

Your acceptance of the propoganda of GMPTE means you are being paid to spout their lies or you are stupid. The real reason for the tax is not to do with transport improvement or congestion but a commitment Gordon Brown has made to the Eu to purchase the use of the European GPS. This is a very costly plan to have a system to rival the already in place and free to use American GPS system. They somehow convinced themselves that private companies would rush to pay for what they can get for free from the Americans just because it was European. Having failed to get a single private company to sign up they have forced all European countries to agee to find a way to use the system and pay for its use so it will not look the white elephant it is. Mr Brown has agreed to road pricing throughout Britain using the GPS system. Still at least it will let him know where we all are 24 hours a day.

[outoftheblue]

Ive read every page of this discussion and I can summarise the NO vote as follows:

You have skimmed the countless facts and figures placed before you, and chosen to assume these are people's only fears:[

list]

[*]Its going to cost me money so not a chance...

Enough money has been wasted - people are not against congestion charges per se. They believe that the alternative travel proposals are hugely flawed, the charging area is unnecessarily large and unfair, and the figures don't add up (which can only mean one thing; higher local taxes)

 

[*]I cant be arsed lowering myself to using public transport...

Parents have to manage their time much more carefully than they used to. If my daughter was one of the 90% of children who weren't fortunate enough to have one of the 9 new yellow buses taking her to school, then I would need to take two buses plus a tram to drop her off and then get to work (As well as having to leave her alone in an empty playground an hour earlier than I do at present. We cannot all walk out of the house and jump on a bus/tram - Most of us would be delighted to do so, but the proposals do not meet the requirements of the public at large by a long way.

 

[*]I dont trust the government...

Please don't tell me you are naive enough to trust the government? 162 stealth taxes since Labour came to power (And probably as many under the Tories), and you think they are not looking for ways to increase revenue?

Government figures never add up. They work on the principle of "If it doesn't work we can always increase taxes to pay for it".

 

[*]It wont lower congestion (even though its going to cost people about £100+ a month on top of what they already pay - the mind boggles how people think it wont have a impact lol)

No it won't. As I've pointed out in a previous post (Which you say you've read) even the Governments own official figures state that traffic has lessened in the last 6 months in 11 out of Manchesters 14 districts. It will only increase the congestion on the motorways (Where the REAL problems are).

If people were to change their shift patterns then surely that would only move congestion to a different time too (Thereby giving the councils a reason to extend the charging times further).

 

I wonder what the worlds going to look like in 25 years time... Its kind of scary to think about really... Oh well, we will all be lying in the bed we make for ourselves....

It will look like it did 25 years earlier - only enhanced by 25 years of technological advances.

Maybe the government would have been forced to spend public money more wisely and public transport will have had proper investment in 25 years? People may be prepared to dig a little deeper into their pockets if they are confident the money is being used properly.

I have used the Mass Rapid Transport systems in Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, several American cities, Kuala Lumpur, Sydney, many European cities and more - and I think they are fabulous. The difference is, they all cover much smaller areas and were all in place before their Governments decided to charge drivers who weren't prepared to use them.

 

This current proposal is expensive, ineffective, and seiously lacking in alternative methods of travelling in / out of Manchester.

 

The moment Manchester agrees to this ridiculous proposal, every other major City (And many towns) will jump on the band wagon and introduce congestion charges, forcing up manufacturing costs and further extending the impending recession.

 

It is clear that you are vehemently for the C-charge oafc0000, and I admire your fight, but you are not going to change the opinions of those who have seen the facts and realised the outcome and knock-on effects of accepting it.

[OldhamSheridan]

No charge to people who use motor cycles... why do they fly in and out of Manchester??? or use the same road with two wheels instead of four.

 

Is this not because the registration recognition cameras are for the front of vehicles only (like the average speed ones on motorways), something which motorbikes lack*.

 

 

 

*A number plate that is. Not a whole front, as that would be a motorunike.

Edited December 2, 2008 by OldhamSheridan

[johnny punkster]

Is this not because the registration recognition cameras are for the front of vehicles only (like the average speed ones on motorways), something which motorbikes lack*.

 

 

 

*A number plate that is. Not a whole front, as that would be a motorunike.

 

 

i think its more because of :

a/ they use up less road space and are not considered a road congestion problem.

b/ they are of much smaller engine size and thus not petrol guzzlers.

[Lags]

I don't go into Manchester so am going a big selfish......YES. Even if it just mucks up the red scum fans cuttin across town from Oldham to the match (well those that go!)

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

I don't go into Manchester so am going a big selfish......YES. Even if it just mucks up the red scum fans cuttin across town from Oldham to the match (well those that go!)

 

It won't affect them really as most matches won't be in peak hours. It's quite sad if people are just going to use their vote in thinking they're going to just try and 'get at' Man United fans, the whole congestion charge debate means much more than that.

[Gaz_Oafc]

Ive read every page of this discussion and I can summarise the NO vote as follows:

• It wont lower congestion (even though its going to cost people about £100+ a month on top of what they already pay - the mind boggles how people think it wont have a impact lol)

 

Again, as has been mentioned numerous times, if THIS was the real reason c-charge was being brought in, in the first place, then it would be flawed from the start. Councils NEED people to continue to drive as normal to pay for the huge loans and interest to ''improve'' public transport. It’s NOT being brought in to ease congestion!

[outoftheblue]

I don't go into Manchester so am going a big selfish......YES. Even if it just mucks up the red scum fans cuttin across town from Oldham to the match (well those that go!)

It wouldn't affect them on Sat or Sun (No charges - yet!)

CL and cup / midweek matches wouldn't affect them unless they went very early.

I'd rather just see a heavy tax on anyone entering Old Trafford.

[Matt]

I don't go into Manchester so am going a big selfish......YES. Even if it just mucks up the red scum fans cuttin across town

 

Which it won't do. Surely people can't be voting with this kind of rationale?

 

Believe it or not, I think I'll base my vote on a lot of the debate on here - I've got a couple of days left to digest the points (nearly said facts there, very nearly) then I'll vote.

[leeslover]

Is this not because the registration recognition cameras are for the front of vehicles only (like the average speed ones on motorways), something which motorbikes lack*.

*A number plate that is. Not a whole front, as that would be a motorunike.

Nah, wouldn't be that. To be fair to the proposal on this one, motorbikes are much less polluting and add far less to congestion than cars, although they do add greatly to annoyance. For this last reason I would target cyclists before anyone, apart from attractive girls in summertime.

[Lags]

Nope I wont be voting just on scum fans for gods sake! still voting YES thou

[Guest M_OAFC]

Ive read every page of this discussion and I can summarise the NO vote as follows:

 

Its going to cost me money so not a chance...

 

It's not paying that most no voters object to, it's having to pay when there is no viable alternative and these proposals are not going to provide that. If it was paying that drivers objected to then they would already be leaving their cars at home because they already make far larger tax contributions than public transport users via road tax, petrol etc but the governmnet chooses not to invest that in either the road or public transport networks.

 

I cant be arsed lowering myself to using public transport...

 

Nobody has ever said that. That is simply you choosing to believe what you want to believe.

 

All people are saying is that there is a limit to the extremes they are prepared to go to in order to travel by public transport and the journeys some people are required to make will, if made by public transport, still take hours and involve several changes even after these proposals come in.

 

They object therefore to having the cost of driving further and substantially increased when no viable alternative is being offered.

 

But at no point has anybody said they wouldn't lower themselves to use public transport. I'm sure that plenty of motorists would much rather use public transport if it became a realistic alternative, but for the vast majority of people these proposals will not make it one.

 

It wont lower congestion

 

It won't, because most of the people currently causing any congestion there may be will still have no viable alternative and will continue to drive.

 

I dont trust the government...

 

Can you blame us?

 

The above points have been made to you time and again by several people throughout this thread but you continually choose to deliberately interpret them in a manner far removed form their true meaning in order to keep perpetuating your myths.

 

Every time a no voter makes a point that it is difficult to deny the validity off you instead resort to simply calling us all selfish based on no evidence at all, and to deliberately miscontruing our points to try and make no voters sound like the unreasonable, tyranical monsters you'd like everyone to believe they are but are unable to through reasoned debate.

 

There's nothing wrong with you believing these proposals to be a good thing, and if you want to make constructive points about how the proposlas will address the concerns that are causing people to vote no then you will find plenty of people willing to constructively debate them with you.

 

But at the moment, every time a no voter raises one of the points that is causing them to vote no, instead of explaining why you beleive the proposals will address that concern you just resort to mud slinging.

 

I wonder what the worlds going to look like in 25 years time

 

Well if these proposals are supposed to be the answer to all our transport problems then I share your fear

Edited December 2, 2008 by M_OAFC

[real]

Real you could walk your kids to school. I never understand why there are many cars outside primary schools when most people live within walking distance of them.

 

2.5 miles up Hollins road? Oh aye. With the kids carrying their bag full of books, PE kit, Footy kit etc?

 

And what about the people who live in Chad / Hollins / hathershaw / fitton hill and work just inside the zone? And why is it so wide? and isn't it really to catch a certain number of people rather than to target congestion? There's more in other places in "greater manchester" but no charge there.

 

Ever check the bus timetable for say Failsworth to Ashton or to Stockport? Compared with a car?

That's why people use cars. And the metrolink won't touch those journeys, nor will the buses.

 

Failsworth will benefit from: Erm, having a metrolink on the trainline. So, pretty much no change. But it will lose jobs, 'cos who would like to try to attract emplyees within the zone? No chance. It's so far out of the thinking zone it's unreal.

The london zone has a fully establ;ished, fully developed commercial and working area within it, with barely a house plot to develop new business on.

90% of the manchester zone has serious emplyment issues.

[oafc0000]

2.5 miles up Hollins road? Oh aye. With the kids carrying their bag full of books, PE kit, Footy kit etc?

 

Plenty of buses go up and down Hollins road.....not an option ?

Edited December 2, 2008 by oafc0000

[real]

Plenty of buses go up and down Hollins road.....not an option ?

 

Yes, and it's an option they use sometimes. But you what, I don't understand why a part of what is termed "greater manchester" should have to pay to run their lives in the same way as other people in other parts of "greater manchester" especially when they are not greater, and in many cases are lesser, contributors to the traffic problems.

 

People of Shaw, Royton, saddleworth, Rochdale, Bury, Bolton, lots of Stockport, Wythenshawe, Ashton, Hyde, Denton etc can drive here there and everywhere, kids to school, shoppping and back to home, nip up the road and back again, whatever you want, No Charge.

Can people within the zone do it?

 

So, 1 simple question to the pro-chargers who drive. Would you vote for a pay-per-mile across the whole country or are you a hypocrite?

 

A voting system that clearly states that 9 out of 10 people can vote for 1 out of ten to pay is some sort or perverted take on democracy.

 

I suggest we should pick a few towns outside the zone that comprise 1 in 10 of the greater mcr population and tell them they'll have to pay, see how they vote then?