Manchester Congestion Charge Referendum

[KYLEOAFC]

You could also argue that for about 5000 years or so people made do with their feet or the feet of a donkey or any other pack animal to get about. It is only in the last hundred or so years that the car has been around, now cities are designed around them rather than the people who drive them.

 

 

I agree that Manchester is a Modern city living within a Victorian infrastructure but 'TIF' isn’t the answer to your concerns or the city's problems that it makes out to be.

[beag_teeets]

If these are you reasons to vote yes, trust me its a wasted vote.

 

The M6 toll is a private road that’s subject to the highway regulations in relation to the highway code etc, MANCHESTER WILL NEVER GET A PRIVATE TOLL ROAD UNDER THESE PROPOSALS FACT.

 

 

My reasons for voting yes are many and varied, not just because I like the M6 toll - funnily enough I was actually against that when it was being built, I pay enough taxes why should I subsidise the building of a "private" road, I was still against it when my mate took me on it on a drive south one time but after enjoying the benefits I changed my opinion. Some people will never go on it as they can't afford (or won't pay) the money it costs to go on it but they can use an alternative route.

 

I know we won't get an equivalent road in Manchester, I was just using it as an example of road charging bring benefits.

[leeslover]

You could also argue that for about 5000 years or so people made do with their feet or the feet of a donkey or any other pack animal to get about. It is only in the last hundred or so years that the car has been around, now cities are designed around them rather than the people who drive them.

It's quite a new thing for cities to be designed at all, and the main beneficiaries have been planning officers, those who get the contracts to massively overspend on public works or those who win contracts to manage public transport systems. Large landowners tend to come out on the winning side as well.

[beag_teeets]

I agree that Manchester is a Modern city living within a Victorian infrastructure but 'TIF' isn’t the answer to your concerns or the city's problems that it makes out to be.

 

Aye, I agree there, I don't agree that doing nothing is either.

 

I would be very surprised if it actually got through, hope more that there is a sufficient yes vote for an alternative scheme to be put together - then we will have the "don't knock building x and y down to build a road" campaign.

[KYLEOAFC]

Lets face it humans are awful... Where like parasites... Attaching onto every resource the planet has and consuming it towards destruction... But hey its our right....

 

As a people we think taking our kids 2 miles up the road to school in your Chelsea tractors is more important than actually doing something right for once

 

People say its enough enough... But its a start.... And if its going to happen anyway...why not take the bag of money while its on offer...

 

Bag of money? we have to pay it back hence the congestion charge!!!!

If there was a bag of money this post wouldn’t exist as there wouldn’t be a congestion charge!!!

Notice the congestion problem/charge suddenly came about when central government pulled the plug on the Metro link?

 

It’s the only way AGMA could persuade government to cough the cash up, and we have to pay it back unlike the London under ground!!!!

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

I've kept out of this so far but this has made me want to comment. Firstly I think I am going to vote yes, not as convinced this is the right thing to do as I was a few weeks ago but still think it is the way forward.

 

Speaking of toll roads - my favourite road (yes I've got one) is the M6 toll, it is bloody lovely, smooth, clear, nice scenery well maintained and a pleasure to drive on. I had to go down to Wales over the weekend and was disappointed I couldn't use the Toll road. If this is what we will get with the congestion charge then bring it on.

 

The reason I think voting yes is the right thing to do is that there are too many cars on the road getting in everyone's way, I hate sitting in traffic shuffling along the road coming up to busy junctions then the road clearing till the next junction all the way to town. Same if not worse on the way back from town. I changed the time I start and finish work so that I can attempt to miss the worst of it but I still get caught up in bloody traffic. The idea as far as I can see it is to charge people in the hope it does get some of them out of their cars, it is supposed to be an inconvenience so the save yourself some cash argument doesn't work on me. If you want to drive in the zone you can do but it will cost, granted some people will be up the creek as they need their car but some people will benefit, I believe the benefiters are the greater number.

 

If we do nothing the situation will not get better, it will get worse. Whatever happens we are looking at increased costs for motoring, petrol will be about £2.50 a litre before not too long, give it about 5 years or so and we will long for the days of £2.18!

 

The no argument doesn't add up to me, just seems to be vote no and save yourself a bit of cash. The actual answer to the problem has already been put on here, can't find the post but the bloke who said we are a victim of our own success - Manchester is an old city and we are trying to live in a modern way in it and it isn't working. What is needed is a massive investment in the whole area and some joined up thinking, we need to lose a load of buildings and build a better road/rail/tram/bus/bike/pedestrian/communications - however people and things are transported network. We need to look at where we want to be and work out how to get there, not come up with some half assed attempt at fixing the problem.

 

Yes Tone, well explained old bean. I'm really not sure on your connection with the M6 toll and a huge congestion charging zone around Manchester though. They're completely different things; one offers an option to everyone, one doesn't. It's proper naive to suggest it'll have the same effect because they won't. The biggest injustice that I can see is people getting charged who just don't have a viable way of getting to work (i.e. those that work in business estates within the zone and not near a decent bus/tram/train route). That for me just ain't on.

 

Having kept reading this thread, it seems clear that most people just think the congestion zone is far, far too big. Thus meaning the congestion fee itself isn't the issue, it's the wide area it covers rather than where the congestion is at its worse which is in and around the city centre itself, and not the environs 4 and 5 miles further afield.

 

Just another quick question to anyone that knows. The worst traffic congestion that I'm aware of within the Greater Manchester sphere is the M60 between the M66 past Simister and towards the M61/M602. It's traditionally been an absolute nightmare round there so would this fall inside or outside the proposed congestion zone?

[Guest M_OAFC]

Speaking of toll roads - my favourite road (yes I've got one) is the M6 toll

 

The M6 toll is a different kettle of fish all together because at least you are giving people a choice.

 

I personally would choose not to use it because only a fraction of the amount of revenue generated from road tax is reinvested in the road network. If it is subsequently deemed necessary to build a second branch of the M6 then I don't see why motorists should then be asked to pay again to use it when they haven't even spent the money you've already given them.

 

However what I will happily admit with the M6 toll is that they have provided a viable alternative. If you feel it is wrong/can't afford/don't want to pay, then using the standard M6 to get to where you need to go is a perfectly practical and reasonable alternative.

 

And that's the difference, these Greater Manchester proposals are not offering a realistic alternative. The so called improvements are of little or no use to a huge portion of the population of Greater Manchester effectively forcing you to pay extra for nothing.

 

it is bloody lovely, smooth, clear, nice scenery well maintained and a pleasure to drive on. If this is what we will get with the congestion charge then bring it on.

 

If only!!! Like I said, they don't spend the money they already get from motorists on the roads. You've not a prayer of ever seeing them spend anything this congestion charge raises on building roads of that quality.

 

The reason I think voting yes is the right thing to do is that there are too many cars on the road getting in everyone's way

 

And there still will be even if they bring the charge in

 

The no argument doesn't add up to me, just seems to be vote no and save yourself a bit of cash

 

But if you are going to be asked to spend some additional cash, and a significant amount at that, is it not reasonable to want to know what you are going to get for it? If the answer is next to nothing then why should you vote for it?

 

What is needed is a massive investment in the whole area and some joined up thinking, we need to lose a load of buildings and build a better road/rail/tram/bus/bike/pedestrian/communications - however people and things are transported network. We need to look at where we want to be and work out how to get there, not come up with some half assed attempt at fixing the problem

 

I couldn't agree more with you on that, that is precisely what is needed, but unfortunately these proposals are exactly the kind of half arsed attempt at fixing the problem that you mentioned.

[oafc0000]

Just another quick question to anyone that knows. The worst traffic congestion that I'm aware of within the Greater Manchester sphere is the M60 between the M66 past Simister and towards the M61/M602. It's traditionally been an absolute nightmare round there so would this fall inside or outside the proposed congestion zone?

 

The roads themselves are outside the charging zone but you would imagine a reasonable amount of the cars using them roads may well be heading into the city so you could get a knock on effect if people stop driving into the city....

Edited December 2, 2008 by oafc0000

[Gaz_Oafc]

The roads themselves are outside the charging zone but you would imagine a reasonable amount of the cars using them roads may well be heading into the city so you could get a knock on effect if people stop driving into the city....

 

Sorry to keep going round in circles, but isnt this the very thing the council/government/TIF DONT want to happen?? Otherwise how else would this huge amount of debt be paid off. Im still yet to gain an answer to this?

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

The roads themselves are outside the charging zone but you would imagine a reasonable amount of the cars using them roads may well be heading into the city so you could get a knock on effect if people stop driving into the city....

 

Nah, don't buy that mate. If you're heading for the city centre from, the M66 area say, you come off at Simister and head down Bury New Road. I'm sure the majority of people using that route are heading towards either the M61 (Bolton/Preston), The M60 round Trafford Park/Manc Airport) or the M62/M6 (Liverpool/Warrington etc.). In fact the only people heading into the congestion zone from there then, will be people going for Salford Quays, which in no way is the majority.

 

This is one of the reasons why the congestion charging has not been properly thought out thus far.

[oafc0000]

One incorrect argument that keeps going around and around is how congestion wont reduce....

 

Can someone explain to me how many people driving into Manchester can find a extra £100 a month to carry on doing it ?

 

From where I am sat that's going to impact a lot of people....

 

I do actually feel sorry for the SMALL amount of people who have no efficient way of travelling around... But if the LARGE amount of people who do actually have a reasonable alternative actually used that option instead of being selfish there would be no need for this charge...

 

This bed is of peoples own making I feel

[oafc0000]

Sorry to keep going round in circles, but isnt this the very thing the council/government/TIF DONT want to happen?? Otherwise how else would this huge amount of debt be paid off. Im still yet to gain an answer to this?

 

If you half the number of cars on the road there will still be enough traffic on the roads to more than pay back the money.... And I think getting a 1/4 of the cars off the road is probably the best you could hope for.... I see the charges greatest victory is swaying more young people to stick to public transport rather than get a car.... Hopefully the improved facilities will help...

Edited December 2, 2008 by oafc0000

[oafc0000]

Nah, don't buy that mate. If you're heading for the city centre from, the M66 area say, you come off at Simister and head down Bury New Road. I'm sure the majority of people using that route are heading towards either the M61 (Bolton/Preston), The M60 round Trafford Park/Manc Airport) or the M62/M6 (Liverpool/Warrington etc.). In fact the only people heading into the congestion zone from there then, will be people going for Salford Quays, which in no way is the majority.

 

 

To be fair I dont drive so I wouldnt really know the routes would take so I will have to accept what you say...

 

This is one of the reasons why the congestion charging has not been properly thought out thus far.

 

So you would like to see a even larger congestion zone ?

[leeslover]

Having kept reading this thread, it seems clear that most people just think the congestion zone is far, far too big. Thus meaning the congestion fee itself isn't the issue, it's the wide area it covers rather than where the congestion is at its worse which is in and around the city centre itself, and not the environs 4 and 5 miles further afield.

The issues are the same with a smaller zone, but the effects increase exponentially the further out it goes. London's covers little more than government buildings, tourist sites and facilities and major corporate locations, and the service industry which supports them. Add to this that 70% of workers commute to central London by public transport and you see that it is a completely different proposition to one with major residential areas. If you have reason to drive into central London in operational hours and are willing to pay to park, you can afford the charge.

 

With this example, you will have corner shops either side of the line. I know which one I would go to. Likewise any number of small businesses that will be no more of a drive for many people - they will still drive to the shop, they will just turn left instead of right and go to another one. With the vagueries of local geography this will happen in many unpredictable ways all round the zone. No doubt people will drive quite a way longer to avoid the charge, this increasing pollution.

 

The real funny thing is that if business ends up moving out of Manchester, they will go to places which are much more easily accessible by car... Large town and city centres are the only place you can feasibly attract a large and multi-skilled workforce to without most of them driving. Well intentioned reformers all too often end up with the opposite of what they hoped to achieve.

[beag_teeets]

Blimey O'Reilly, I just went on about the M6 toll road as someone had mentioned it, not basing my reasoning on it, still, it is a nice road.

 

As for the people who live nowhere near a bus stop but have to get to somewhere else, I haven't got the answers, just my opinion. Omelets and eggs I think.

 

If there was an easy answer to the issues I'm sure other cities would have done it by now. Boston did "The Big Dig" and built loads of miles of roads underground at the cost of billions of dollars.

 

As I've said, I don't agree with all the proposals nor do I think it will fix all the problems but I think the status quo is worse and a backwards step for a city that once led the world.

 

I guess the zone is so big as wherever it was put people would complain so they have put it as big as they can with M60.

[oafc0000]

I do find comparing Greater Manchester with London to be totally pointless....

 

They are very different cities with very different schemes....

[oafc0000]

As for the people who live nowhere near a bus stop but have to get to somewhere else, I haven't got the answers, just my opinion. Omelets and eggs I think.

 

Lets focus on these people for a moment. Some on here would have people imagine that vast numbers of people dont live near a bus route when in reality the vast majority do!!

 

Now the ones that dont tend to live in well off area outside of built up areas. These people are the sort of people the charge will have little effect on there pocket.

 

The real fact is that many people do have viable public transport near by but choose to use there car because its easier and faster and goes door to door....

Edited December 2, 2008 by oafc0000

[beag_teeets]

I do find comparing Greater Manchester with London to be totally pointless....

 

They are very different cities with very different schemes....

 

I wouldn't recommend mentioning a certain road through the midlands either!

[Gaz_Oafc]

One incorrect argument that keeps going around and around is how congestion wont reduce....

 

Can someone explain to me how many people driving into Manchester can find a extra £100 a month to carry on doing it ?

 

From where I am sat that's going to impact a lot of people....

 

I do actually feel sorry for the SMALL amount of people who have no efficient way of travelling around... But if the LARGE amount of people who do actually have a reasonable alternative actually used that option instead of being selfish there would be no need for this charge...

 

This bed is of peoples own making I feel

 

 

Ok, so congestion does reduce as the LARGE amount of people who do have a reasonable alternative, can’t afford to pay the £100 a month.

 

how do they make the massive repayment to cover the debt, interest and running costs, if a LARGE amount of people are no longer driving through the zones???

 

 

EDIT: you already gave me an answer, i was too slow lol

Edited December 2, 2008 by Gaz_Oafc

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

One incorrect argument that keeps going around and around is how congestion wont reduce....

o

Can someone explain to me how many people driving into Manchester can find a extra £100 a month to carry on doing it ?

 

From where I am sat that's going to impact a lot of people....

 

It will reduce, but driving into Manchester itself isn't all that bad to be honest, not in comparison to trying to get to Leeds on the M62 or the Simister island debacle which I mentioned earlier. It's like performing a minor operation on someone rather than cutting out the real cancer.

 

From what I gather, no-one here really doesn't have a problem with a congestion zone within the city itself, like the inner ring road (Trinity Way/Mancunian Way/Ancoats Street) for example. It's the affect it has on people making shorter, but still essential car journeys in the zone itself without viable alternatives being offered. As a stark example of the unfairness, a good mate of mine lives in a cul-de-sac in Chorlton. The proposed congestion zone starts at the end of his street so he simply has no option to pay the charge given where he works!

[leeslover]

I do find comparing Greater Manchester with London to be totally pointless....

 

They are very different cities with very different schemes....

Expand, please... As I have been publicly humiliated for the likelihood that I will never be the owner of a small business, I would love to see how your observations stand up despite the fact that you will most certainly never be a senior analyst in a parking industry scheme in a major city. The floor is your's, do feel free to quote my points on this thread as many times as you like

 

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

So you would like to see a even larger congestion zone ?

 

I can see why people get a bit vexed with you now. No, I'd like to see a solution offered to the proper problem rather than just throwing a net over Greater Manchester and hitting people in the pocket unfairly. People that simply can't afford an extra £100 per month to travel through the zone or on public transport.

[Guest M_OAFC]

By the looks of it the No vote is the way its going.... This is the problem when you let the people decide...

 

But earlier in this thread you were extolling to us all the virtues of democracy.

 

When somebody expressed concern at what this referendum was costing you defended it by telling us that it was

 

The cost of democracy my friend...

 

Not an unreasonable argument on your part to be fair.

 

The person you were debating with went on to explain that because the proposals were so inadequate he felt that the referendum ought not to be happening, thus money was being wasted on staging it. In your trademark style of deliberately misinterpreting his point to suit your own agenda, you replied:

 

What democracy isnt required?? I disagree...

 

And yet now, when you're concerned that the no vote might win, suddenly democracy is an ass and allowing the people to decide just causes nothing but problems.

 

Are we to understand from this that democracy is a wonderful thing just so long as everybody is agreeing with you, but it becomes a terrible idea when public opinion happens to differ from yours?

 

I only ask because throughout this debate you have been calling anyone that had the gall to disagree with you, ignorant and selfish.

 

So are we to understand that when the majority side of the vote has been cast exclusively by ignorant, selfish people it should be completely ignored and we should all defer to the far more caring, sharing, selfless and modest oafc0000 and let him make the decision on our behalf?

 

I'm just interested to know that's all.

[oafc0000]

But earlier in this thread you were extolling to us all the virtues of democracy.

 

When somebody expressed concern at what this referendum was costing you defended it by telling us that it was

Not an unreasonable argument on your part to be fair.

 

The person you were debating with went on to explain that because the proposals were so inadequate he felt that the referendum ought not to be happening, thus money was being wasted on staging it. In your trademark style of deliberately misinterpreting his point to suit your own agenda, you replied:

And yet now, when you're concerned that the no vote might win, suddenly democracy is an ass and allowing the people to decide just causes nothing but problems.

 

Are we to understand from this that democracy is a wonderful thing just so long as everybody is agreeing with you, but it becomes a terrible idea when public opinion happens to differ from yours?

 

I only ask because throughout this debate you have been calling anyone that had the gall to disagree with you, ignorant and selfish.

 

So are we to understand that when the majority side of the vote has been cast exclusively by ignorant, selfish people it should be completely ignored and we should all defer to the far more caring, sharing, selfless and modest oafc0000 and let him make the decision on our behalf?

 

I'm just interested to know that's all.

 

Selective quoting is a great tool

 

Like I said... Democracy is a great thing... One of the pittfalls though is the right decision isnt always come to...thats all...

[Guest M_OAFC]

Having kept reading this thread, it seems clear that most people just think the congestion zone is far, far too big. Thus meaning the congestion fee itself isn't the issue, it's the wide area it covers rather than where the congestion is at its worse which is in and around the city centre itself, and not the environs 4 and 5 miles further afield.

 

I think that's a pretty fair summary.

 

There can't be too many people in Greater Manchester that would have great difficulty reaching the centre of Manchester in reasonable time by train/tram/bus, but the percentage of Greater Manchester's population that work in the centre of Manchester isn't all that big. Hence the journeys a lot of people are making are just not viable by public transport.