Madness in Madchester

jusm2 Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 10:02:17 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Why oh why are the labour councils in Manchester hell bent on introducing the congestion charge? Can't they tell when something has the potential to be the poll tax of the next decade?



Sure there will be public transport improvements but when you look at the proposals in details some places will get a few extra carriages on trains and more buses. Some places will get little more than refurbished stations! Hardly the kind of massive investment that will tempt people out of their cars. Manchester isn't London- there simply aren't the same level of public transport options (and still won't be after the investment) and for many commuters none of the improvements will actually be made to public transport they can access as they live too far away. So I reckon there will be a lot of people who will be forced to pay the charge, will have no say in the matter and will have nothing positive to show for it. There are at least 10 labour mp's with majorities of around 5,000 or less who will have voters potentially effected by the scheme and who will resent paying an extra £6 a day just to get to work! We've got a hard enough job at the next election without schemes like this which will drive (pardon the pun) people into the arms of the opposition.

tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Madness in Madchester | 12 comments (12 topical)

Re: Madness in Madchester (#1)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 07:39:07 AM GMT

I fully support the plans.

You've conveniently dismiss the benefits as simply 'some public transport improvements' - no, it's more than that. If the congestion charge gets brought in there will be £2.8bn of public transport improvements, which is the biggest injection of cash ever for public transport improvements outside of London.

The congetion charge would only apply in rush hour, NOT in the daytimes, evenings, weekends and bank holidays. Sounds fair to me and these are the kind of projects Labour folk should stand up for (as in London).

Better for the environment.
Better for those who have no access to a car.
And better for business as there will be reduced congestion and better infrastructure. That's why most businesses in the region (including Timpson's of Edward Timpson fame!) are supporting it.

The Labour leader of Manchester City Council, Richard Leese, has already said he'd support a referendum on the matter but the Tory leader of Trafford Council, Susan Williams (who is also the Tory candidate for Ruth Kelly's seat), is blocking this saying she won't abide by any Greater-Manchester-wide result.


Re: Madness in Madchester (#2)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM GMT

I am fully against the manchester congestion charge. For instance, the M60 ring road that people use to avoid going IN to the city centre is in the zone. So those of us who use the M60 to travel around the city rather than going in to the city will be hit. For instance I use the M60 to travel from outside the zone, along two junctions and back off outside the zone. I will be charged for that. Why? The M60 is there for exactly the purpose I'm using it for! That's why they built it. In future I will have to make the same journey on local roads.

Ordinary people will have to pay this out of their pockets and, if their employers reimburse them, then those costs will be passed on.

Builders are already ditching proposed projects inside the zone and are looking at sites outside the zone. Enquiries on commercial properties outside the zone are up too.

"The Labour leader of Manchester City Council, Richard Leese, has already said he'd support a referendum on the matter"

And what a beautiful piece of spin that statement is. What they have done is a masterpiece of deception. It goes like this.... the £3bn fund money is available 4 four months before the proposed referendum. Once the money is drawn you agree to be irrevocably committed to the scheme. So, we can have a referendum after we have no choice but to have the scheme because we've taken the money.

 

"the Tory leader of Trafford Council, Susan Williams (who is also the Tory candidate for Ruth Kelly's seat), is blocking this saying she won't abide by any Greater-Manchester-wide result."

Good for her. Somebody with sense. 



[ Parent ]

Re: Madness in Madchester (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:50:34 PM GMT

For instance, the M60 ring road that people use to avoid going IN to the city centre is in the zone.

Wrong. The M60 marks the boundary of the zone, but is not in the zone itself. You can drive around the M60 as much as you like in rush hours, but until you actually go INTO the zone you won't be charged.

Builders are already ditching proposed projects inside the zone and are looking at sites outside the zone.

Nonsense! The city centre is already like a building site and I suspect that will continue for many years to come. Most businesses in Manchester City Centre support the charge and vast public transport improvements. Go to UnitedCity to see that.

What they have done is a masterpiece of deception. It goes like this.... the £3bn fund money is available 4 four months before the proposed referendum. Once the money is drawn you agree to be irrevocably committed to the scheme. So, we can have a referendum after we have no choice but to have the scheme because we've taken the money.

Erm..no. If the people voted against it in a referendum, it won't go ahead. It's just a shame that Tories like Cllr. Susan Williams don't want the referendum to go ahead.

Good for her. Somebody with sense. 

So you're not prepared to accept the verdict of the people then? So be it, but don't moan when the Councillors take all the decisions.


[ Parent ]

Re: Madness in Madchester (#3)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 10:06:26 AM GMT

"...there will be £2.8bn of public transport improvements, which is the biggest injection of cash ever for public transport improvements outside of London."

Another point. Most of this is NOT a cash injection. The bulk of it, £1.8bn IIRC has to be paid back. It is a loan 


[ Parent ]

Re: Madness in Madchester (#5)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 06:43:02 PM GMT

Well actually the loan part is £1.3bn but this is being paid back from the revenues from the charge itself. So the money raised is essentially being 'ringfenced' for public transport - a good thing in my opinion.


[ Parent ]

Re: Madness in Madchester (#4)

by grimupnorth on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:08:21 AM GMT

I fully support the charge. Manchester is not London. But its city centre  is gridlocked.


Re: Madness in Madchester (#7)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 07:36:11 PM GMT

I support it. The problem is, that we can't talk about public transport, without the suspicion that we're actually talking about London. We need to heavily invest in transport for other areas as well, because it provides a justification for earmarking green taxes towards transport.

Manchester wouldn't have been trying this, if the London charge had been a disaster. 2 million more people are on buses, and 70,000 less cars are being driven into the capital. A transport revolution.


Re: Madness in Madchester (#8)

by lambethlife on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:02:16 PM GMT

I fully support this congestion charge and think they should be introduced in other cities around the country - the evidence from london is that they start people thinking about their transport habits and do lead to a change of behaviour.

As you may be aware the London zone is actually a very small percentage of the city's total area but the introduction of the congestion charge has led to a rethink by many people about their transport options in favour of public transport.

And it is right that the people who choose not to use public transport should pay for the privilege, they will already be (or should be) paying for car parking in the centre of the city and so its only a few more pounds cost.

 

These small measures start to shift the costs of car ownership to a more 'pay as you go' system as currently the bulk of the cost of car ownership is taken up with the fixed costs of insurance, road tax etc etc which are largely the same whether you drive 1,000 miles a year or 20,000 - if the costs were shifted to a more pay as you go system the costs of car ownership would be more comparable with the costs of public transport where you pay essentially up front everytime.

 

Ultimately I think the government needs to introduce a system of road charging to ensourage people to use their cars less.


Re: Madness in Madchester (#10)

by Floating voter on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 04:42:04 PM GMT

"These small measures start to shift the costs of car ownership to a more 'pay as you go' system"

There already is a "pay as you go" system - it is called petrol and it is inescapable. Since petrol went up, journeys have gone down. The simple fact of increasing petrol has already reduced congestion and requires no massive investment, no fancy technology, no charging zones, etc, etc.

If you want you reduce congestion, put petrol up and forget this congestion nonsense.


[ Parent ]

Re: Madness in Madchester (#9)

by lambethlife on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM GMT

Turning to Manchester - my memory of conference in 06 was that of congestion in the city centre largely caused by buses which all seemed to be competing for one or two passengers - the government and greater manchester authorities need to take a wholistic approach to public transport in the city building on the strengths of the tram and bus network and promoting cycling to offer a comprehensive system of transport.


Re: Madness in Madchester (#11)

by jkitleft on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 07:55:34 PM GMT

Luckily, to preserve Ken's memory in stone, they have re-regulated the buses. This will help boost public transport journeys.


[ Parent ]

Re: Madness in Madchester (#12)

by Rathfelder on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:11:34 PM GMT

Buses don't cause congestion. 


[ Parent ]

Madness in Madchester | 12 comments (12 topical)