Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

manchester congestion charges

rapid_uphillrapid_uphill Posts: 841
edited December 2008 in Campaign
An overwhelming majority of voters have rejected plans for a congestion charge in Manchester. i thought this should and would have gone through.
to me it seems like THE logical step forward, how wrong am i.

812,815 (79%) no votes and 218,860 (21%) in favour.

i personally think that it will become law regardless of the vote, sooner or later. it has too.
«1

Posts

  • spen666spen666 Posts: 17,709
    I'm delighted it hasn't.
    this was not a congestion charge, but a tax raising scheme. the area covered was too big to be a sensible congestion scheme


    if the governemt want to tax motorists this way, then do so- and admit it is a revenue raising scheme. don't try to pretend it is something else
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • manchester had the opportunity to set an example to the whole of the U.K with a public transport system that would be the envy of any city.
    instead the mancs would rather go nowhere waiting in traffic.

    the logic of a manc baffles me
  • sturmeysturmey Posts: 964
    They should make public transport and travelling by bike more attractive and accessible in the first place. Then think about congestion cahrge if that doesn't work.
    We're just sick of taxes.
    A fiver a day ,means nothing to lawyers,architects,bankers.
    But the little people just can't afford it.
  • edhornbyedhornby Posts: 1,780
    spen - do you live in Manchester ? your theory has so many holes in it, it's not real...

    the C-charge was going to come in around 2013 when the loans for the work need to be paid back. so the improvements would come first.

    And as someone who lives about 1/2 a mile inside of the M60 - I can attest that there is serious congestion issues all over the city so the outer ring would have been in the right place
    "I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
    --Jens Voight
  • spen666spen666 Posts: 17,709
    edhornby wrote:
    spen - do you live in Manchester ? your theory has so many holes in it, it's not real...
    What are the holes then?[/quote]

    the C-charge was going to come in around 2013 when the loans for the work need to be paid back. so the improvements would come first.

    And as someone who lives about 1/2 a mile inside of the M60 - I can attest that there is serious congestion issues all over the city so the outer ring would have been in the right place[/quote]
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • PositronPositron Posts: 191
    I wouldn't have expected any other result (turkeys won't vote for Christmas).

    I though we elected polititians to make the hard decisions for us?

    p.
    Never order anti-pasta to arrive at the same time as pasta.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    Positron wrote:
    I wouldn't have expected any other result (turkeys won't vote for Christmas).

    I though we elected polititians to make the hard decisions for us?

    p.

    People voted? :lol: God how we all moan as society when they do make the right decision. :lol:
  • IMO if the goverment REALLY want to improve the public transport systems they can find the money within existing tax budgets. I thought that's what was meant by borrowing for capital investment rather than bailing out imprudent financial institutes
    2 Wheels or not 2 wheels..That is not in question.
  • theres no point putting more busses on the road unless you ease congestion.
  • a_n_ta_n_t Posts: 2,011
    instead the mancs would rather go nowhere waiting in traffic.

    the logic of a manc baffles me



    funny how the most opinionated dont even come from manchester!

    I drive in everyday in winter and censored me, its not actually that bad!

    a manc cyclist that voted no.
    Manchester wheelers

    PB's
    10m 20:21 2014
    25m 53:18 20:13
    50m 1:57:12 2013
    100m Yeah right.
  • a_n_ta_n_t Posts: 2,011
    maybe if the government saved some £££££ by, you know, not invading Iraq and the like we could all have more investment in transport systems?
    Manchester wheelers

    PB's
    10m 20:21 2014
    25m 53:18 20:13
    50m 1:57:12 2013
    100m Yeah right.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    a_n_t wrote:
    maybe if the government saved some £££££ by, you know, not invading Iraq and the like we could all have more investment in transport systems?

    I wonder if its the same as it is down here, too? Councilers laying off council staff because they say they have no money, but yet awarding themselves a nice 30k bonus/payrise. :? :roll:

    And Ford down here are trying to steal money off our government/local councils... Probably the best known and one of the biggest car firms is saying they have no money. Yeaaah right!
  • Eau RougeEau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    downfader wrote:
    And Ford down here are trying to steal money off our government/local councils... Probably the best known and one of the biggest car firms is saying they have no money. Yeaaah right!

    They don't....
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7779981.stm
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    Eau Rouge wrote:
    downfader wrote:
    And Ford down here are trying to steal money off our government/local councils... Probably the best known and one of the biggest car firms is saying they have no money. Yeaaah right!

    They don't....
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7779981.stm

    They do currently have money, and what they have done is misread the market (same as the other firms) and suddenly panicked. Businesses go bust and thats life, and imo private businesses shouldnt be bailed out by governments. They can strip back and keep going, and thats more than can be said for smaller firms.
  • sicrowsicrow Posts: 791
    a_n_t wrote:
    instead the mancs would rather go nowhere waiting in traffic.

    the logic of a manc baffles me



    funny how the most opinionated dont even come from manchester!

    I drive in everyday in winter and fark me, its not actually that bad!

    a manc cyclist that voted no.

    +1
  • I'm glad I'm a cyclist because when I drive to Manchester several times a month I have to judge carefully when to do so, it is so congested I don't like taking an hour to travel 5 miles. I would have voted Yes please.

    The charge isn't just a tax, far more than the revenue was going to be spent on admin, infrastructure and public transport improvements - and thousands of extra jobs created just when they are needed!

    I really hope the other towns considering congestion charges aren't put off by the misinformed and misguided no voters.

    Geoff
  • a_n_ta_n_t Posts: 2,011
    it is so congested I don't like taking an hour to travel 5 miles.

    i've never averaged 5mph in the rush hour! try taking your handbrake off?
    Manchester wheelers

    PB's
    10m 20:21 2014
    25m 53:18 20:13
    50m 1:57:12 2013
    100m Yeah right.
  • a_n_t wrote:
    it is so congested I don't like taking an hour to travel 5 miles.

    i've never averaged 5mph in the rush hour! try taking your handbrake off?

    So that's your secret!

    I've often travelled to Deansgate with my daughter in from Newton Heath on the A62. Between 8 and 9 it can often be quicker to walk.
  • I commute up and down Princess Parkway, some days are worse than others. 5mph is an exaggeration but on bad days it's not actually that far off! More-so in the evenings than the morning.
  • I really hope the other towns considering congestion charges aren't put off by the misinformed and misguided no voters.
    Geoff
    Glad to know you think that 80% of the population are too thick to comprehend the subject.
    How about they've experienced the delights of public transport and find that the private car is a better bet?
    More reliable, more comfortable, safer and more convenient.
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
  • I really hope the other towns considering congestion charges aren't put off by the misinformed and misguided no voters.
    Geoff
    Glad to know you think that 80% of the population are too thick to comprehend the subject.
    How about they've experienced the delights of public transport and find that the private car is a better bet?
    More reliable, more comfortable, safer and more convenient.

    I don't think 80% of Manchester are thick. The No lobby did a more efficient job that's all. What you say about public transport is, sadly, true.
    All the more reason to have voted Yes to get the boosted investment to improve it.
    Saying No to the congestion charge is a Yes to congestion.

    Geoff
  • The charge isn't just a tax, far more than the revenue was going to be spent on admin, infrastructure and public transport improvements - and thousands of extra jobs created just when they are needed!

    I really hope the other towns considering congestion charges aren't put off by the misinformed and misguided no voters.

    Geoff

    What about the companies seriously considering relocating from Manchester because of the proposed charge? How would the local councils already with serious budget deficits and loss of revenue make the cash back?!

    There was only an additional proposal with provision for cyclists, nothing in the balloted proposal.

    I don't belive a public charge for using roads we already pay for to invest into private rail and bus companies. train fares were increased by a minimum of 6% at the start of the year, if the year on year rises are the same by the time the charge came into effect and people would have been pushed into using trains the priced would have increased by 30%.
  • It is a fact of life that people vote on how something affects their pocket and little else. Because of this there was little chance of the charge getting in, especially when you factor in the likelihood that people who live inside the M60 (and would not pay the charge) were less likely to vote than those outside and who travel in (and thus would pay the charge). I base this on the demographics of the population and the voting patterns in elections.
    Personally, although I live outside the M60, I voted for the charge and not merely because I cycle in. It just seems to be the right way to go. The traffic congestion needs to be tackled, at times it is very bad.
  • train fares were increased by a minimum of 6% at the start of the year, if the year on year rises are the same by the time the charge came into effect and people would have been pushed into using trains the priced would have increased by 30%.


    how much do you think they're going to rise now the numpties have spoken?
    I think by 2013 we'll all be wishing it was only 30%...
  • spen666spen666 Posts: 17,709
    train fares were increased by a minimum of 6% at the start of the year, if the year on year rises are the same by the time the charge came into effect and people would have been pushed into using trains the priced would have increased by 30%.


    how much do you think they're going to rise now the numpties have spoken?
    I think by 2013 we'll all be wishing it was only 30%...

    Ahh yes, the democratic majority express a view you don't agree with , so they must be numpties
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • Nothing to do with expressing a view I don't agree with.
    More to do with the ridiculousness of turning down an opportunity like that, simply because it might cost them a bit more.
  • spen666spen666 Posts: 17,709
    Nothing to do with expressing a view I don't agree with.
    More to do with the ridiculousness of turning down an opportunity like that, simply because it might cost them a bit more.

    you can't help yourself can you


    The majority have made it clear what their views are.
    There is nothing ridiculous about not wanting to pay more taxes.
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • Why do you refer to this as a 'tax'?

    It's a charge to drive in certain times on certain roads; if I pay my bus fare it's not a 'tax' it's the cost for the service I wish to take advantage of.
  • It's a tax, because we've already paid for the roads out of our taxes, be they Income or Car Taxes & Fuel Duties and paid for them many, many times over.
    If I decide to use public transport, if I visit Mancherster, be it a bus, train, tram or taxi, then I've not paid tax to use them, so I expect to pay.
    The huge amounts of money wasted by governments, especially this current bunch on non-productive employees doing non-jobs and the vast amounts paid to the EU's coffers that will be lost to fraud (I see that accountants have refused to sign off their accounts again, what is it, 13th year running?), would be more than enough to provide an excellent public transport service.
    If a service is good, we can chose to use it.
    Why, for instance, if I find that the service I get from a utilities company is bad, should I be forced to use them when there's a viable alternative?
    Do you think for a minute, that if we all pile into buses, taxis or trams (Probably the worst option there, must be hell trying to cycle along a road with tram lines on it!) then that will magically solve all congestion problems?
    Ever tried getting the family's shopping home on a bus?
    Ever tried getting a pushchair, plus baby & toddler onto a bus?
    Would you feel safe on a bus? Both interms of if it's involved in an accident and also with some of your fellow passengers?
    Also, we're not talking about the tax being turned down because only 48% voted for it, you've got 80% voting against it.
    Also, it's another tax on the poor, on those who can't put it down as business expenses.
    Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.
Sign In or Register to comment.