manchester congestion charges

simple_salmon

These are semantics - you use the word 'tax' because it's more emotive than 'cost'.

The whole point of road charging, aside from funding public transport, is that it acts as a 'stick' versus the 'carrot' of a decent public transport option. Without both the scheme will fail because cars will always be more convenient.

In answer to your later questions - no I haven't tried getting a week's (food) shopping on the bus; and Yes I regularly take my 5 year old and my 2 year old plus a pushchair onto the buses for both out-of-town shopping and Leicester city centre shopping. I have down all my Christmas shopping this way for the past two years. It's not a problem - they've been going on buses since they were born, they know how it works and how to behave. Anyone who says it isn't possible is just making excuses.

And I feel safer on a bus than in a car.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

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.

Why do I refer to it as a tax?
Because that is exactly what it is in the classic sense of the word

Dictionary - tax - 14 entries.
1. Noun - A charge, especially a pecuniary burden which is imposed by authority.

2. Noun - A charge or burden laid upon persons or property for the support of a government.

3. Noun - Especially, the sum laid upon specific things, as upon polls, lands, houses, income, etc.; as, a land tax; a window tax; a tax on carriages, and the like.

4. Noun - A sum imposed or levied upon the members of a society to defray its expenses.

5. Noun - A task exacted from one who is under control; a contribution or service, the rendering of which is imposed upon a subject.

...

12. noun - A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
....

Definitions


There are other definitions of the word tax, but the above ones all fit this tax and hence it is why I call it a tax.

the fact you are so keen to avoid the use of the word tax suggests to me that you are trying to pretend it is something other than that which it is.

Taxes are not necessarily bad things. I'm sure most people support the idea of taxes to pay for health care, pensions, education etc.

simple_salmon

Regardless of dictionary definitions I believe that you have used the word 'tax' because it is more emotive and has negative conotations that will be picked up by those who were asked to vote on it.

Spen, you are an intelligent and articulate person; you are well aware of exactly how to use language to your advantage.

geoffnelder

it is easy to poke derisiion and scorn at charges and tax, and to point fingers at public spending corruption, but less so to come up with solutions. Seems to me that it would be better to pay a relatively low charge generating jobs and better public transport than to have the congestion, along with the pollution and time waste that goes with it.

I too use buses for shopping, and trams even though I prefer to cycle.

On cycliing with tramlines, I agree it can be dangerous. Sheffield and Nottingham tramlines are worse, I believe, than the Manchester lines, which are generally more separated from cycle lanes and other road users.

Geoff

singlespeedexplosif

you can't help yourself can you

quite bizarre.


The majority have made it clear what their views are.
There is nothing ridiculous about not wanting to pay more taxes.

You're obviously struggling a bit with the concept here. Let's imagine that common sense won over selfishness, and we're sitting here in 2013 or later with the charge in place....the situation would still be
If you don't want to pay it, you don't pay it. There are alternatives

See?

simple_salmon

Alternatives to the word 'tax' are 'charge' and 'toll'. 'Tax' is more often used by those who oppose the scheme. The implication of the word is that you get nothing back; not true of course but tabloid use has led us to this point. 'Charge' and 'toll' both imply that you are paying for a service.

The whole point of congestion charging is to provide a pot of money that can be used to provide good alternatives AND to help ration a limited resource i.e space on the roads.

On a much smaller scale we employ the same idea here; we charge staff to park and the funds are ringfenced to provide (excellent) cycle facilities plus subsidised public transport and improved pedestrian facilities. In four years we cut the numbers of staff driving to work from 60% to 50% so it does work.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Regardless of dictionary definitions I believe that you have used the word 'tax' because it is more emotive and has negative conotations that will be picked up by those who were asked to vote on it.

Spen, you are an intelligent and articulate person; you are well aware of exactly how to use language to your advantage.

I use the word tax, because that is the word that describes exactly what it is

Are you wanting people to ignore the meaning of words and just use random words?

you accuse me of using the word tax because it is emotive. You however are doing precisely the same by seeking to use the word costs instead of tax

I usethe word tax because that is what I believe it is and the definition of a tax would support this

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Alternatives to the word 'tax' are 'charge' and 'toll'. 'Tax' is more often used by those who oppose the scheme. The implication of the word is that you get nothing back; not true of course but tabloid use has led us to this point. 'Charge' and 'toll' both imply that you are paying for a service.

You appear to be the only person in this debate suggesting that a tax implies you get nothing back.

I have referred to tax producing our health service, pensions etc. That seems to be examples of tax producing things.

You as I said are the only person suggesting you get nothing back for tax

The whole point of congestion charging is to provide a pot of money that can be used to provide good alternatives

In your opinion. Others would say the alternatives are not good ( me? I'm not commenting on how good or bad they are)

AND to help ration a limited resource i.e space on the roads.

On a much smaller scale we employ the same idea here; we charge staff to park and the funds are ringfenced to provide (excellent) cycle facilities plus subsidised public transport and improved pedestrian facilities. In four years we cut the numbers of staff driving to work from 60% to 50% so it does work.

simple_salmon

Spen - I have not used the word 'cost' I have used 'charge' as in 'congestion charge' and 'toll' as in 'toll bridge' 'toll road' etc. Both more common for such a scheme than 'tax' which is only used by the people who are against and the tabloid media screaming against 'another tax on the motorist'.

You will also note that I made it clear that the implication of 'tax' is that you get nothing back. This is indeed how the word is used by tabloid journalists to turn people against ideas. I'm sure everyone (both of us) reading this thread know it's true meaning.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen - I have not used the word 'cost' I have used 'charge' as in 'congestion charge' and 'toll' as in 'toll bridge' 'toll road' etc. Both more common for such a scheme than 'tax' which is only used by the people who are against and the tabloid media screaming against 'another tax on the motorist'.

You will also note that I made it clear that the implication of 'tax' is that you get nothing back. This is indeed how the word is used by tabloid journalists to turn people against ideas. I'm sure everyone (both of us) reading this thread know it's true meaning.

As I have said before YOU are the only person here arguing that tax implies you get nothing back

You ignore the fact I have repeatedly referred to tax providing our healthcare and pensions amongst other things.

You are complaining about the word tax despite the fact it is properly defined as a tax. You appear to be basing your objections on the negative connatations the word has. The said negative connatations are only being espoused by you. no one else on here has said or implied that you get nothing back for you tax.

simple_salmon

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen - I have not used the word 'cost' I have used 'charge' as in 'congestion charge' and 'toll' as in 'toll bridge' 'toll road' etc. Both more common for such a scheme than 'tax' which is only used by the people who are against and the tabloid media screaming against 'another tax on the motorist'.

You will also note that I made it clear that the implication of 'tax' is that you get nothing back. This is indeed how the word is used by tabloid journalists to turn people against ideas. I'm sure everyone (both of us) reading this thread know it's true meaning.

As I have said before YOU are the only person here arguing that tax implies you get nothing back

You ignore the fact I have repeatedly referred to tax providing our healthcare and pensions amongst other things.

You are complaining about the word tax despite the fact it is properly defined as a tax. You appear to be basing your objections on the negative connatations the word has. The said negative connatations are only being espoused by you. no one else on here has said or implied that you get nothing back for you tax.

Do you deliberately choose to ignore the meanings in what people write? I have said several times that it is the media meaning of the word 'tax' that has negative implications i.e. how the man-on-the-street feels when confronted with the word. Whether that is true of the few people who have posted on here I have no idea - I know that you know how taxes work - you're an intelligent person; hence my feelings that you know how to use words to subconsciously influence people's ideas. I, of course, do not know for a fact that you did that, I just felt that you did.

Can you explain to me why we have a 'congestion charge' and 'M6 Toll' and throughout history we've had 'toll' roads and 'toll' bridges. Whys is the word tax not used?

I put it to you that it's because of the negative connotations associated with the word.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Spen - I have not used the word 'cost' I have used 'charge' as in 'congestion charge' and 'toll' as in 'toll bridge' 'toll road' etc. Both more common for such a scheme than 'tax' which is only used by the people who are against and the tabloid media screaming against 'another tax on the motorist'.

You will also note that I made it clear that the implication of 'tax' is that you get nothing back. This is indeed how the word is used by tabloid journalists to turn people against ideas. I'm sure everyone (both of us) reading this thread know it's true meaning.

As I have said before YOU are the only person here arguing that tax implies you get nothing back

You ignore the fact I have repeatedly referred to tax providing our healthcare and pensions amongst other things.

You are complaining about the word tax despite the fact it is properly defined as a tax. You appear to be basing your objections on the negative connatations the word has. The said negative connatations are only being espoused by you. no one else on here has said or implied that you get nothing back for you tax.

Do you deliberately choose to ignore the meanings in what people write?

no, unlike you who wants us to ignore the dictionary defined meaning of words

I have said several times that it is the media meaning of the word 'tax' that has negative implications i.e. how the man-on-the-street feels when confronted with the word.

The only time this has been mentioned is by you. no one else on here has raised the issue.

BTW since when did the media define the meaning of words?

Whether that is true of the few people who have posted on here I have no idea

Try reading what is posted here- it might give you a clue

- I know that you know how taxes work - you're an intelligent person; hence my feelings that you know how to use words to subconsciously influence people's ideas. I, of course, do not know for a fact that you did that, I just felt that you did.

Ahhh yes, my using words is to influence people, but yours isn't?

You are being very hypocritical to complain about my correct usage of a word because it is "emotive" whereas your use of a word to describe the same thing is not apparently?

Can you explain to me why we have a 'congestion charge' and 'M6 Toll' and throughout history we've had 'toll' roads and 'toll' bridges. Whys is the word tax not used?

Why do we have several words that can mean the same thing? Its part of the beauty of the English language that we can express things in different ways.

however, you seem to want to deny freedom of speech. You want us to use your approved word, instead of a word in its correct contect because it doesn't suit your agenda.

sir you are a control freak- admit it you are Gordon Brown

I put it to you that it's because of the negative connotations associated with the word.

And on what EVIDENCE do you base this apparently unsupported assertion.

mrushton

It was a tax pure and simple. There were vague promises that'cyclists' would get x and commuters would get y but that's all they were, vague promises. there was to be a £1.5 billion loan to fund the transport changes but no-one stated on what terms this loan was to be repaid. The 'YES' lobby came under fire from OFCOM for misleading adverts.
I voted NO and both my partner and I cycle a 30 mile round trip to central Mcr about 70% of the year (that's 30 mile each not our joint total) we would have liked to vote 'yes' but there was nothing there for us except a certainty that the council were going to relieve us money.

simple_salmon

Ha ha - Gordon Brown I am not; control freak - possibly :oops:

The words I would like to use i.e charge and toll are those that are used for this type of scheme - this was a congestion charge. Thus I am not using words to influence people, I'm just using the correct name of the scheme.

We can, as you state (Spen) have different words to describe the same thing, my point was that 'tax' is rarely, if ever, used in this context. My opinion is that it is because of the negative feeliings that the word produces in people.

Since we're not going to agree on this point how about moving this on to how you would solve the congestion problem? I'm happy to put by head on the block first so here goes:

I would charge people to use certain roads and parking facilities; I would ringfence the money so that it is used to provide alternative services that will encourage people to give up their cars. Including, but not limited to:

Better public cycle facilities including safe parking and showers.
Subsidised public transport.
Improved pedestrian facilities e.g. car free, city centres, better lighting, slower sped limits.
Car share software so that people can share vehicles.

IMO charging drivers for this has a twofold effect - it provides the funds and acts as a disincentive to drive. As I said earlier, on a smaller scale it has worked here. It hasn't ben easy and people don't like paying to park at work but without it there would be chaos in the car parks.

Manchester's bid may well have only included 'vague promises' but that is the fault of the scheme administrators and not a fault of the scheme itself. If you have better ideas to solve traffic problems then please post them. If they're workable for what I'm doing here then I'm not to proud to admit that I may steal them

beverick

I live near Leeds and travel regularly to Bury, Chester and Manchester Airport.

No one allowed me to vote as to whether I paid the Greater Manchester councils £1 or £2 for the privilege of using Simister Island (M60/M62/M66 junction) but that's what would have happened. The literature said that the charge would not be levied for vehicles travelling 'around' the M60 but the charging maps showed that those using this junction and the M60 south towards Middleton would enter the charging zone.

According to the TIF website majority of the tax revenue was to be used to 'pay for the running of Manchester's transport' so I assume this was mainly a scheme to free up money for the GM Council and assorted Manchester Boroughs to spend on other things (such as housing, education and social welfare) rather than the entire revenue being spent on transport as was the implicit message of the 'yes' campaigners.

Bob

Tonymufc

a_n_t wrote:

rapid_uphill 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.

You're not the only one mate. Surely 800,000 people can't be wrong.