Congestion charge crunch time

[aidanorourke]

There has been another exchange of words between supporters of the proposed congestion charge, and opponents, most notably Peel Holdings, owners of the Trafford Centre and Manchester Ship Canal.

Sir Richard Leese, long time Leader of Manchester City Council has criticised Peel Holdings in connection with their 'No' campaign.

I attended a congestion charge debate at the Circle Club last autumn, and met both the directors of Peel Holdings and Sir Richard Leese.

Now Kelloggs have expressed their opposition to the scheme. Three Greater Manchester local authorities, Stockport, Trafford and Bury have voted against the proposals. The remaining seven are in favour. If another authority withdraws its support, then a local referendum may follow.

I personally am against the current proposals, mainly due to the method of charging - a 'dumb' flat rate charge based on boundaries. I would be in favour of a 'smart' charge, maybe using GPS technology, that is fine-tuned and doesn't discriminate geographically.

Some time in spring 2008 we should find out if the Manchester bid has been successful.

Are you in favour of the congestion charge or against? Will it have a devastating effect on the economy of the Manchester area, as Peel Holdings suggest, or is it the only option for sustainable transport in the local area

[Ashtonian]

I wonder what the precise nature of the criticism is and what are the 'current' proposals for the charge?

Long, long ago in another era, when trains were frequent and there were many to choose from and there was a plethora of buses, I found that I didn't need a car. The monthly pass for train and buses worked fine.

Today, you have to have a car, and many with business and pleasure in Manchester will have no choice but to pay this extra tax. I doubt that there will be a significant reduction the amount of people travelling into Manchester.

[Sparkly]

the PR onslaught has been ramped up! I've had a brochure through the door this weekend, and there was an ad on telly tonight! I wonder if the first years congestion charge revenue will have to go to paying for the advertising budget to sell the idea to the local people?

[Gibbo]

I saw a big poster in Wigan last night saying something like "how would you like a guided busway that runs direct from Leigh to Manchester with no delays".

IIRC this scheme was supposed to have been built years ago. Have they purposely delayed it to try and encourage support for the congestion charge?

[Phil Blinkhorn]

Any delay has been due to lack of funding from national govt - in the same way as they have and starved the Metro of needed funds for expansion -and the "guidance" against allocating fnds has come from the Treasury.

Now the Whitehall moguls are faced with a problem. The charging scheme can't go ahead without prior improvement in alternative methods of transport to the car being in place. That means national govt money which, if we are facing a major recession, they may not have. Yet their political masters want to see such schemes in place.

The pro charging lobby, pushing all the "green" buttons, know that to get the support they need they have to offer real benefits in time and cost savings for all commuters - on public transport and in cars - and the journey has to be in clean, comfortable surroundings. That means new vehicles and infrastructure and all before a penny comes in from the daily charge. In many ways they have Whitehall over a barrel.

Pushing schemes such as the guided busways and Metro expansion will attract more support to the pro lobby, especially with ever rising petrol prices, so a "yes" in any referendum, or just a groundswell of "pro" feeling means Whitehall has to deliver.

If it does deliver then it will cost the Treasury far more than the schemes would have when originally mooted and planned for, if it doesn't the scheme will die and the political masters will be seeking Civil Service heads on platters.

[mr angry]

Personally I am against this c charge, I think it will be a disincentive to come into the city and would only work if public transport was a viable alternative in all circumstances.

It MIGHT have worked years ago before transport was messed up by three huge government mistakes, ie Beeching, bus deregulation and rail privatisation, but it was these major errors which contributed to the expansion in car use anyway

I simply see this charge as an additional tax and it is going to go towards the Metrolink which I am not a huge fan of anyway. To me this was a cheap and nasty compromise to the question of through running between Victoria and Piccadilly which would have been much better solved by the Piccvic underground proposal of the early 70s, or the Catlefield Curve as the next best idea which the City Council objected to

[droylsden_kid]

The problem is that proposed public transport improvements will only benefit a proportion of the outlying areas. For Tameside, surely only the people down the Ashton-Droylsden corridor will benefit.
What about those coming in from Hyde & Denton? Will they have to pay the charge and get no corresponding improve in public transport. The daily debacle at the Denton Island at the end of the M67 will probably see no improvement.

Perhaps the Denton & Hyde residents should promote their own Tram (without the attendant expensive high platforms) and build a flyover across the M60 to bypass the traffic jams. I'm sure there would be suitable second-hand trams available on the continent.

[Ashtonian]

Thats part of the attraction of San Francisco whose used trams come from various US cities.