Gatt Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Well at 12 Noon today Greater Manchester finds out whether it will be getting the C-Charge and the TIF funding.. Hopefully enough people made the right decision and voted NO.. Only 50 mins to go...
sidewinder Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Why are you against it? Nothing wrong with c-charging in city centres IMO. If the zone is spread too far into residential areas though then it isnt good.
Gatt Posted December 12, 2008 Author Posted December 12, 2008 Well - i live about 500 yards OUTSIDE the ring... i work 500 yards WITHIN the ring... at moment its £2 to cross the outer ring.. £1 for the inner ring.. thats at 2007 prices - its not due to come in until about 2012 - so it could go above £5 for the outer ring alone... The TIF provides NO benefits to the Public transport where I live or on any part of my journey to work...
flyinghaggis Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Well - i live about 500 yards OUTSIDE the ring... i work 500 yards WITHIN the ring... Then you only live about 15 mins walk from your work so no need to worry about it! On a serious note I hope it fails as it's not something I want to see spreading across the country. We pay enough for the priveledge of driving here as it is IMO! Wish the Government would stop treating motorists like a cash cow they can squeeze for more money all the time.
somabc Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Well - i live about 500 yards OUTSIDE the ring... i work 500 yards WITHIN the ring... If you work 1000 yards away from where you live then surely you do not need to drive?
gwendes Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Well - i live about 500 yards OUTSIDE the ring... i work 500 yards WITHIN the ring... at moment its £2 to cross the outer ring.. £1 for the inner ring.. thats at 2007 prices - its not due to come in until about 2012 - so it could go above £5 for the outer ring alone... The TIF provides NO benefits to the Public transport where I live or on any part of my journey to work... I do hope that's on different sides of the ring and you don't drive 1000 yards!
gwendes Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 If you work 1000 yards away from where you live then surely you do not need to drive? LMAO!
Gatt Posted December 12, 2008 Author Posted December 12, 2008 LOL! - No It'd take me about 20 minutes to drive (Rochdale -> Swinton) round the M60!
somabc Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) LMAO! DOH That'll teach me to take things literally. Edited December 12, 2008 by somabc
enjay Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Why are you against it? Nothing wrong with c-charging in city centres IMO. If the zone is spread too far into residential areas though then it isnt good. Depends on the road lay-out, and how feasible it is to avoid it. Consider Reading, where they're also considering it. All roads lead into the town centre, so it is very difficult to go anywhere without hitting the zone - c-charging would just push cars (and worse, lorries) off the main roads and have them snaking through the narrow residential roads which just aren't up to the volume of traffic. I'm all for reducing traffic in city centres, but this isn't always achieved by simply making it more expensive. Surely the way that petrol, alcohol and cigarette price rises have made no difference on usage proves this.
Gatt Posted December 12, 2008 Author Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) Bolton - NO Bury - NO Manchester - NO Oldham - NO Rochdale - NO Salford - NO Stockport - NO Tameside - NO Trafford - NO Wigan - NO So that's a resounding NO then! Edited December 12, 2008 by Gatt 1
sidewinder Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Depends on the road lay-out, and how feasible it is to avoid it. Consider Reading, where they're also considering it. All roads lead into the town centre, so it is very difficult to go anywhere without hitting the zone - c-charging would just push cars (and worse, lorries) off the main roads and have them snaking through the narrow residential roads which just aren't up to the volume of traffic. I'm all for reducing traffic in city centres, but this isn't always achieved by simply making it more expensive. Surely the way that petrol, alcohol and cigarette price rises have made no difference on usage proves this. Fair point about Reading, it would be difficult to achieve there. I hate driving anywhere near the town centre as it is! Yeah, I would much rather see a massive improvment in buses or other public transport than simply a congestion charge zone, but anything that makes people think twice about taking the car is a start. People need petrol to drive anywhere. But they dont always NEED to drive into town/city centres. I do feel sorry for people living inside zones, or have to deliver inside them. But I dont have much sympathy for people moaning, say about the London one, because they want to be lazy and drive to work, when there is excellent public transport links
Gatt Posted December 12, 2008 Author Posted December 12, 2008 Well what a day - just in time for me passing my test... 79% of Greater Manchester said NO.. 21% said Yes... Pretty conclusive I reckon!!
Oops_my_bad Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) Pretty conclusive I reckon!! I hope so.. but lets hope the local authorities take this on board and do not vote to take it further next Friday's meeting. I love the way all the Yes nimbys were trying to make us all feel guilty for voting no and how we will now never get the money. Oh shut up - where do all the BILLIONS go that each and every motorist in this country pays every year? Certainly not on any road or transport improvements, that's for sure. Why the hell should the motorist pay AGAIN to line the pockets of private firms for what should, in fairness, already be in place?? Edited December 13, 2008 by Oops_my_bad
webman Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 79% of Greater Manchester said NO.. 21% said Yes... Pretty conclusive I reckon!! But wasn't there a turnout of just over 50%? Congestion charging is OK with sensible (read: affordable) charges, but only in conjunction with a reduction in other charges - tax, fuel etc...
Gatt Posted December 13, 2008 Author Posted December 13, 2008 I think another issue was the 2 charging rings.. If it had just been the inner ring (a la London) then it may have been a lot closer.. The biggest Congestion area is Deansgate.. its a major route into and out of the centre, right through all the majors shops, etc.. All the buses, taxi's, delivery vans, HGVs, Commuters and shoppers use this road - as soon as traffic starts backing up on Deansgate it spreads out down all the side streets and can take ages to get though it.. What should be considered is limiting traffic to either Public transport & deliveries, or pedestrianising most, if not all, of Deansgate... there are still plenty of roads - many with 2+ lanes - that can be used to redirect traffic around the city.. But putting up 2 charging rings, and forcing people to pay £2 at the M60 and then a further £1 for the centre was ridiculous.. It would have cost me approx £1200 a Year (£30 a week) to get to and from work - even though I was only going about a mile and a half or so inside the outer ring!! (from: M27 0BH to: Unknown road - Google Maps) As many people have stated - if the £2.8Bn was available, why not just give us the cash?
webman Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 It would have cost me approx £1200 a Year (£30 a week) to get to and from work - even though I was only going about a mile and a half or so inside the outer ring!! (from: M27 0BH to: Unknown road - Google Maps) Or nothing at all if you walk or cycle
Theblacksheep Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) Congestion charging is OK with sensible (read: affordable) charges, but only in conjunction with a reduction in other charges - tax, fuel etc... Where has it been implemented sensibly in the UK? Tax and fuel both go up (above inflation)... along with congestion charge (aka money for nothing) as well as doubling is size. City 'center' taxes should be scrapped. Along with fuel duty. Greedy Bassas. Edited December 13, 2008 by Theblacksheep 1
webman Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Never happens, tax and fuel both go up... along with congestion charge. Yes, I was thinking "ideal world" sort of scenario. If congestion charges are to take off and be accepted by the general public, it has to be structured so you pay less in other areas. The same sort of thing was brought up in the "pay as you go" black box for cars idea in previous years. All well and good, as long as there are price reduction in other aspects of driving. But as our Government are greedy bar stweards, as you say, it will never happen.
Gatt Posted December 13, 2008 Author Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) Or nothing at all if you walk or cycle I dont think so... from: Home to: Work - Google Maps Edited December 13, 2008 by Gatt
Theblacksheep Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) The same sort of thing was brought up in the "pay as you go" black box for cars idea in previous years. All well and good, as long as there are price reduction in other aspects of driving. But as our Government are greedy bar stweards, as you say, it will never happen. Its frustrating, because its sold on such idealisc methods. When its been in place for a year... bang, the area is doubled and the prices goes up 20%, year on year....like fuel duty: if someone moans, just have a one year price freeze to make the people think they are actually getting a something back. Pay-as-you-go driving is just an excuse for nationwide vehicle tracking (info available to every dept of gov) and speed over distance fines everywhere.... feck, you could lose your licence by the time you get to work. PS: WELL DONE PEOPLE OF MANCHESTER!! Edited December 13, 2008 by Theblacksheep
srochford Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 Tax and fuel both go up (above inflation)... along with congestion charge (aka money for nothing) as well as doubling is size. have you bought petrol recently? It's now cheaper than it was 12 months ago; given that inflation has been at least 5% in the past year that means that petrol is dramatically cheaper - ie it has not gone up above inflation!
Theblacksheep Posted December 13, 2008 Posted December 13, 2008 (edited) have you bought petrol recently? It's now cheaper than it was 12 months ago; given that inflation has been at least 5% in the past year that means that petrol is dramatically cheaper - ie it has not gone up above inflation! Petrol (at the pumps) has dropped by 25% since its highest point in the summer. But the cost of petrol (by the barrell) is under 50% of its price in the summer. It should be even cheaper than it was a year ago. The price of petrol is inflated by 65% through additional taxation. Edited December 13, 2008 by Theblacksheep
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now