Manchester says NO to the proposed congestion charge!!

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

andmcit
Posts: 4299
Joined: 03 Mar 2005, 18:59
x 17

Manchester says NO to the proposed congestion charge!!

Post by andmcit »

79% of the vote says NO, we don't like being bribed into being guinea pigs by heavy handed
DoT bullyboy tactics! Yay!! :D

Maybe everyone in this rubbish country of ours has been pushed into a corner now and whilst
weary and bitter feels there's nowhere else left to go but to fight back? Here's hoping a clear
message has been sent to London. Mind they're blind to the rotten old electorate or chattering
classes. :(

I'm not trying to be political but am a frustrated motorist whose 'pips squeaked' a while back!!

Andrew

vince
Posts: 1409
Joined: 22 May 2008, 22:29
x 3

Post by vince »

Its great news..i live up here :P

Sl4yer
Posts: 847
Joined: 12 Apr 2003, 04:29
x 1

Post by Sl4yer »

It was very, very badly thought out. Too many people, living perhaps 6 miles from the centre, would have been charged for making rush hour journeys around their homes. That would be especially galling for those who had homes in the area before the M60 (the outer charging ring) even existed!

The proposed transport benefits weren't anything new or fantastic, especially in Rochdale where I live. The main proposal was to extend the tram service into the town centre (about 3/4 mile from the train station). Local councillors seemed to think this would increase the number of visitors shopping in the centre, but most astute residents know it would have the opposite effect! Most of the other proposals were for new or improved bus services, and extra carriages on trains at peak times. Well, if a two-carriage train crammed full of people arrives from Leeds in rush hour, and another 50 people wait to get on it every day, what's the solution? It should happen anyway. Of course, this isn't a problem confined to Manchester. The bus routes in question have no relationship to the centre of Manchester at all by the way, being mainly concerned with the north and east of Rochdale.

I'm glad the proposals have been rejected. I look forward to the sensible things (like more train carriages and extending the trams to the airport) happening anyway, perhaps getting paid for by some of the money the government is borrowing to 'inject' into the ailing economy. Which, by the way, we'll still be paying for when I retire in about thirty years! :evil:

Expect a more realistic charging zone around the actual centre to be announced in about another 3 years.

James

rory_perrett
Posts: 715
Joined: 05 Nov 2001, 20:18

Post by rory_perrett »

I'm sorry but the people of Manchester will just have to keep voting until they get it right!

Or it will be implimented anyway.

There are too many vested interests to let this one fail.

andmcit
Posts: 4299
Joined: 03 Mar 2005, 18:59
x 17

Post by andmcit »

Yes indeed; why does that collection of wording sound
so chillingly famliar Rory!?

Andrew

Homer
Posts: 1504
Joined: 26 Feb 2003, 11:52
x 14

Post by Homer »

Funny how these schemes always fail the public vote (Edinburgh went the same way).

Time our elected servants started to act like our servants.

User avatar
CitroJim
A very naughty boy
Posts: 43558
Joined: 30 Apr 2005, 23:33
x 1599

Post by CitroJim »

Homer wrote: Time our elected servants started to act like our servants.
Have a watch of the "banned" Clangers episode, the one planned for the 1974 election night, for an answer to that one Homer...

User avatar
Kowalski
Posts: 2557
Joined: 15 Oct 2003, 17:41

Post by Kowalski »

There is little or no investment in infrastructure going on at present. Its clear from the congestion on the roads that we don't have enough transport capacity but new roads are not green so instead we get nothing. No new roads, no new railway lines, instead we're going to get a second runway at Stansted and a third at Heathrow at a time when the government says that air travel is not green. High speed rail may not be as green as low speed rail but some people would use high speed rail instead of domestic air travel, high speed rail is greener than air travel but we're not building any high speed rail.

If I were cynical I might think that the government is trying to introduce road pricing while they have the excuse of climate change, once hydrogen fueled cars, electric cars, biofuel or whatever green technology the future brings arrives it will be too late to make the green argument and the oportunity to tax the driving public will be lost.

andmcit
Posts: 4299
Joined: 03 Mar 2005, 18:59
x 17

Post by andmcit »

After all the ballyhoo this week with the announcement that the M1 was
not (shock horror) going to have any roadworks any more after glacial
progress with the lane widening, one little fact got dropped through with
hardly any notice or comment - lost in the news. The new additional lanes
are going to be for multi occupancy cars at peak periods!! :roll:

Now with such an arsenal of technology to brandish at the motorist I can
see where this now leads us into the near future with the 'enforecemnt'
from our 'caring and considerate' government... :evil:

the thin end of the wedge is getting thicker!

And how long will it be before the 'clerical fees' for telling me I actually
remembered to avoid an unpleasant £80 fine by declaring yet another
roll over SORN mean that they deem fit to needlessly charge me £5-10
for every car I notify the thieving scumbags? :evil: :evil: :evil:

Andrew

den169
Posts: 262
Joined: 30 Jul 2002, 20:51

Post by den169 »

Now the voters of Manchester should be making a big list of the morons who wanted this,So they can vote them out at the next council elections.

James.UK
Posts: 1169
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 00:12

Post by James.UK »

I'm not totaly opposed to the idea, but they made the zone absolutely HUGE! why??? I never go to Manchester, but they made their zone so large I would have been affected anyway just going to the local shops, garages, visiting friends etc.? why? dohhhh.. :roll:
.