Manchester rejects road pricing

bargepole

The result of the ballot is in, and the good citizens of Manchester have rejected the Government's proposed road charging scheme with a majority "No" vote in all 10 boroughs.

This sounds the death knell for road pricing in other major cities, and is a well-deserved slap in the face for the Government's so-called transport "experts" who think they can fleece drivers with ever increasing stealth taxes, while spending hardly any of their ill gotten gains on much needed trunk road and motorway improvements.

Well done you Mancs!

withabix

Road pricing is OK in limited circumstances (I don't actually support the idea!!), BUT:

1) The high speed, cheap and user friendly public transport alternative has to be put in place FIRST. (This isn't acheivable with buses)
2) It should be limited to very small areas - not the entire area bounded by the M60 as Manchester intended...can you imagine if they did this based on the M25!!!
3) It can't be priced so high that people activedly consider changing jobs and companies move outside the charging zone in large numbers - which was what would have happened in Manchester.

The Manchester scheme didn't acheive any of these requirements, so it failed with style!

hayley11

bargepole wrote: »

The result of the ballot is in, and the good citizens of Manchester have rejected the Government's proposed road charging scheme with a majority "No" vote in all 10 boroughs.

This sounds the death knell for road pricing in other major cities, and is a well-deserved slap in the face for the Government's so-called transport "experts" who think they can fleece drivers with ever increasing stealth taxes, while spending hardly any of their ill gotten gains on much needed trunk road and motorway improvements.

Well done you Mancs!

As a non driver and somebody who relies very heavily on public transport I voted yes to this and i'm really disappointed that it was a NO.

peter_the_piper

Quote
2) It should be limited to very small areas - not the entire area bounded by the M60 as Manchester intended...can you imagine if they did this based on the M25!!!

I assumed this was what brother Ken was intending when he put the M25 anti-pollution zone in place, congestion charging would have followed soon.

derrick

hayley11 wrote: »

As a non driver and somebody who relies very heavily on public transport I voted yes to this and i'm really disappointed that it was a NO.

So why do you think motorist,(who contribute in excess of 45 BILLION pounds in road taxes and receive less than 8 Billion pounds on road expenditure), should pay for the PUBLIC transport?

nearlyrich

I live in an area of Lancashire which has a high level of people who work in Manchester including members of my family. I would have been affected by this policy had it come into effect because I have to drive in and out Manchester to visit customers etc. I think the public transport should be sorted out and made more affordable anyway as currently it's about the same to drive and park as it is to catch the bus from here so no real incentive to use the bus unless you arre going out for a drink in town.

All that would have happened if this had come in was the rush hour would move to a little later or earlier as people changed their hours to beat the charges.

I am really glad that the people saw sense and voted NO!

HelzBelz

hayley11 wrote: »

As a non driver and somebody who relies very heavily on public transport I voted yes to this and i'm really disappointed that it was a NO.

You've summed it up, you're a non-driver who lives within the voting area, which means you already have the public transport infrastructure, the people it affects most are those who live just outside the voting area who still have to work within the proposed chargeable area, there often aren't the transport links and because they're outside the Manchester boroughs money wouldn't have been put into new links.

Where I am we're lucky if we get 1 train/bus per hour going to Manchester (if we use the bus we have to change in stockport) and this is daytime during the week (can't get train or bus back home after about 9.30 in the evening)

scubaangel

From where I live to where my current OH is from would have meant passing through the charged area, if public transport was practical then I'd have had no qualms in voting yes but since for me to get to his via PT it would mean a journey on a tram costing over £6 (and considering I'd have to travel back the next day too thats at least £12 depending on the time I travelled), there are no buses, unless I want to get one in to city centre then two out again.

Either option would take well over an hour almost 2 depending on bus times - whereas I can drive it takes less than 30 mins and costs a couple of quid in fuel, but with the charge the single mile I have to drive off the M-way would cost me almost the same as the bus/tram option but with no clear plans to make the journey easier/quicker/cheaper on PT.

Had they put clear and obviously workable plans in place for the bus/tram/train to make them more attractive to users then theres a good chance I would have voted yes. But the lack of those plus the general feeling especially at the moment that the gobment are looking for a 'cashcow' and the typcial motorist was it meant that there was no way we were ever going to vote Yes in large enough numbers.

Out of curiosity, how many people who did vote yes ever have to travel to the city centre? And if it had gone through how much impact do you think the motorists deserting their cars in droves would have had on your chosen PT method? Considering trains at rush hour are packed, as are trams, and I would imagine same for buses - there were only ever 'plans' to buy new trams/trains/buses but no firm numbers. More so what happens when they have to close the tram line for repairs etc like they did last year? Or the train? etc etc. I really dont see how such vague ideas and planning could have benefitted anyone except the authority collecting the cash.

oldagetraveller

Surely, as in the case of the Irish and the EU, the powers that be will just keep asking until the result they want is achieved.
Either that or make the question so ambiguous, ignore the result or even, dare I say, "manipulate" a future result!

sarahg1969

oldagetraveller wrote: »

Either that or make the question so ambiguous, ignore the result or even, dare I say, "manipulate" a future result!

I agree. I too assumed that the question was ambigously worded so that they could manipulate the result.

bargepole

oldagetraveller wrote: »

Surely, as in the case of the Irish and the EU, the powers that be will just keep asking until the result they want is achieved.
Either that or make the question so ambiguous, ignore the result or even, dare I say, "manipulate" a future result!

Apparently, the actual figures were 812,815 (79%) no votes and 218,860 (21%) yes votes, so that's an overwhelming NO to the question, which was:

Do you agree with the Transport Innovation Fund proposals?

YES, I VOTE FOR THE PROPOSALS
NO, I VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSALS

Not even our devious clowns in Whitehall can spin that result into anything other than the fact that this issue is now dead in the water.