SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
★★★
Joined
·
12,611 Posts
Vehicles would carry special tags that would register when a ring was crossed. Charges would apply towards the city centre during 7am-9.30am, and out of the city centre between 4pm and 6.30pm.
I think we can all see where this is heading...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,199 Posts
hopefully it will show how road user pricing won't work logistically. TPTB ignore the fact that we have a far better system in fuel tax (simpler, just as good at taxing congestion as you use more fuel), that has the bonus that it directly relates to emissions as well. I think their stubbornness is linked to the EU has wanted road user charging for about 30 years (partially to justify the Galileo GPS alternative) and the civil service getting hooked on this idea.
 
G

·
Whilst road pricing is unpopular if it funds quality public transport alternatives then it needs to be adopted.

Of course it begs the question, if the public transport alternative is going to be good then won't it diminish the revenues from congestion charging?

I've heard many examples of people still using their cars where a good quality rail alternative exists so this will hopefully make people think a bit more about their options.

But there needs to be real options.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
34,862 Posts
ahhh but they couldnt use fuel tax to pay for this. fuel tax pays for other things like wars in iraq, failed nhs computer databases and identity cards. they need brand new taxes instead to justify spending any money on public transport.
 
G

·
Ah right, in that case just take the Government hostage and demand a record breaking ransom from the Treasury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,199 Posts
Greater Manchester was pretty much blackmailed by the Government to do this - this was the only way that the Government would fund it, ie funding a different scheme and loaning the money out to be paid back by that scheme. £5 billion for Crossrail rather grates compared to everywhere else being forced to get congestion charging schemes and use the money from that to pay back a loan.

That there's the benefit of the improved pt is completely beside the point - that pt should have been paid for (by loan if needbe) directly, rather than forcing Greater Manchester to be guinea pigs for a scheme that has been on and off the shelf for 30 years (going back on for being unworkable, unpopular and just downright stupid). After the carrot of a pt network is in place, then you can start hitting donkeys that don't use it. Then again, it won't help as those who are getting hit with a stick, get hit with a stick because there's no other alternative - people don't want to drive on congested roads, therefore they won't unless they have to.

Also, Trafford and Stockport councils are against it, and Bolton is to hold a referendum on the issue. The other councils (I think Manchester and Rochdale are the big players in this, from what I've read) are forcing a scheme on councils that don't want it. Lovely and undemocratic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,308 Posts
sotonsi - 7 out of the 10 Greater Manchester councils have to approve it, which is perfectly democratic.

In fact we could have a situation where only 6 approve it (the majority) and yet it still doesn't go ahead.

This hasn't been forced on Greater Manchester either. Any city or town was allowed to bid for it and Manchester was the only big city to get its act together to go for it.

Congestion charging will be pushed on every city eventually. The difference is, we'll get £3bn of public transport improvements and the others won't.

I'm all for it! :cheers:
 
G

·
Congestion charging will be pushed on every city eventually. The difference is, we'll get £3bn of public transport improvements and the others won't.

I'm all for it! :cheers:
Other cities will have to get similar scale funding or congestion charging won't work.

It's the only selling part of the deal, introduce congestion charging - get a shit load of cash for public transport.

Without it it's just a tax which will be seen as a tax.
 

·
Against ID Cards
Joined
·
9,799 Posts
I was always in favour of London's scheme because there was a great network of public transport available prior to its introduction in the zone it was originally introduced. However I'm far more sceptical about this because the key point is that the public transport infrastructure needs to be in place before they start charging. Otherwise it won't be particularly effective and will be simply viewed as another way of the government generating money. Can anyone tell me whether the money raised from the scheme is ringfenced for public transport in Manchester? Will any go back to central government? Public transport in Manchester isn't bad, but certainly not up to scratch yet. They should implement the improvements and then introduce congestion charging.
 

·
Mancunian Member
Joined
·
7,180 Posts
They should implement the improvements and then introduce congestion charging.
That's exactly what is going to happen. :)

Money from the CC will go back into funding and maintaining the public transport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,092 Posts
What happens if the £3bn package of improvements ( as is always the case ) runs over budget? What if the projects end up costing £4-5billion? Does the government take up the slack ( so essentially taxpayers throughout the UK sub Manchester or it could be seen as Manchester getting preferential treatment over other cities? ) or does Manchester get hit harder through increased charges etc? What if the tories come in at the next election? Can they pull the plug on this and stop everything before it's begun or leave projects just hanging?
 

·
Against ID Cards
Joined
·
9,799 Posts
In that case fair enough. My only one reservation then is that the money raised wont be ringfenced and some may go back to central government? Will this be the case?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,199 Posts
This hasn't been forced on Greater Manchester either. Any city or town was allowed to bid for it and Manchester was the only big city to get its act together to go for it.
It was a case of "we won't fund metrolink unless you do as we say and implement congestion charging", if that's not blackmail, I don't no what is. Manchester could have not had any pt improvements, I guess - after all, the West Midlands planned a scheme for congestion charging in order to get some money from the government and they worked out that it was worth not having the government *loan* for Midland Metro extensions as, even though they'd get their tram lines, they'd be out of a job next election as well as the decreased mobility of the congestion charge negating all the increased mobility of better pt.

It was like a kidnap situation - if you want your daughter back, you have to give us lots of money - I guess that might not be technically blackmail, but they couldn't have the pt without having the congestion charge - they couldn't get the daughter without having a massive loss.
Congestion charging will be pushed on every city eventually. The difference is, we'll get £3bn of public transport improvements and the others won't.
errr, the other cities would be allowed to use the profits of congestion charging to pay back loans for public transport projects as well. However I don't think it would be pushed on every city for quite a while - not unless Labour pass a bill removing the democratic process, or the Lib Dems gain a huge swing. The Tories won't go for it - local councils would have the choice to implement it. Then again, it's electoral suicide to do that, so Labour might try and bring it in next week (and the Tories would overturn it when coming into power).
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top