|
12 Dec 08 - 07:47 AM (#2513398) Subject: BS: Manchester says no! From: Dave the Gnome ...to the congestion charge. See the BBC news story here Much as we need to reduce the amount of traffic I, for one, am pleased at the outcome. This charge was always fataly flawed in that it concentrates on forcing motorists off the road by taxing them more. It was doomed to failure in concept and, knowing the ineptitude of the local authorities, it would never have been administered fairly anyway. Howe can you trust a local authority that purposely puts the postal ballot at a time when postal traffic is at the highest peak anyway and then spends our money telling us to vote yes? Maybe now we can concentrate things that will make a real difference without pricing those that can least afford it off the roads. I have a few ideas myself - More use of home working and the internet is one minor one. What do you think is likely to suceed as an alternative to the congestion charge? Re-regulate buses and trains? Incentives to travel outside peak hours? Others? Cheers DeG |
|
12 Dec 08 - 08:09 AM (#2513413) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Leadfingers Londoners had NO option! Congestion Charge was imposed !! Just means I DONT drive into London till after 7 PM !!! |
|
12 Dec 08 - 08:12 AM (#2513415) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Liz the Squeak But at least Boris has scrapped the extension for now.... wonder where he lives? Oh yeah... just inside what would have been the new extension zone. LTS |
|
12 Dec 08 - 08:22 AM (#2513420) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Paul Burke Those who can least afford it are already priced off the roads, and have no option but to travel by buses that are probably among the most expensive in the world, and are frequently unreliable, being stuck in the traffic jams created by those who can afford them. I do agree that there was an alement of "something must be done, so here's something" about the proposals though. The way ahead is clear, but it's not going to happen, because it involves massive subsidisation of public transport to the point where the convenience of the car is outweighed by the cost differential. One problem is that the legacy of 60 years of promotion of individualist transport is that that convenience point is moved far down the road, so to speak. Whereas you used to be able to do most of the shopping locally, only going to town occasionally for the specialist items, now basic staples are a car drive away (or two changes of bus). Most local shops deliver no more than low- grade booze, fags, a few convenience foods, and the lottery. And if there's ONE item not available locally that you have to drive for, you've already spent the cost of buying the car, maintaining, insuring and taxing it, and the petrol to get that one item, so you may as well get the lot while you're there. It's funny how public policy never seems to connect things- the car policy is responsible for so much social ill. Obese kids (and adults), because they are driven everywhere- the roads are unsafe for bikes and often even for walking. Destruction of communities by road schemes and isolated, focusless suburbs. Reduction in interaction between people, and long commuting journeys for parents, so that kids don't get a chance to learn rules of behaviour. The rising tide of asthma is widely believed to be connected with traffic pollution. The spreading ugliness of town and countryside as street lighting and the plethora of signs becomes ubiquitous. Proposals? Policy 1- make shops, schools, businesses, services local again. That's going to be difficult in areas where some people see shops as a piggy bank to be drawn on when drugs money is needed, so local security will have to be strengthened. Insurance is often difficult, so the state might have to provide this. Huge tax on out-of-town malls etc. Tax their parking spaces is one way. frequent, cheap bus service. Trams, rail, tram/rail (railbuses that go all the way into city centres), hybrid electric buses that run on batteries or even IC engines in the remote suburbs, but use the wires in town. City centre taxi-rickshaws for those hard of walking and carrying. Safe, maintained, bikeways and secure bike parking. Ban motor vehicles within 400 yards of schools. Shut off most of the inner city to private vehicles, and control access to deliveries. The presumption should be walk or bike if you are fit enough. Massive support for small businesses of all sorts, both in city centres and out of town. Create diversity- lots of small local jobs. Make people nicer, kinder and more moral. |
|
12 Dec 08 - 09:04 AM (#2513459) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Spleen Cringe Downside as I undersatnd it is that we lose out on loads of new investment in the public transport infrastructure. Anyway, I've got a meeting to go to ... on my bike. |
|
12 Dec 08 - 09:28 AM (#2513481) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Public transport should be free, and er....available in the first place. Put back the stations (or build new ones) which Beeching got rid of and open up the villages and towns via the railways, once more. I travel either by bus, or by bike. It's cost me a fortune on the buses over the years, especially taking the kids with me. They're usually late, the buses, not the kids...full up, hot, stuffy, smelly and down here, where Stagecoach rule...more often than not, old, fumey and orrible...and nope, can't afford a car and I don't drive anyway...Can't get a job in the next three towns as I can't rely on the crappy bus service to get me there, or home, in time. Ah....Country Life It's not just the UK towns that are in BIG trouble... |
|
12 Dec 08 - 09:48 AM (#2513498) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Big Al Whittle I never thought they'd go for it. I think if they charged people for getting out of Manchester, they'd have more chance. I can see how people might be willing to pay for that. |
|
12 Dec 08 - 09:53 AM (#2513500) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Terry McDonald Perhaps they should hold another referendum, and another, and another until they get the desired result.... |
|
12 Dec 08 - 10:38 AM (#2513528) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Dave the Gnome Very good points, Paul. I'd go for all of those! I would add extra routes on the frequent/cheap services as well. You know Salford quite well don't you? Did you realise that for me to get from the Heights to Salford Quays it involves at least 2 changes of buses? For a 3 miles journey to somewhere the council seem to be moving everything to I find that ludicrous! I like controling when deliveries occur as well. Senora el Gnomo worked just near Deansgate station - another difficult journey by public transport - so I used to drive her in. The number of HGVs parked up and delivering during rush hour was ludicrous. Funnily enough, it only seems to have happened since local councils took over parking restrictions from the police in 2000. Wonder why... I'm not too worried about the loss of investment SC coz I don't believe the money would have been wisely spent anyway. Call me an old cynic if you like but when local councils start saying they are going to invest millions of our pounds I start to get cold sweats! Cheers DeG |
|
12 Dec 08 - 01:40 PM (#2513656) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: John J Daves comment: "I'm not too worried about the loss of investment SC coz I don't believe the money would have been wisely spent anyway. Call me an old cynic if you like but when local councils start saying they are going to invest millions of our pounds I start to get cold sweats!" is very close to the truth of the feelings of many...including me. The Metrolink is bloody expensive an unreliable. The bus service is a bad joke. Extensions to the Metrolink we were promised some years ago have been cancelled, only to be brought back if the outcome was a 'Yes'. We were going to get an extra 250 bicycle 'parking' bays spread over 25 locations = 10 per location. Not many really. Consider that most cycle-friendly country, Holland. They have parking for thousands of bicycles at the railway station at Amsterdam. Perhaps if the public transport system was brought up to scratch first, and THEN have a referendum the result may have been different. Dave if you're an old cynic then so am I! BTW, I voted Yes but I didn't for one minute think it would go through. John |
|
12 Dec 08 - 02:50 PM (#2513700) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Dave the Gnome The public transport system will never be brought up to scratch while it is run by people who only consider the bottom line. If a route doesn't make money - It gets taken off. The only way for a route to make money is for every bus or train on that route to be overcrowded. Catch 22 - People don't use it because it is crap. It is crap because people don't use it! DeG |
|
12 Dec 08 - 03:24 PM (#2513725) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: McGrath of Harlow Silly buggers. |
|
12 Dec 08 - 04:23 PM (#2513772) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: GUEST,Tunesmith This is a big mistake! And, it seems that this "no" vote will result in other cities scrapping any future move towards congestion charges. You've got to blaim the stupid local politicians for not simply imposing the charge. Idiots! |
|
12 Dec 08 - 04:35 PM (#2513788) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Ebbie What is the typical price of a bus ride in the UK? In the US it varies widely. In Juneau, Alaska, where I live a ticket for one-way travel, plus transfer, is $1.50 for the general public ($1.00 for students, children under 6 free, seniors with a tax exemption card also free). Same amount, of course, for the return trip. One can get a 20-pack bus token for, I believe, around $25.00 or a monthly pass for $36.00. In Fairbanks, Alaska, up the road- by air - of about 500 miles, one can get an all-day pass for $3.00. It would be nice if Juneau had that feature. Train travel in Juneau is not possible. We have no rails. However, we have plenty of taxis. This community of 30,000 supports three cab companies, plus a couple of independents. It costs $3.60 to climb in, and $1.80 per mile thereafter. Recently they have also won the right to charge per minute idling at a red light. |
|
13 Dec 08 - 03:13 AM (#2514100) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: John J UK bus fares are charged by distance, from where I live near Altrincham, to get Manchester by bus (around 5-6 miles) would cost about £4 = U$6. We tend not to have return fares so it would be another £4 if you didn't want to walk home. The Metrolink tram is about the same although return fares are available. I use my bicycle but if the weather's really bad or I need to carry a load of kit I'll take a chance on the tram. John |
|
13 Dec 08 - 08:46 AM (#2514231) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Dave the Gnome You've got to blaim the stupid local politicians for not simply imposing the charge. It's because of stupid politicians, both local and central, that we are in this pickle in the first place. If Beeching had not closed half our railways and Thatcher had not deregulated the buses we may just have been better placed to improve public transport now. If Manchester and Salford Councils had not sold their assets to fund short term quick fixes then they may have had the funds to provide sensible alternatives. Saying that those same politicians should impose the same crap policies on us will only lead to even bigger cock ups. If a plumber came to your house and left it in a worse state that it started would you say he should force you to let him do something else? I think not. Taxation has never worked as a regulatory device. The money from taxation has never been spent where it ought to be. The congestion charge would be no different. Fix the existing public transport problems first. Then we can see about limiting private vehicle usage. Cheers DeG |
|
13 Dec 08 - 09:38 AM (#2514248) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: GUEST,Tunesmith I think the consenus is that it's been a good thing in London. Getting people out of their cars ( even if it's simply walking to the bus stop)has got to be a step in the right direction, and reducing pollution from vehicles is essential. We don't want a country filled with fat car drivers! |
|
13 Dec 08 - 12:07 PM (#2514332) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Dave the Gnome London has the tube, an excelent bus system, a comprehensive transport policy and how many railway stations?. We have a shit bus service, metro trams that are expensive, serve only about 20% of the area and stop running at the drop of a hat. Plus linear parks instead of train lines, unmanned railway stations that Arnold Schwartzeneger would not enter at night and rolling stock that had seen better days when Kipling wrote 'it's a special train for Atkins'! If I could get from Salford in the west to Rusholme in the south, less than 5 miles and about 15 minutes by car, in less than an hour and without traveling on at least 2 buses and then get home again after 11pm I may consider it. Until such a time they cannot hope to get private cars off the road. Yes, we do need to reduce vehicles and pollution and no we don't want a country full of fat car drivers but additional taxation managed by an inept local authority is not the answer. DeG |
|
13 Dec 08 - 01:58 PM (#2514419) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: John J I live less than 10 minutes by car from Manchester International Airport. I live in a small but densely populated town, a suburb of Manchester. I can't catch a bus from where I live to the airport, the tram doesn't run there, I can't even go by bicycle because there's nothing to lock my bike to - and you wouldn't want to cycle on the roads serving the airport anyway, they're far too busy. The only half reliable way to get to the airport using public transport from here is to take the very expensive and not very reliable tram service all the way into Manchester, then take a train all the way back. A total distance of 14 - 15 miles to get about 3 miles. It is much cheaper to travel by taxi. Madness. JJ |
|
13 Dec 08 - 02:28 PM (#2514432) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: GUEST,Tunesmith Right! But the situation won't change unless something drastic is done - like a congestion charge and - as a result - a vast increase in money spent on public transport. Leaving things as they now stand isn't a sensible option. |
|
13 Dec 08 - 04:35 PM (#2514527) Subject: RE: BS: Manchester says no! From: Dave the Gnome Spot on, tunesmith and I agree wholeheartedly that something needs to be done. But taxation has never stopped people doing anything. The tax on fuel only affects the poor, road tax is used for everything but maintaining roads and the congestion charge would be no different. It was a knee jerk reation and a cynical method that the funding bodies used to stop the already promised investment. Central government had already promised investment and now cannot afford it. So they told the local authority that they can only give them the funds if the congestion charge is introduced. It has been known from the offset that a referendum asking people if they want to pay more tax was doomed to failure. The poor suckers running Manchester are so inept they could not see through the ploy and fell for it hook, line aqnd sinker. Some were stupid enough to imagine that the referendum being held just before Christmas, when people are already wondering how on earth they will make ends meet, was a good idea. Not only that, they funded the 'yes' campaign out of the taxpayers pocket so we are all paying for it already! Where do we find these people and who keeps them in power? Let me ask some questions that I could never get answered by our elected representatives. What was the congestion supposed to do? Stop people using cars to get into Manchester? Yes? Well, how effective would it be? If it was so effective that it did indeed stop people driving in where were the extra funds going to come from? If it was ineffective and people still drove in anyway, what was the point of it and how would the extra revenue be used? Rhetorical questions of course. The charge would not stop people driving in. The funds would not go to improve public transport and yet another transport policy would cause hardship to the poorest amongst us, like the closing of the railways and deregulation of buses before it. There plenty of good solutions, some already mentioned here. But they all involve heavy investment and radical thinking. Something that central government is not prepared to do and local governments are incapable of. OK. Off my soapbox now. Do I look any cleaner? :-) Cheers DeG |