London's Congestion charge is a failure
7/08/2008

Congestion charging fails to cut jams on busy roads, experts warned yesterday.

Figures that will shock cities thinking of following London's example showed delays are just as bad as when the charge was introduced five years ago - despite fewer cars.

Paul Watters, the AA's head of public affairs, said of findings revealed in an official report: "It is clear the charge is not working.

"It has created a bureaucracy that costs a lot of money while congestion is just the same. The average speed of traffic in central London is 10mph - like it was 100 years ago. Incoming traffic might have dropped, but this does not count those already inside, or buses and taxis."


MCC please take notice More experts have made this statement About the congestion charge......

I'm pro-congestion charge but i'd rather the fat cats get the charge then motorists.

Lord Peter Smith, leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities said: "This irresponsible and indiscriminate policy would represent a body blow for many businesses. These proposals would be a triple whammy to Greater Manchester's business by increasing business rates across the region,..."

This comment displays complete economic illiteracy. If the investment in transport infrastructure brings a benefit to businesses, as we are being told by AGMA it will, then the increase in business rates will return some of that benefit to the public purse, so both public and private sector will benefit from the investment.

If, on the other hand, businesses were to end up worse off because of the business rate increase, then the infrastructure clearly wouldn't have brought the business benefits claimed, in which case, part of the case for TIF would have been shown to be invalid.

"encouraging negative responses to the appearance of the AGMA's transport exhibition in Hazel Grove."


And I thought will lived in free democracy with freedom of speech.


Silly me.

Why should Peel have any say in this or any anti con charge propaganda for this matter?

AGMA should be the only party putting the view accross as they do it properly with consultants and have a £3 million fund to make sure were not being mislead.

You're having a laugh Banana Boy? Right?

Strange how it seems to be "Toll Tax or nothing!" from the pro-toll side, apparently anything else just won't do.

Why is that?

Banana Boy are you related to Munkey Boy?
All that the AMGA do is provide positive propoganda on the con charge. not once have they privided anything to highlight the negative effects.
if businesses are so afraid of the impact of the con charge then they should be all speaking out and saying no.

what people dont seem to realise is if you try to impose taxes or charges on them, then they will just go somewhere else. businesses and workers alike.
Its just a great big tax. on top of all the tax we already pay.

we the people of manchester have worked hard to get us to where we are now. a booming city. so the government and city council now realise this and have seen the potential goldmine to extract more tax in one way or another.
the sooner labour are out the better we will be.
their slogan when the got in was new labour new britain.
it should have been
new labour new taxes!

Its not fair when peel cloud the water with facts that may put some people off voting Yes in December

So, In some peoples view.


It’s ok for AGMA/GMPTE/MCC to spend 3 million pounds of our money on the possible benefits of the CONcharge scheme, but will not tell us any of the extremely high risks.


Yet GMMG cant send a few people and round to one of these pro CONcharge events to put the record straight, after running a couple of quids worth of leaflets off a photocopier.


Take a look at the GMMG website and see who the members of GMMG are, it is not just Peel holdings.


We live in free democracy with freedom of speech, for everyone.

What a suprise, Peel holdings spouting again that the councils of Manchester sell the airport.

I wonder who the prime bidder for that might be bearing in mind that Peel have never hidden their desire to add Manchester to their airport portfolio.

Peel already own Liverpool John Lennon airport, Durham Tees Valley Airport, Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield and Barton Aerodrome (aka City Airport Manchester) - do we really want them to own any more airports, thus reducing our choice and competition further.

Cargo - funny that Peel want to reduce road cargo, what with them owning the Manchester Ship Canal and Salford docks.

Both of the above highlight that this is purely driven by the self-interest of John Whittaker and Peel holdings and has absolutely nothing to do with the congestions charge.

In addition, Manchester Airports Group (MAG - which includes Humberside, East Midland and Bournemouth airports in addition to Manchester) is a huge contributor to the purses of the councils and selling off such a valuable commodity would only cause headaches in the future.

GMMG and the Manchester public need to open their eyes and stop listening to John Whittaker's propoganda

i think the reason the proposal is congestion charge or nothing is because that is what central goverment insist on

when the bidding process for TiF money was launched it was clearly stated that some form of congestion management (read road charging) would be required in any succesful bid.

Any city could have bid for this money, but very few did. Birmingham considered it (i think) but decided not to as they didnt want to introduce charging

cambridge may have made a much smaller bid. no other cities have

so the choice faced by the council was no bid or bid with some form of congestion charge, they choose to bid with a charge applied; possibly a brave move and one which as already cost one councilor his job, and may well lead to more electoral defeats in the future

maybe the councils could have realised sooner how unpopular this might be and declined to bid

or maybe the voices on here will not prove to be representitive of the area as a whole and the vote will be yes to TiF, time will tell

those talking about who should and should not spend money inthe lead up to a vote may recall that there is an on going police investigation into Peel Holdings activities in the council elections this year

"I wonder who the prime bidder for that might be"

Well I think it's Kellogs so that they can move beyond the toy aircraft you get in your shreddies. :-)

I think that GMMG raising ANY options at all other than the congestion charge to counter the engineered problem of congestion is noble.

AGMA haven't considered anything else except nothing... which is increasing looking like the probable future plan as they continue to cock up their propaganda campaign.

Wait until GMMG start with the reports, adverts and hordings... I'm sure the companies on there could come up with £3m to counter the AGMA brainwashing... then claim it back from TiF.

"those talking about who should and should not spend money inthe lead up to a vote may recall that there is an on going police investigation into Peel Holdings activities in the council elections this year"

That won't come to anything, mark my words.

"Yet GMMG cant send a few people and round to one of these pro CONcharge events to put the record straight, after running a couple of quids worth of leaflets off a photocopier."

I commend the actions of GMMG, no £3 million budget but giving out leaflets at every roadshow will soon show the public who's wearing the rose tinted gigs! AGMA of course, loaded and full of propaganda.

Peel I commend you!

BenHK :

MAG dividends to the councils was £26m this year and has been similar in the past.
Not a small sum I admit, but when GMPTA/AGMA et al have wasted around £15m on this propaganda, it does not seem a huge amount.

If the Airport brings in £25 million a year for Greater Manchester yet the Pro charge brigade claim that TIF will be worth £10 billion in terms of economic benefits then that adds up to 400 years worth of airport dividends over the next 30 years.

Surely this sounds like politics "Zimbawi" style.Let the bus and tram companies invest the money themselves after all it will be their board of directors and investers who will benefit from all this taxpayers money being wasted on this congestion charge.

Get it sold to free us from this modern day slavery. Its like feudalism times paying the land owner to use his land but the land is supposed to be the rate payers now isn't it ?

Here's a suggestion to ease congestion. Train drivers, allow passengers that are three seconds late for your train to board instead of making them an hour late for work unecessarily! I missed a train by seconds yesterday because there is woefully inadequate parking at Stalybridge Train station. Although I did notice that it was undergoing renovation which was something that glossy brochure sugested was going to be done with the £3billian. I had to work an extra hour and was therefore an hour late home. The impact of this was that my wife was late for her evening job and she also had to work late to compensate. So I'm back in the car today thankfully.

No, the alternative is to remove all those deliberate obstructions and put the traffic lights back into a sensible sequence. These people think we're stupid and that we cannot see what they are up to.

The troubles with the TIF bid and the associated congestion charge proposals are due to the fact (only now emerging) that AGMA only startet properly talking to each other to integrate existing transport systems when the carrot of Government money was dangled in front of their noses - all the proposed
"integration" and "stream-lining" and "connecting" and "adjusting" should have been done years ago right after privatisation, and does not necessitate taking up a crippling loan of 1.5 Billion Pounds over 30 years ....
Add to that the fact that the congestion of the surrounding motorways has hardly been addressed ...
and neither have alternative measures or no-cost and low-cost solutions to ease congestion in and around Manchester....
but worst of all, the public at large does not as yet seem to fully appreciate what the installation of this major electronic tagging system means in Big Brother terms, once installed, it will be there for ever - for our children and grandchildren - at ever-increasing charging rates......
This family has come a long way in these past 10 months: we don't care any longer about the size of the charge, whether £ 5 or £ 7.50 at 2013 rates, even if it was guaranteed to be only 20 p for ever - we would not want the surveillance capability installed in Manchester - one that will only enrich the "agent" who is administering it on behalf of AGMA.
Go back to the drawing board AGMA and GMPTA and stop whingeing about GMMG or anybody else who is voting no on this crazy scheme - you've only got your own inefficiency to blame for any mess or perceived mess we are in ....
pull your socks up and get it right from now on !!
Go back to the Government and negotiate: when British motorists are contributing 52 Billion Pounds a year to the coffers, surely giving Manchester, the 2nd (or 3rd if you will British City) 1.2 Billion to improve transport is our god-given privilege and should not be attached to any "strings" or
"matched funding" in the shape of a crippling loan !
LBC

It's so refreshing to know that there are so many people out there that realise this has alsways just been about increasing local taxation. We know it, the government know it and local businesses and the councils know it. The truth is now surfacing. Increasing business rates to raise the money to repay the £3billion. Just don't spend the £3billion. Let the government fund these necessary improvemets in the transport infrastructure out of central funds. God knows they are getting enough money off us in fuel duty along with the tax on domestic fuel whilst pretending that inflation is 10% below what it is to stop us asking for increased pay.

"If the Airport brings in £25 million a year for Greater Manchester yet the Pro charge brigade claim that TIF will be worth £10 billion in terms of economic benefits then that adds up to 400 years worth of airport dividends over the next 30 years." - Sean Corker MART

So you'd sell off more of the 'family silver' to a private company?

The airport - and its revenue - belongs to the people of Greater Manchester through the AGMA... it's not for sale.

"If the Airport brings in £25 million a year for Greater Manchester yet the Pro charge brigade claim that TIF will be worth £10 billion in terms of economic benefits then that adds up to 400 years worth of airport dividends over the next 30 years." - Sean Corker MART

So you'd sell off more of the 'family silver' to a private company?

The airport - and its revenue - belongs to the people of Greater Manchester through the AGMA... it's not for sale.
Laura Norder, Didsbury
12/08/2008 at 17:16


It may have escaped your notice but 20% of motorists are going to be asked to subsidise private transport companies with new buses trains and trams.

Banana Boy: "AGMA should be the only party putting the view accross as they do it properly with consultants and have a £3 million fund to make sure were not being mislead."

Who makes sure we are not misled by AGMA? None of us have a £3million fund to fight against this propaganda. People who are against this can't afford to plaster posters across Greater Manchester. We rely on large organisations, such as Peel or anyone else who is willing, to fight our corner!