Until they (mcc) can think of other ways of sneaking it in?. or calling it by another name and bring it in?We will get it ?the powers that be have spoken......

What part of NO doesn't Councillor Jones understand?

Why the u-turn? I'm suspicious about what behind the scenes decisions have been made on our behalf. Will they think of another scheme to hit the motorist where it hurts?

He hasn't heard a credible alternative from the people who hate it? Er, hang on. All I've heard about is people explaining how places like Singapore manage traffic - with efficient, good value public transport, sensible regulations such as restricting movement of HGV's in peak hours, etc etc. Open your ears and you might hear a credible alternative!!

Since we announced our ideas, I have not heard a credible alternative to congestion charging from those who hate it."
Use alternative transport for goods comming into the city and ban heavy goods delivering during daytime.and make use of the canals again around our towns and citys.

It seems there will be a £1 Billion windfall for Manchester if Road Pricing is introduced. So where is all this additional money coming from?

It will come from the car user who will be taxed and penalised for using the roads paid for by our fathers.

Every year, we as drivers pay around £50 Billion to this government and only £7 Billion is spent on our roads. Most of this is used to add traffic lights, bus lanes, road calming schemes, one way systems, chicanes, road narrowing, and pushing bus stops out into the carriageway to prevent cars using the road when the bus has stopped.

If Manchester accepts road pricing, drivers will be expected to fund an additional £1 billion for the Metrolink.

If the council and government used the money they already take from the driver to improve our roads and increase capacity, congestion would be far less of a problem than it is today.

Say NO to road pricing. Use your vote on May 3rd.

'Since we announced our ideas, I have not heard a credible alternative to congestion charging from those who hate it.'

Mr Jones - On behalf of the Association of British drivers -
* Completing the motorway and bypass network that was planned 40 years ago.
* Stopping the practice of building inadequate roads such as the A14, and the A42 between Tamworth and Nottingham, both of which should clearly have been built as 3 lane motorways in the first place.
* Improving existing roads, for example by completing the flyovers and underpasses for which space was left when roads were constructed.
* Removing all bus lanes on dual carriageways.
* Forcing councils to reopen side roads that have been closed off at one end, or have had access restricted in some other way.
* Providing more parking spaces rather than legislating for less.
* A return to the policy of separating pedestrians/cyclists from heavy traffic where possible by construction of proper facilities for both groups, rather than using vulnerable road users as cannon fodder to justify the obstruction of motorised traffic.
* Free parking at all park and ride schemes for bus users.
* Free parking at all rail and tube stations for train users, and a big reduction in restrictions on parking in side streets nearby.
* Better marketing of bus and train services. The train advertising hoardings on the M1 approaching London are a good example of this.
* Better facilities for carriage of bicycles on public transport ¿ it couldn`t be much worse.
* Secure well-lit parking for bicycles at all railway stations. People are not going to cycle to stations if their bike keeps getting stolen.
* Incentives to encourage bicycle hire companies to operate at railway stations.
* Co-ordination of development to ensure that people can live close to their place of work and have proper transport links instead of the piecemeal approach that takes the road network for granted.
* Incentives to encourage or oblige companies to adopt home working practices. Technology now means that many office staff simply do not need to commute into a city centre every day. If all such staff worked from home just one day per week, their commuting needs would be reduced by 20%.
* Incentives for moving closer to places of work. For example, reduction of stamp duty on houses for employment relocation purposes. This could relate to the distance moved, for example someone moving 60% nearer to their place of work would get a 60% reduction on stamp duty.
* Large scale studies into people`s transport needs and habits, done with the intention of facilitating people`s lives rather than justifying anti-car anti-transport policies.

Are you listening Mr. Jones - Or will it take the Council elections in May to get the message through!

You have not heard a credible alternative!!!!! only because you don't listen or rather do not want to listen. You are only interested in grabbing more money again, just like the money that should have gone to public transport and instead went into your own account. Well be warned!! people have had enough of being battered about and controlled, hopefully the end is nigh.

Get rid of bus lanes, one-way systems, phased traffic lights, un-necessary traffic lights and blocked off streets (Dead Ends). As many have suggested you can also take freight off the roads and put it on rails. You could use channel tunnel type trains that are roll on roll off then the lorries can drive off when they get to the other end. If that fails then we will just have to suffer, but there is no way that we are going to accept a congestion charge no matter what form it may take.

Ditto Ace.
I'm sure there are lots of little changes, as well as BIG ones that could be made to public transport, but Freight is the big issue here.
It's what the canals were built for in the first place isn't it? & there are lots of abandoned industrial loading areas backing onto rivers near enough to delivery depots to make it a possibility. Amazing what you can see when you take a stroll by the river.

Despite Mr Jones' perception of lack of alternatives, I'm getting bored writing this now, but I'll say it again. Rush hour traffic is made twice as bad through the school run. All drivers know that, but this solid fact is simply ignored. The traffic lights need tweaking, not tampered with to snarl up the roads. The obstacles want removing, and they need to stop making bus stops blocking up the highway. In other words - when the bus stops we all stop. We should have bus lay-bys wherever possible. Abolish road tax duty and put it on fuel. Encourage remote working, say from home a few days a week. BUT DON'T TAX PEOPLE WHO SPECIFICALLY NEED THEIR VEHICLES FOR THEIR BUSINESS OR FOR GETTING TO WORK! THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING AMPLY FOR THE ROAD-BUILDING AND MAINTENANCE. They have to go to work to pay Income Tax, NIC and Council Tax and your salaries, you know. Oh, and don't harp on about environmental issues, when you deliberately force millions of engines to just sit there spewing out fumes instead of moving.

I'd be very interested to know who would be exempt from the charges, the disabled, the elderly now they have free bus journeys ? or what about council staff who have to use a vehicle for their jobs ? because the council itself would have to pay for the charges in that case wouldn't it ? Just wondered.

I'm broadly in favour of the idea of road pricing as long as there are viable alternatives in place before the scheme starts, and the proceeds from the scheme are ring-fenced for improvements to public transport and walking/cycling facilities.

The thing is, we're going to have to do something to tackle congestion before long, and if piloting road pricing in Manchester means we get access to the £1 bn of TIF funding that will deliver the improvements in public transport we need to make it a viable alternative, I think it's an opportunity that's too good to miss.

Mr. Abbas
You and your cohorts at Friends of the Earth believe that the Toll tax should be used to cut the cost of Public transport and raise the cost of motoring. The last few weeks have shown that there is very little public support for such a regressive policy as pricing the poor of the road. You also believe that the toll tax should be used to tackle emissions - despite levels of Pm10's and Nox increasing substantialy within the London charging zone. (Can I also point out that your policy of reducing speed limits from 30 - 20mph in residential areas (paraphrased) will actually increase engine emissions)
Congestion is self regulating and alarmist tales of impending gridlock are nothing but empty sound bites.

The fact that Friends of the Earth view the congestion charge as a way of furthering your anti car agenda is reason enough for motorists to oppose the Toll Tax.
By all means let us improve our environment but with balanced policies that are derived from practical politics and common sense, not from sound bites, alarmism, social engineering and ideology

look abroad for the answers to congestion. it was found that removing traffic lights, and the other obstacles like blocked lanes
had an immediate effect and reduced jams and tempers as well.filter left where remaining traffic lights are on red.simple measures,and get rid of the dreaded speed humps.

Ali Abbas, Chorlton
Open your eyes and look at what is going on around "your city" More and more people are being enticed into city living? How big do you want the tram system or how many trains do you want comming into manchester? You and people like you are being fed a "line" You are actually doing more harm than good for the enviroment? the more people who work and live in citys need more and more transport? We will just exchange more and more trains and busses instead of solving the real problems keep all the large vans and freight off the roads during the day and use canals Ect and make people share cars getting into the centre of manchester ,i know quite a lot of MCC people who actually live streets appart and yet they drive into manchester in different cars each day when really they could share?? Thats how clever our leaders are ?MCC one law for them and one law for us........