BUSES will run through every Greater Manchester housing estate every 10 to 15 minutes thanks to money from congestion charging, transport chiefs have promised.
And drivers travelling to Manchester from Oldham and Rochdale may be exempt from the charge until Metrolink trams are running through the town centres.
The new details of how congestion charging could work were revealed at a Manchester Chamber of Commerce meeting by Coun Roger Jones, chairman of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority.
Supporters of the pay-as-you-drive system say it could bring up to £3 billion of improvements to trams, trains and buses.
Coun Jones said: "We will have buses every 10 or 15 minutes on every estate in Greater Manchester. They will not be big buses but, perhaps, minibuses which would operate a feeder service to the main roads."
Plans
Although officials stressed that plans are still being drawn up, they revealed to the meeting that commuters on low wages could get a discount and there will also be cuts in the charge for owners of 'greener' vehicles.
Oldham and Rochdale may not pay any congestion charges until Metrolink extensions to their town centres are complete. Other outlying areas - such as Stockport, which hopes to get a Metrolink line in the future - are also likely to avoid the charges for the first year.
Liberal Democrats, who initially opposed the plan, have now backed it but are demanding details of all costs and charges and the location of the charging zones.
Oldham councillor Richard Knowles said: "The public needs to know now the size of the proposed penalty charge for non-payment of congestion charges: London's penalty charge is £100.
"A clear map showing the location of the intermediate zone and the M60 and all charging points must be included in the public consultation document to be delivered to each household in Greater Manchester.
"How can individuals make up their minds how to answer in the public consultation if they don't know where the charging points are?"
Price worth paying? Have your say below.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Simon B, Warrington (31/05/2007 at 09:49)
Also seems the Lib Dems have changed their minds.
How many people will be consulted?
Phoning up 1000 people at home during office hours is hardly representative.
Has to be a least 270000 randomly by post, that¿s 10 percent of the population of Greater Manchester.
Anything less is badly unrepresentative.
Better still have a referendum, 89 percent of people who voted on the MEN website want one.
Also will Peel holdings be included, the last we heard they, along with the small business forum had been excluded.
Simon B, Warrington (31/05/2007 at 09:53)
Oldham councillor Richard Knowles says
A clear map showing the location of the intermediate zone and the M60 and all charging points must be included in the public consultation document to be delivered to each household in Greater Manchester.
How can individuals make up their minds how to answer in the public consultation if they dont know where the charging points are?
Are you trying to get us a referendum Mr Knowles ?
ace, manchester (31/05/2007 at 10:13)
Robert Tocker, Worsley (31/05/2007 at 10:20)
Does this mean I will have to get off the minibus and wait on the main road for another bus to take me to the train station,where after I get off I have to wait for another two buses to get me to work.I think not.Reading this story I was amazed at the little sweetners creeping in like concessions for the low paid,who defines low pay, they council on rate rabates certainly think different than the rest of us.
Harold Philbin (31/05/2007 at 10:38)
Any debate on congestion charges should contain the truth, regarding the plans submitted to The Government Office for The North West, in August '03 by The Deputy Prime Minister.
The proposal was to park commuter's vehicles at Prestwich, and travel into the city by Metrolink, via a new station halt in the car park.
This plan also included using electricity powered black cabs within the city limits.
The result would be the instant relief of vehicle congestion and pollution.
These are the only proposals to do just that, at a much lower cost to the ratepayers and commuters.
marc (31/05/2007 at 10:39)
Ms D, Manchester (31/05/2007 at 10:46)
Professor Bob (31/05/2007 at 10:52)
Chris, Irlam (31/05/2007 at 11:33)
There are no public transport improvements planned for our area according to the TIF bid.
Although Irlam is not included in the charging zone (for the time being!) almost all of the workers have to head in the direction of Manchester in the morning, and will be charged once they pass the M60. If Stockport gets let-off through having poor public transport links then so should Irlam.
And it is good that low-emission vehicles will be charged less BUT motorcycles should be exempt as they simply do not cause congestion....if just 5-10% of drivers used a scooter or a motorbike traffic queues would all but disappear.
Give us the details on these revisions and yes - we still need a referendum to prove whether the public back this scheme or not.
MisterSalford, Salford, Manchester (31/05/2007 at 11:40)
ginger blue, morecambe (31/05/2007 at 11:54)
Colin W, Stockholm (31/05/2007 at 11:56)
Peter Roberts, Telford (31/05/2007 at 12:01)
Buses are dangerous and dirty; they are far heavier than a car and produce many times the emissions.
Buses are inefficient as they do not transport you directly from your start point to your destination. Buses have to travel all around the area collecting the other passengers who have been priced out of their cars. This makes each individual journey far longer both in time and emissions than using a car to go directly from point A to B.
Buses are very inefficient and often run empty ¿ just look at them as they pass you if you doubt this.
To equal the emissions of a modern car, a bus needs at least 15 passengers for every mile travelled. Every time it is driven with less than this, it is spewing out pollution which is damaging the environment and serving no useful purpose.
Buses are heavy commercial vehicles which are dangerous in an enclosed environment ¿ i.e. a housing estate. If a child runs out in front of a bus, it is far more likely to hit and kill them than a car simply because the frontal area is a slab and they cannot stop anywhere near as quickly.
A glut of buses running around the country is not the answer environmentally or to solve congestion. Better roads and improved junctions will be far more effective than charging everyone 5 pounds to go to work in their car.
A referendum is the only way ¿ do not let the transport authority ¿ who are purely working to increase bus use and the increased money from fares ¿ make the decision.
Any change to the transport choices in this country of this magnitude must be with the agreement of the people ¿ not a select few who are chosen by the GMPTA to support their empire building plans.
David, North Manchester (31/05/2007 at 12:11)
David, North Manchester (31/05/2007 at 12:18)
Encouraging more people to cycle by making it safe means less congestion for cars and busses, less pollution, less accidents, better health, more money being kept in the local economy and much less noise for the houses on these routes. Why don't GMPTE ever develop a strategy for getting people back into cycling.
Ian (31/05/2007 at 12:48)
I live in Bury and the last bus that passes our estate leaves Bury Interchange at 2308 on Fridays and Saturdays. That means we have to get a tram at about 1015 from Manchester to catch it - leaves us a lot of time for a great night out doesn't it?
The last time my wife and I came back from Manchester, the tram stopped at Whitefield and turfed us all off due to a signal failure. They hadn't arranged a bus as they said they didn't get enough warning. After waiting for a 135 until 20 minutes past its due time, we started to walk to the next stop. Two minutes later it flew past as we were between stops. After walking for another 20 minutes, we stopped at a stop where the bus was due in another 2 minutes. 15 minutes later another bus raced passed with the ubiquitous "sorry not in service" sign on it, even though it had a dozen passengers on board. We waited for a further 35 minutes and a 135 eventually appeared at speed. My wife tried to hail the bus, which showed no sign of stopping, so I stepped into the road and tried to hail it and the driver just swerved past me.
We ended up having to walk the 4.5 miles home and eventually got in at 0415. As we were passing Bury Interchange, the same bus was returning to Manchester. I pointed to the driver as he drove past, who looked me full in the face and smirked.
I complained to GMPTE who said that they couldn't actually do anything as First is a private company, but that they'd pass on my complaint to them who had to reply to me within 15 days. A week later I got the reply, which said thanks very much for bringing the matter to their attention and that they'd investigate, but unfortunately due to data protection, they wouldn't be able to inform me of the investigation or the outcome. What a cop-out!! It also shows that First is a company of questionable customer service and honour and that GMPTE isn't worth a penny of our Council Tax as they are absolutely ineffectual if they can't control or penalise an operator under their licensing.
vickh, moss side (31/05/2007 at 13:09)
ruth davis (31/05/2007 at 13:11)
SP in exile watching from Mossley (31/05/2007 at 13:36)
Roger Bowden, Ramsbottom (31/05/2007 at 13:37)
Kat., Manc. (31/05/2007 at 14:07)
traffordtroublemaker (31/05/2007 at 14:55)
Unfortunately public transport in this country is looked down on, and at present, if I were priced out of my car, it would take a minimum of 2 buses to get from Sale to Trafford Park to work. It would cost more to get public transport to work, than to drive and pay the congestion charge. It would, however, double my cost of travelling to and from work during the year - it may be better if I just quit work and claim JSA. If we were all in this position the government wouldn't need to implement congestion charging as the roads would be clear. however, that would mean that the government and councils would have to spend money rather than stealing it from honest taxpayers - which I get the feeling would never be allowed to happen!
Snare Drum, Ashton-under-Lyne (31/05/2007 at 15:18)
It is no good putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la and only reading the bits you want.
We want a referendum. Why won't the beurocrats give us that? To scared to loose, that's why.
more facts and less tax (31/05/2007 at 15:45)
more facts and less tax (31/05/2007 at 16:13)