Bikers also face c-charge

Ben Rooth

June 04, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (59) | Previous | Next

BIKERS will be charged for riding into Manchester under the controversial new congestion charging scheme, it has been revealed.

Manchester will become the first city to charge motorcyclists for using the city's roads under initial plans proposed to the government by transport chiefs.

Motorbikes have been exempt from London's congestion charge scheme since it was introduced in 2003 due to their low carbon emissions and also because they are not blamed for causing traffic jams.

Other city congestion charging proposals have generally made an exception for two-wheeled vehicles because they do not contribute to jams.

The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority confirmed that motorbikes would be charged under the initial plans for a pay-as-you-drive system submitted to the government.

Chairman Coun Roger Jones said: "Over the past few days, I have received many emails from people who are not happy about the prospect of motorbikes being charged.

"We are currently in the process of carrying out a consultation about the proposed congestion charging scheme and now is the time for people who drive motorbikes or low emission vehicles to lobby us.

"A firm decision about whether to charge these two categories of motorists has still to be finalised and personally I think that they have a good case not to be charged."

Last month, the Manchester Evening News exclusively revealed plans to charge motorists £5 a day on the busiest routes by 2012.

Reduction

Bikers are expected to be charged less than this - although the exact reduction has yet to be decided. The M.E.N. understands that the final plan for the congestion charge will be sent to the government next month and will form part of a bid for £1bn funding from the Transport Innovation Fund.

Bury-based motorbike journalist and campaigner Steve Berry described the plans to charge bikers as `sheer lunacy'.

He said: "Motorbikes should be regarded as part of the solution - not part of the problem.

"Your average 50cc bike will do around 140 miles to the gallon and is not as harmful to the environment as other vehicles.

"In most European cities - as well as London - they are regarded as the most practical way of getting around as well as being cost effective. I just hope that those authorities which are considering charging motorbikers in Manchester see sense and realise that they are a practical, workable solution to the problem of congestion."

Fair to all? Let us know what you think of the charge below.

| Submit Comments | Comments (59) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

no2toll.co.uk (04/06/2007 at 08:48)

what next - taxing cyclists, because they also use the road, Taxing Pedestraians when they Cross the road?

its the dumbest thing I've heard yet - as the article states bikes are good for reducing congestion, and an alternative i'm sure some perople may have been concidering up until now...

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 08:56)

Just more proof this not about congestion.

Its just a scam to get more money out of us.

Please help the fight against this Join MART

Manchester Against Road Tolls

Email

manchester@notolls.org.uk

PW, Manchester (04/06/2007 at 09:12)

They're making sure there's no escape. See, switching to something more environmentally friendly or less congesting makes no difference. Tells you a lot about the true aims of this tax. It's all about taking your money. If you all switch to bicycles, you'll soon find yourselves being charged for that as well. If people avoid paying this tax by using alternative means, they will also be hit as congestion revenue falls. If you trust these people, you're a fool.

Orb the Impaler, Rochdale (04/06/2007 at 09:18)

This is the best evidence yet that this is about money, money and more money. We should get a referendum on this issue, but we won't; "democracy" (hah!) is at work. We'll get whatNuLabour thinks is good for us.

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 09:26)

Congestion Charges in the UK

London

Hybrid cars EG Toyota Prius Exempt

Motorcycles Exempt

Proposed Greater Manchester Con Charge

Hybrid cars EG Toyota Prius Not Exempt

Motorcycles Not Exempt

Its all a Scam

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 09:33)

The TIF bid website for the Greater Manchester Con Charge has a feed back page

http://www.gmfuturetransport.org/pages/feedback.htm

You can tell them you want a referendum.

Chris, Irlam (04/06/2007 at 09:37)

Bikes & low-emission cars should be exempt - if they are not then this is a revenue-raising exercise and has NOTHING to do with reducing congestion or pollution.

It is astonishingly simple - bikes & scooters DO NOT cause congestion!

As has already been said they are making sure there is no way out of paying unless you use PT - if this scheme is successful and congestion is removed from the roads you just watch public transport fares rocket to repay the multi-bilion pound loans owed.

Another reason to insist on a referendum & get rid of these insane proposals!

Angry of New Moston, New Moston (04/06/2007 at 09:46)

Why should motor bikes be exempt? I can't think how an oil guzzling 2 stroke, screeching round in a haze of blue smoke is environmentally friendly. I'd charge them double to get them off the road. I see a lot of complete idiots on them, inconsiderately squeezing between two cars, speeding, polluting the air with noise and smoke. Get em off the roads!

Technobabble, Manchester (04/06/2007 at 09:50)

Manchester council seems to be 'learning' the lessons of London, and trying to implement measures up front to catch as many commuters as possible in their little web. Proof (if proof were needed) that this is just about making money.

The only winners here will be the local council, the so-called public transport companies, and a central government desperate to pretend that a national road pricing scheme will work, before they force that through as well.

Chris, Irlam (04/06/2007 at 09:53)

Angry of New Moston:

If this is a CONGESTION charge then explain to me why something that DOES NOT cause congestion should be charged?

As for your other points they do not warrant any attention at all....rather than doing your usual rant try a bit of reason eh?

Go on, it's not too difficult....

Batfink, Manchester (04/06/2007 at 09:58)

Feedback form duly completed. Yet more evidence this is a complete scam.

Dave Sherwood, Hollins Green (04/06/2007 at 10:00)

Jolly Roger and the Looney Labour want us all off the road so when they drive into work (Claiming back the charge through expenses). the road will be empty.What next charging pedal cycles and pedestrians by how steps they take.

ace, manchester (04/06/2007 at 10:14)

We all complain in these newspapers but we forget one thing? Some of you voted this lot back into power,The only way that the voters can put a stop to these dictators is to vote them out of power,And keep voting these idiotd who dont listen to the voters of britain.ITS TIME TO COME OUT OF EUROPE WITH ITS POWER CRAZY GOVERNMENTS ..............

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 10:17)

Cheers Batfink.

Your a star.

Do want to join Mart?

manchester@notolls.org.uk

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 10:18)

Another way is to turn out in our thousands in public protest.

the next local election are too far away, thats why Labour kept in quiet until after the May 2007 elections.

Angry of New Moston, New Moston (04/06/2007 at 10:33)

Chris of Irlam: Here's a bit of logic (it's not too hard), if bikes queued at lights in an orderley fashion, they clearly contribute to congestion. If, on the other hand, they push in, squeeze through, overtake on hatched areas then, I agree, they make no contribution to congestion. Why should some born again teenager, careering round on a Nagasaki 750 with wide tyres get off scot free. I can almost smell the leather gear when reading your psuedo patronising response. Grow up - gerra car!

Angry of New Moston, New Moston (04/06/2007 at 10:38)

Simon B, I wonder who you voted for. Oh but then again it doesn't matter because you don't actually live in Manchester. If you want a 'cause' to rant about - find something in Warrington. If you don't want to pay the charge to enter our wonderful city, then don't. I'm all for the C charge. I'd make it really expensive so the poor and down at heal couldn't afford to come shopping.

Womble, Westhoughton (04/06/2007 at 11:06)

If they insist on charging bikes, I will stop going to Manchester altogether.

The trains and trams are like cattle waggons and the buses are filthy and get stuck in traffic. Indeed, buses add to the congestion, because most of the bus stops are just a white line painted on the road, rather than a proper pull-in, so all the cars and vans have to queue up behind them to wait for the bus to get moving again.

Riding my bike is a blessed relief from the madhouse of public transport.

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 11:13)

FAO Angry of New Moston.

I worked in Salford for 6 years 2000 to 2006.

And if the company I work for now goes ahead with its plans, I will be again, but in Stockport this time.

I have six friends who live and work in Greater Manchester who voted against Labour in May.

Four of my Warrington friends work in Greater Manchester.

I wonder as a percentage how much of Greater Manchesters working population does not live in Greater Manchester.

You need to grow up.

I also know Chris does not own a motorcycle.

The point we are making is that the modern motorcycle is now less polluting than a car.

They also have to pass the same exact emission regs as cars.

When ridden responsibly they are a great traffic busting tool.

Do not tar responsible motorcyclists with the same brush as a very very small minority of bad moped users who ignore all the rules.

Also if you are so anti pollution, explain how come that low emission cars are not going to be exempt in Greater Manchester, as they exempt are in London?

Chris, Irlam (04/06/2007 at 11:14)

Angry, your response shows little understanding, however:

1) I own 2 cars as well as a motorcycle, and am all grown-up already thank you very much.

2) The 'squeezing through' you describe is actually called 'filtering', it is 100% LEGAL and recognised as one of the benefits of motorcycling. Even motorcycle-riding Police Officers do it while out on patrol - have a look next time you are out (and take those blinkers off too).

3) Your final point shows your true logic (why should bikes get off scot free?) - the answer to this, as I have already stated is that (and I shall type it large so you can read it even with your myopia) THEY DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO CONGESTION SO THEREFORE CANNOT BE SLAPPED WITH A CONGESTION CHARGE!

Any other ill-informed & opiniated questions or rants?

Ms D, Manchester (04/06/2007 at 11:20)

I saw the congestion map in the MEN last week and noted anyone crossing the outer ring which is the M60 will be charged and charged again to cross the inner ring. Did anyone else note the inner ring was not around the City Centre but way out of it so they can legally mug people who perhaps work in Openshaw, Longsight and other areas way out of the city centre ? This proves to me it's about money and little else. Scams all the way. As a Manchester resident, I look forward to receiving my public consultation document for my comments.

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 11:32)

Ms D, Manchester

You will be lucky.

I rekon the consultation will be a third party appointed by the GMPTE and AGMA to do it, who ring just 1000 people at home during office hours.

they will ask 3 loaded questions.

Roger Jones will report back that 90 percent of those consulted support the idea and they will go ahead with the bid for the TIF money.

Angry of New Moston, New Moston (04/06/2007 at 12:07)

Ooops. 'I own 2 cars as well as a motorcycle' says Chris, Irlam.

'I also know Chris does not own a motorcycle' says Simon B, Warrington.

I don't think the council will have any trouble getting the own way if you two muppets are running the campaign. Now, own up, do yoiu own a bike or not. Perhaps you just pose round in the gear.

Caz, Fallowfield, Fallowfield (04/06/2007 at 12:19)

If schools started at 10.00am instead of 9.00am then the majority of congestion would disappear. Surely everyone must have noticed that last week there were hardly any jams as schools were on holiday, and parents were not blocking the roads taking their offspring to school! There should be an experiment where school starting & finishing times are adjusted accordingly, just to prove that the parents are the real cause of congestion.

I won't use public transport to travel to work, it's unreliable and always will be, its rammed full of people who knock your head off with their bags etc whilst pushing passed you, and there's nearly always people with coughs and colds on transport, especially on the student run. You just don't need the hassle.

Is anyone going to start a demonstration so we can all show the council that we won't be following their orders like sheep?

Simon B, Warrington (04/06/2007 at 12:44)

I was mistaken.

See, I can admit my mistakes.

Roger Jones and Lord Peter Smith will never their admit mistakes.

I work full time jobs, pay my taxes, pay my bills like all reasonable adults do.

I object to paying for a service I do not use, and as far as we can see even ten years from now will still not be fit for purpose.

The buses every 10 to 15 minutes everywhere proposed by Roger Jones is truly pie in the sky.

Improvements will be minimal before they implement the Con Charge

And with an estimated 30 year payback of the 1.9 billion pound loan to top up the 1 billion pound TIF fund, Roger Jones and Lord Peter Smith will no longer be were they are now, and may have even shuffled of their mortal coils.

But us, our children, and our grandchildren will be stuck with it.

Paying for a 30 year old mistake.

()

Report

News