Charge worries for ski slope

Alan Salter

June 18, 2007

| Submit Comments | Comments (32) | Previous | Next

Congestion worries - the indoor ski slope

A CLOUD hung over Europe's biggest indoor ski slope on its proudest day so far...Greater Manchester's approaching congestion charge.

For it emerged that the centre which is due to open next to the Trafford Centre in November may have been built elsewhere if the developers had known about the road pricing plans.

The Chill Factor which has drawn admiring glances from drivers on the nearby M60 as it reached its full height over the last few months, will employ 500 people and is expected to attract 2.5million visitors a year to its real snow slopes.

Behind the glittering traditional "topping out" ceremony was fear that the charge would put off potential customers at the £31million centre.

After celebrating with bosses of contractors Sir Robert McAlpine - builders of the Eden Project in Cornwall and Arsenal's Emirate Stadium - Chill Factor chairman Peter Moore revealed that he first heard of the congestion charge plans when he read about them in the MEN six weeks ago.

He said: "Any reasonable person recognises that there has to be some management of the traffic problem - and I don't yet know the fine details of the scheme.

"It came as a bit of a bolt out of the blue to learn that we are just a few yards from the edge of cordon.

Demand

"We will have people on the slopes before 9.30am and our busiest time will be between 4.30pm and 6.30pm so the congestion charge is going to affect our business. There is bound to be some demand reduction.

"It would have given us great food for thought when we were deciding where to build it if we had known that a congestion charge was going to be imposed."

He added: "It is important that we know the full details as soon as possible."

The British Disabled Ski Team has chosen the centre as its training base for the Vancouver 2010 Paralympics.

Articles

| Submit Comments | Comments (32) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Simon B (18/06/2007 at 06:50)

AGMA, GMPTE and the GMPTA do not care about this.

they are only after your customers cash.

They are trying to keep the Trafford centre quiet with a MetroLink.

But the Trafford centre boss has said he does not want it as its nothing more than blackmail.

Two websites below dedicated to the fight against the con charge.

And the email address for MANCHESTER AGAINST ROAD TOLLS

www.no2toll.co.uk

www.notolls.org.uk/manchester.htm

manchester@notolls.org.uk

gillykins, urmston (18/06/2007 at 07:56)

The building has drawn admiring glances???? Its an eyesore for whoever lives in the area. I only hope that the exterior is not finished and that they will cover up the ugly blight on our landscape with some foliage.

Chris, Irlam (18/06/2007 at 08:34)

Oh what a surprise - it is only common sense that a Toll Tax will reduce the numbers visiting attractions such as this - not to mention shops & the like.

I bet they wish they'd built on the dumplington site just across Barton M/way bridge now.

Simon B (18/06/2007 at 09:07)

I agree with you Chris, If had just spent 31 Million on this.

And then heard about the Greater Manchester Congestion Charge for the first time just before completion I would feel sick to my stomach.

And then to realise If you had built on the second choice site you would have been ok.

I would look at sueing who ever granted the planning permission for non-disclosure of vital information.

I wonder how many others are now in the exact same position over not being told about the charge, until they are at the point of no return.

AH, Manchester (18/06/2007 at 09:42)

I agree with gillykins, on the aproach from Urmston to the Trafford Centre, this ski slope looks bloody awful.

PW, Manchester (18/06/2007 at 09:44)

You have to remember folks, whether you're a commuter, a business, a district nurse etc, IT'S ALL FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! Believe that and all will be well, except your wallet of course. That will get picked as you go about your honest daily business.

Andy., Bury (18/06/2007 at 10:31)

I'm not convinced by the congestion chartge but I do find it a bit rich given that this new attraction will only add to the frequent gridlock around the Traffic Centre.

Neutral (18/06/2007 at 10:53)

Yes. It would have been so much better if it had been located on Dumplington - where the outwards bounds evening charge would have meant anyone within the M60 wuld have had to pay to get to it. At least this way, people can access it at the time when it's likely to be busier and choose to leave just after the charge period. As oppose to having to wait until half 6 to get to it and avoid the charge.

Read what Peter Moores says carefully. I am pretty sure that this place would have always located itself where it is. And saying they should sue is hardly sensible. Do I get that optin when I buy a house, only for tesco to locate on the next road a year later? The charging suggestion has been on the national agenda, and, subsequently, local councils, for much longer than this ski slope.

Just another day - same old commentators (18/06/2007 at 11:49)

Have ever looked at any article about the proposed congestion charging in Manchester and the accompanying comments? Same ones each time from Warrington and Irlam.

This article is like many other total speculation and not based upon any reasoned arguments.

Professor Bob (18/06/2007 at 12:17)

What about the poor people who live in Urmston,Partington.Irlam and Cadishead who work in Eccles or Trafford park.These are the people who will suffer just to Keep Manchester city Centre free for the councillors to travel in and out easily.They talk about congestion,it only last for at the most one hour morning and the same evening and yet they want to charge far longer.I am not against the charge completley but keep it to the City centre.

Simon B (18/06/2007 at 12:31)

Chris in Irlam is a Greater Manchester resident, And I do believe that Roger Jones, Chairman of the GMPTA is one of his three councillors.

So Chris on two counts is perfectly entitled to state his opinion in this matter.

A reasoned argument

As road users we pay 50 billion year in road and fuel tax, but only a small portion of that is put into the roads, and now you want to pay even more.

Also why is the GMPTE/GMPTA/AGMA group as part of the deal willing to take on 2 billion pounds of debt as part of the 3 billion deal.

What happens to this debt when the Congestion Charge fails after crippling Greater Manchesters economy?

Why is the information given by GMPTE/GMPTA/AGMA still so vauge, are they hoping by being vauge the people will not stand up and full oppose it until its too late.

Being vauge seems to be their number one weapon.

Number two is ignoring the questions of places like the Trafford centre.

Why has the Trafford Centre boss, and the small business forum be excluded from the AGMA panel advising on the Congestion charge, but the bus company bosses are on it.

And why has no one on the pro camp yet give an Adequate reason for not having a Referendum on the Congestion Charge?

Bean B4, manchester (18/06/2007 at 12:44)

Just another day - same old commentators: You're right. Simon and Chris are obsessed. Boringgggggggggggg

Batfink, Manchester (18/06/2007 at 14:48)

Just another day, same old commentators - Kurt, I thought you were not going to post on this issue any more?

Chris, Irlam (18/06/2007 at 15:28)

My sentiments exactly Batfink - he obviously does not have much to occupy his day and now, having comprehensively lost the argument, has to resort to trolling....

How sad.

Andy., Bury (18/06/2007 at 15:37)

And the cost to us of ever increasing congestion? Just because it's not taken directly from your pocket doesn't mean it doesn't cost you.

I don't like the idea of a congestion charge because like other indirect taxes it will hit the less well off disproportionately. But something has to be done to both incentivise use of public transport, cycling and motorcycling and to disincentivise car use.

Chris, Irlam (18/06/2007 at 16:04)

So Andy - you say more CARROT and less STICK perhaps?

Exactly what us anti-toll folk say.

Make PT cheap & reliable and people will use it - but at the same time realise that there is not, nor will there ever be, a PT solution to every possible transport requirement - cars will always be needed for certain things.

There is nothing wrong with investing in PT - it's just that why is it that the motorist expected to cough up for it all the time - do the government not take enough money from motorists already?

Andy., Bury (18/06/2007 at 16:42)

The trouble with you "anti toll" lot is that you chuck out figures which ignore the hidden investment for road transport and its hidden cost in lost work time and spent fuel whilst you're stuck on the M60, A56, A34 or wherever. Quite clearly the "anti toll" lot believe it is your divinie right to travel by car come what may (the "anti toll" lot seem also to be indistinguishable from the anti speed camera lot too).

My opposition to congestion charging is purely because it is indiscriminate and will hit the poor harder than the wealthy; if they could iron that out I'd be happier.

But I would agree that better public transport - a properly resourced integrated and affordable transport network is vital. And that very little progress has been made thus far.

PW, Manchester (18/06/2007 at 16:46)

Chris

"it's just that why is it that the motorist expected to cough up for it all the time - do the government not take enough money from motorists already?"

No matter how many times you bring up that very valid point, you will not get an answer. It undermines them.

keitho (18/06/2007 at 17:08)

as usual no one is getting to the real issue...we pay for the rds already through various taxes why should motorists pay for buses and trams that most motorists will never use....ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

wkdboy1, Hyde (18/06/2007 at 17:57)

And the government are telling us that the economy will benefit from congestion charging, this just shows proof that the economy in Manchester and the surrounding area will suffer a big blow, people and businesses will move away taking money with them, so I hope the councils are happy with them self¿s, I see a big problem arising soon and it will be the council and the governments fault, then who will they blame, the tax payer again!!
Say no to congestion charge and make your voices heard, complain to the GMPTE and the councils and your MP. Then they might get the point that we do not want congestion charge and never will.

Andy, Wythenshawe (18/06/2007 at 19:08)

" Make PT cheap & reliable and people will use it"

As long as their car is affordable ...NO THEY WON'T.

Why have they built this energy wasting pile of garbage anyway, it'll be using the same amount of energy as a decent size town.

silver-fox, Chorlton (18/06/2007 at 22:35)

To put this into context... go and see what similar facilities like Castleford charge for a family of 3 or 4 - £60 for just 1 hour. This place is bigger and better, so will probably be costlier still. Also, remember the cc is weekdays only. Whatever the rights or wrongs, it would be impossible for the city council to introduce this charge without including the Trafford Centre in the zone, wouldn't it? Maybe it will encourage some development in the generally deprived areas just outside the zone too.

J Sheldon, UK (19/06/2007 at 00:59)

I was surprised that the Chairman of this development was not aware of this potential debacle prior to reading a newspaper, as excellent as MEN is. This tax will affect Manchester in a way that the Council wish to ignore. Why England once again for congestion charging? Because Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland do not want it and have a proper national representative body. What does England have? Representatives from those Countries who have an eye to their own Countries well being.

This is nothing but tax - otherwise other methods of vehicle control could be used. Being in England is to be unequally treated and to be unequally taxed.

Dave Sherwood, Hollins Green (19/06/2007 at 08:48)

When the charge is introduced,and make no bones, Loony labour will introduce it,how will effect travel.First we need to regulate all transport.At present if I buy a bus pass from one company I cannot use it on another bus company,that means I have to wait until my bus turns up or pay again on another bus company.At present the bus service is a total shambles and when you telephone to complain they say put it in writing and then you never hear from them again.These bus companies need to brought back into regulation and stop their could not care less attitude.

Chris, Irlam (19/06/2007 at 10:26)

PW - I know, that's why I continue to bring it up all the time....

And as to people's comments about cars being affordable being the reason why people don't use PT - exactly how much do you think it costs to run a car these days?

Do you think people are on the roads every day for the fun of it?

As I have already said - you have to accept that there will never be a PT solution to all journeys....even Roger Jones accepts this!

()

Report

News