THE final line-up for Tuesday's showpiece debate on congestion charging in Greater Manchester has been confirmed.
The MEN has organised a televised "Question Time"-style forum for opponents and backers of plans to introduce controversial road charging
In what promises to be a highly-charged event, MEN readers can listen to the arguments of council bosses, environmentalists and business leaders and put them on the spot with their own questions.
The head-to-head debate will take place at Manchester's Urbis on Tuesday evening and will be televised by our sister TV station Channel M.
Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester council and one of the bid team, will set out the proposals for charging drivers up to £5 a day.
Blackley MP Graham Stringer, a prominent critic of the plans, had been due to attend the event but has had to pull out and will now be replaced by Michelle Wiseman, a senior Tory councillor from Bury, who is opposed to the scheme.
Opposition
Trafford Centre owners Peel Holdings are sending managing director Andrew Simpson to explain their opposition. Their own survey claimed 80 per cent of businesses were against the charge.
Environmental campaigner Dave Coleman will represent an alliance of voluntary organisations supporting congestion charging. Drivers will be represented by Sean Corker, who leads pressure group Manchester Against Road Tolls, which has launched a petition against the idea.
Speaking for the business community will be environment consultant Miranda Allan, vice-president of Wigan Chamber of Commerce and chairman of Greater Manchester Chamber's environment and transport committee.
The evening will begin with a short explanation of the plans by Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive head of planning Dave Newton, who will stay to explain any technical points which arise during the debate.
Questions will be submitted to chairman Andy Crane in advance, but the panel will not have sight of them.
The debate comes at the height of the consultation process to decide whether Greater Manchester should press ahead with a bid to the government for money from its Transport Innovation Fund, which could bring £3bn to fund three new Metrolink extensions.
The leaders of Greater Manchester's 10 district councils have until the end of this month to decide whether to submit the bid, with the government deciding on funding in December.
gmfuturetransport.co.uk
What do you think? Have your say.
Tweet
C-charge debate takes shape
July 16, 2007
CONGESTION: Televised debate
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/07/2007 at 06:29)
he does not react well to difficult questions, and we are not a bunch of weak councillors he can shout and intimidate in to line.
shayla (16/07/2007 at 07:20)
LET US VOTE........ YOU LET US VOTE YOU IN QUICK ENOUGH !
NO, YOU GET ENOUGH MONEY FROM ME!
Pete (16/07/2007 at 08:12)
Forward with Frank (16/07/2007 at 08:20)
Manchester Against Road Tolls (16/07/2007 at 08:23)
At the Transport Committee in November, he said that road tolls or "congestion charges" were neither needed nor wanted in Manchester and that the authorities were being forced in to it, as the Government would otherwise deny them any funds for investment in public transport.
Is there going to be any explanation as to why this leading opponent of tolls is now not going to be there?
Robert Tocker, Cadishead (16/07/2007 at 08:39)
Princess_Pam, Crumpsall (16/07/2007 at 09:30)
Congestion charging should apply to Manchester City centre, inside the inner ring road. Most of Manchester is classed as an Inner-city area so it's likely to be the poor who are worst affected by any charge that covers everywhere within the Outer Ring Road (M60). Even London doesn't charge everybody within the M25.
One of the big problems with congestion though are parents taking their children to school in a car instead of making them walk or use public transport as we had to do when I was younger. Whilst these anti-social drivers cause much of the problem, the council should look at staggering school hours with start times ranging from 7-10 am so not all of these cars are on the road at the same time.
Ms D, Manchester (16/07/2007 at 10:01)
Ms D, Manchester (16/07/2007 at 10:11)
rammylad, ramsbottom (16/07/2007 at 10:39)
No CC is acceptable to any family who is working hard to make a living and working hard to make this city what it is. Without the councillors Manchester would still be a great city. Without the people it would not.
tram vet (16/07/2007 at 11:12)
stringer goes awol when he could be seen going against the party line, rather than being able to deny the comments later? yet another politician who will say anything to keep those expenses coming in, but then will do nothing when we demand a result!
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/07/2007 at 11:15)
You are possibly right.
Showing us the worst possible example, and then going with a much much smaller zone, but even this has to be stopped, as we have seen in the London, their zone doubled in size and the charge went up by 60 perecent.
Graeme, Manchester (16/07/2007 at 11:32)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/07/2007 at 14:30)
say 50 percent.
paul teeque (16/07/2007 at 14:59)
See below
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/localdemocracy/questions/previous/july.htm
I posted a question which they havnt listed but replied with this >>
"Thanks for your question.
There is a lot of information on the proposals for transport improvements and the
congestion charge on this website
http://www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk/
http://www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk/faqs_consultation.php
Manchester City Council supports the transport funding bid and the proposed congestion
charge along with the other councils in the Greater Manchester. You might like to also
contact your own local council (Stockport) about their position on the proposals."
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (16/07/2007 at 15:07)
why no referendum
"The reason why there will be no referendum is that AGMA believes the issues surrounding the TIF bid - the £3bn of public transport improvements and the suggested congestion charge - are too complex to be addressed in a single, simple, 'yes / no' question"
Translated, because your too dumb, and we do not want you to know what we are really upto till its too late and we want our 3 billion that you are going to pay 2 billion back for us.
ace, manchester (16/07/2007 at 15:46)
Joey, Ashton under Lyne, (16/07/2007 at 16:12)
Graeme, Manchester (16/07/2007 at 16:12)
rammylad, ramsbottom (16/07/2007 at 16:30)
Perhaps we will see Richard and Roger come on tele one night and say they were doing all this as they knew the people of Manchester would tell them where to stick it and thereby Central Government will have to invest in Public Transport without Manchester taking out a £2bn loan. Queue - Richard and Roger rolling around like that was always their plan and at no time had they tried to scam us and we shoudl al be friends and trust them with our city in the future.
John Evans (16/07/2007 at 16:42)
John Smith (16/07/2007 at 17:09)
"The leaflet enclosed with this ballot paper gives information on the Councils transport proposals for Edinburgh. The Councils preferred strategy includes congestion charging and increased transport investment funded by it. Do you support the Councils preferred strategy ?
The fact that 80% said no and that the architect of the Edinburgh scheme (Mr Begg) is one of AGMA`s so called Independant panel is the reason we do not get a referendum in Manchester.Democracy won`t provide the right answer.
Urbano, Manchester (16/07/2007 at 18:01)
wkdboy1, Hyde (16/07/2007 at 22:21)
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/localdemocracy/constitution/
Remember to send emails, letter and phone calls to who ever you think of to get them to stop this ridiculous tax.
NO TO CONGESTION CHARGE!!!
shayla (17/07/2007 at 08:09)
Do you think we are that stupid?
People today are willing to research, dig around and find out facts, thanks to the internet, you'll have a job sneaking this one on us.
Go find some other suckers to try it on with.