THE top crusader against the congestion charge has been branded a `hypocrite' - because it already makes motorists pay to get into the region.
Peel Holdings, owner of the Trafford Centre, has been an outspoken opponent of the plan to charge drivers up to £5 a day in return for £3bn of public transport improvements in Greater Manchester.
But it has emerged the firm already operates its own road toll scheme charging drivers 12p to use a bridge that crosses the Manchester Ship Canal from Cheshire to Trafford.
And critics say the toll booths on the B5159 Warburton Bridge Road cause congestion, because they create rush-hour traffic queues towards Partington on the Trafford side.
Coun John Smith, a Labour member of Trafford council and Partington council, said: "Over recent weeks, Peel Holdings have been running a prominent public campaign against the possibility of a congestion charge.
"People in Partington, whatever their own views about the charge, find this a bit hypocritical. Peel are already operating their own toll tax on every driver who wants to enter or leave the borough via their toll bridge at Warburton.
"This charge hits the pockets of Partington people particularly hard, as this is one of the major access routes to the area."
He added: "It's time Peel Holdings stood by their own principles and stopped imposing their private toll tax on local people." Peel Holdings recently suggested selling the council-owned Manchester Airport to finance public transport improvements, believing the congestion charge would damage the region's economy.
Andrew Simpson, managing director of Peel, said: "I applaud Coun Smith's objection to road charging and presume that he will now be publicly opposing Greater Manchester's proposal for the world's largest congestion charging scheme - a scheme that will cost ordinary people £100 a month, equivalent to an eight per cent cut in average net pay just to use the public roads.
"As a sensible person I wouldn't believe that Coun Smith is being serious to compare this very huge and damaging scheme to the Warburton Bridge which was built with private money, receives no public sector support and the tiny charge of just 12p is used to fund repairs, maintenance, employment and health and safety to ensure this vital public thoroughfare is retained."
Do you think Peel Holdings are being hyprocritical? Have your say.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
shayla (02/08/2007 at 06:43)
The "PUBLIC HIGHWAY" is not private, it belongs to the "PUBLIC".
We have paid for, built and maintained the PUBLIC HIGHWAY.
And you want to charge us HOW MUCH ??? to use it!!!
OK, Charge me 12p and I'll call it straight.
You must really have sunken very low to scrape that out of the bottom of the barrel.
TSK TSK TSK,
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (02/08/2007 at 07:01)
2080 pounds net PA
2773 pounds Gross PA
the bridge if you used it twice a day, 365 days per year would be 87.36 pounds per year, it could be less than that, I never use it so I dont know the exact details of how the toll operates.
From memory this bridge has been a toll one since before I can remember, just checked, since 1894.
Oh well, and cue todays Pro C-Charge vs Anti C-Charge argument.
Technobabble, Manchester (02/08/2007 at 07:17)
1) The Warburton Bridge is, and always has been, a private thoroughfare. It is not paid for out of the road tax or other public funds.
2) The cost of crossing it is a whole 12 pence, rather than the £5 AGMA will want off you to go to Manchester. This "pocket" money is used to maintain the bridge and the only way that the toll CAN be eliminated is if the public starts paying for it instead.
3) Due to the bridge's structure it can only be used by cars and motorbikes, no buses or HGVs clogging it up.
4) If the bridge is not in the public domain then someone has to own and run it. Seeing as how the bridge crosses the ship canal, it's only rational that Peel Holdings do the job.
Clearly certain pro-charge parties are trying to attack the messenger because they cannot attack the message directly: The Manchester C-charging proposals represent a regressive tax on roads that we have already paid for.
pro bono publico, Manchester (02/08/2007 at 07:24)
An individual suggested that. It is he that should be named.
What are his feelings - please do not let him hide behind a company name - or get a "spokesperson" to do his/her dirtywork.
The company is owned by shareholders - perhaps millions of individuals. Also many people work for the company. What are their feelings - are they hypocritical? What do they want?
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (02/08/2007 at 07:31)
8am to 10am
so realistic, thats once a day Monday to Friday
31.20 pounds per year.
Yeah its a toll.
It has been around since the 1890's long before the Peel holding and AGMA existed.
31.20 pounds a year is less than the 40 pounds a week the C-Charge will be if Roger Jones 8 pounds a day come true.
Ian (02/08/2007 at 08:04)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (02/08/2007 at 08:26)
Taliesin71, www.randomjottings.co.uk (02/08/2007 at 08:26)
dessie, manchester (02/08/2007 at 08:34)
Chris, Irlam (02/08/2007 at 08:39)
By the same stick any councillor who supports the anti-car C-Charge but uses a car is also a hypocrite - are they not?
Oh and BTW - this bridge is outside of GM's boundaries so take it up with Warrington Borough Council.
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (02/08/2007 at 08:48)
Who will say "Leave us out of this"
Technobabble, Manchester (02/08/2007 at 08:51)
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (02/08/2007 at 08:54)
as a councillor he will be able to reclaim the 12p through his exspenses.
Simon B, www.manchestertolltax.com (02/08/2007 at 09:14)
¿What else is happening today that this distracting us from?¿
Wor Bobby, Salford Quays (02/08/2007 at 12:29)
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/newsbyedition/darlington/display.var.1578556.0.fears_hotel_plans_will_affect_airport_growth.php
notarag (02/08/2007 at 12:43)
Transport is a public service and should be state funded at a loss if needs be.
We pay enough in Taxes to do so. Money is being wasted, what to we get for council taxes (nothing. Build more schools so mothers don't have the school run. That would cut the conjestion by half. Pull out of Iraq that would save Billions. Why collect more taxes and give them to private enterprise shareholders as profit. Travell fares are too high. In europe trains are state owned fast safe clean cheap and subsidised out of income taxes. Hree is rip of Britain.
David, Manchester (02/08/2007 at 13:51)
Black Sabbath (02/08/2007 at 14:41)
paul teeque (02/08/2007 at 14:55)
its pathetic!
hmmm lets see 0.12p VS £8
ROFL
Dave Pickup (02/08/2007 at 18:19)
The only thing George Orwell got wrong was the year!!
rammylad, ramsbottom (02/08/2007 at 19:37)
There are according to this link:
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/overseas/european_tolls_results.jsp?country=Great%20Britain
29 toll bridges. Peel are not exactly alone and only an act of parliment could remove the toll so it's not like they are rubbing their hands with joy.
It's a shame this loony labour man didn't get this excited when the locals wanted the Toll Tax knocking into touch.
Democracy dying in Manchester was the worst thing to happen to this country on the 27th July this year, but this loon is at least showing us Labour's thinking is consistent.
Gary Burrows, Oldham (02/08/2007 at 20:58)
Comparing a toll of 12p against the highway robbery this shower are proposing smacks of complete desperation.
Dave Pickup (02/08/2007 at 21:33)
wkdboy1, Hyde (02/08/2007 at 21:49)
rat man (03/08/2007 at 03:45)