THIS is Manchester's proposed inner congestion charge zone.
Transport bosses say the revised zone will mean only a fifth of peak-time drivers will pay the charge.
It is also claimed just one per cent of motorists who drive around the city every day will pay the full £5 charge by travelling across both inner and outer zones at peak times. The average daily cost to drivers is expected to be about £3, according to transport chiefs.
The proposed location of the inner zone runs along Queens Road to the north and Alan Turing Way to the east. To the west the boundary is at Trafford Road's junction with Frederick Road.
The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTA) said they would be discussing amendments in the coming months.
Inner zone
The final position of the inner zone will be only be confirmed after a public consultation.
Sir Richard Leese, leader of the council and deputy AGMA chief, said: "There have been discussions to make sure natural community ties such as shopping areas and school catchment areas aren't broken.
"We expect only 20 per cent of peak-time drivers will pay a charge as most won't cross a ring in the direction of congestion. We anticipate only 1 per cent of all daily drivers will pay the full £5 charge, with the average cost being less than £3."
Two options have been revealed for the ring's southern boundary. They are at Wilbraham Road or at Hathersage Road and Moss Lane. To the north, bosses want to consult the public over Great Cheetham Street East and St James's Road being outside or inside the zone.
To the south west there are three options. The inner ring boundary could be either at Withington Road and Chorlton Road or at Manchester Road and Seymour Grove.
The third option is whether the north side of Bridgewater Way or the western end of Stretford Road should form part of the inner ring. The outer ring is just inside the M60 circle. Drivers will only be charged when they cross either of the two charging rings at peak times.
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Chris, Irlam (20/06/2008 at 09:57)
I wonder when the important questions concerning cost, privacy & fairness will be answered?
ace, manchester (20/06/2008 at 09:57)
""Transport bosses say the revised zone will mean only a fifth of peak-time drivers will pay the charge.""
DONT FALL FOR THE SCAM.
Robert Tocker, Cadishead (20/06/2008 at 09:59)
Gramsci (20/06/2008 at 09:59)
Rimsky (20/06/2008 at 10:11)
Oh, and try to exclude any that are direct propaganda from reports you have read. In short, why it will be good for you.
You have no idea clown boy.
Fran M (Permissum Populus Constituo), Stockport (20/06/2008 at 10:13)
Karney for head of GMPTA(formerly MC Spanner) (20/06/2008 at 10:14)
Stop being a sheep man! Just becuase it is claimed 1% of drivers will pay doesn't mean it is a fact.
This is not public consultation. This is just drip drip drip of info.
The article states that the final position of the inner zone will be confirmed only after public consultation. What if the public don't want one or two zones. Looks like the AGMA have made up their mind already
Smokey, Bury, Bury (20/06/2008 at 10:16)
Jay B, oldham (20/06/2008 at 10:16)
doesn't the fact that they only tell you bits of information at a time and not give you all the facts make you unsure of the whole thing.
plus all the pro con charge properganda that all the local councils who are for the scheme tell you also start ringing alarm bells.
if we have the con charge introduced whats to stop them hiking prices higher and higher and widening the zones in future years?
plus lets not forget all the sneaky ways they've tried to sell it too us like fictional locals from america and the current chris (pro labour) bisson advert.
like most of the time, do not trust councils and polititians. they always seem go back on their word.
JAB, Republic of Mancunia (20/06/2008 at 10:18)
Good deal?not for the people of manchester it isn't!
JimC (20/06/2008 at 10:18)
I see they have got to you then, give your head a wobble will ya.
dessie, manchester (20/06/2008 at 10:18)
Timberman, MANCHESTER (20/06/2008 at 10:23)
Leese and co will do anything to inflict this unfair tax on the people of Manchester.
PW, Manchester (20/06/2008 at 10:26)
Yes, drip, drip, drip. Clever tactics that won't wash.
john] (20/06/2008 at 10:29)
Jay B, oldham (20/06/2008 at 10:31)
they're trying alsorts of tricks
next they'll be telling you that you'll get your own personal bus or tram straight to your door to try and win you over.
MR LEESE WILL YOU LISTEN! WE DO NOT WANT THE CONGESTION CHARGE! FULL STOP!
will he listen? no i think he's got hearing problems
Luxfer (20/06/2008 at 10:38)
I am neither for or against the con charge. I do not commute into Manchester.
However congestion is getting worse, some parts of greater Manchester 6 and 8 miles out of the City centre are gridlock at rushour.
I understand the views of the antis, but you never seem to put forward an alternative.
I suspect the politicians believe they have put forward the most palatable alternative.
More public transport and a con charge.
Surely the question should be why have we allowed our selves to get in such a mess.
We shop in places you need a car.
We travel further and further to work.
Our great grandparents wouldn't recognise the crazy lives we lead spending hours in cars getting no where.
Should we have a job swap scheme so if you are going one way and someone else doing the same job is coming the other way - give people the option to swap jobs.
You can see it on the roads between Rochdale and Oldham.
Thousands of cars each day going from Oldham to Rochdale and viversa. Some of these people must be doing very similar jobs.
There must thousand of people this could apply to.
We should look at ways of reducing car miles especially during rushour and not by public transport alternatives but by eliminating the journey all together.
With the cost of fuel and people struggling to drive the long distances to work, this kind of radical thinking should be a priority.
Increased public transport and the con charge are years away, the pain for many low / medium paid workers is here now.
Councils and large employers should seriously look at this option.
Increased home working would be useful as well.
More work done on assisting children to walk to work rather than go in cars.
If more of this was done and congestion was reduced theyre would be no need for a con charge
BOBTILTD, URMSTON (20/06/2008 at 10:42)
Can you show us the basis of those calculations please if you want people to believe them.
PW, Manchester (20/06/2008 at 10:44)
It's all true I tell you! I read it somewhere. And to strengthen my argument, a bloke in a pub backed me up.
I'll continue. We're also getting a referendum on the EU Treaty as promised in the 2005 electioneering. Saddam Hussein has hidden his WMDs, of which there is irrefutable evidence, despite what Government critics say. Oh, and Mr Leese said in January 2005, that a congestion charge could be very damaging to the local economy. (That is, until his masters told him the opposite).
Sorry, the credibility of this regime disappeared before all this.
Le Comte de Bobelesque, formerly a fridge magnet (20/06/2008 at 10:46)
Simon B, The North West. (20/06/2008 at 10:50)
For those people its a simple choice.
Time to get a new job outside of Greater Manchester.
100s of 1000s will make that same choice.
Liverpool and Warrington look like good choices.
manchester girl (20/06/2008 at 11:05)
I don't believe a word of it
Jay B, oldham (20/06/2008 at 11:07)
i would like to know how much actual road space at peak times is avaliable to normal cars today compared with 5 years ago?
this is the real reason congestion has increased. because road space has decreased due to bus lanes, silly traffic hatched islands and other badly planned road modifications.
Audenshaw Bob (20/06/2008 at 11:07)
It was someone who used to be in Coronation Street and he was walking down a road (not in Manchester) where all cars were stationery and drivers (actors) were frustrated at the traffic not moving. He was talking about the benefits of the c-charge and they all got out of their cars and started to walk instead. Apparently this advert is part of the consultation.
Now, a few points.
i) How much did the ad cost and who paid for it?
ii) Where was it filmed?
iii) Will we get an ad showing the other side? £100 extra per month for 9-5 office and shop workers. Stood on crowded trams with litter and filth all around, alking in the rain from the tram stop, stood on a bus full of foulth mouthed smoking louts etc?
Alan Kelly (20/06/2008 at 11:08)
1 Remove bus route to ease the flow of traffic
2 Remove traffic calming measures designed to turn 2 lane roads into one lane roads.
3 Create "red" routes where stopping is not permissable
4 Sequence traffic lights better.
5 Allow left turn filters to operate more effectively as give ways to allow further flow.
I am sure there are others which will be posted. If you want to comment please try and keep up.
1% of the driving population to contribute £1.2 billion + interest to the economy in 30 years. Where do they recruit their economists from?