THE leader of the 'yes' campaign in the congestion charge referendum has lashed out her opponents - claiming they are not considering public transport benefits.
Campaign chairman Lis Phelan believes they can win the all-postal referendum on December 11.
Ms Phelan has claimed that her opponents are 'not bothered' about the `hundreds of thousands of people' struggling with inadequate public transport.
The former Marketing Manchester chief said: "The `no' campaign is organised by Peel Holdings, who have shouted very loudly about one element of the TIF proposals. It is the only element they are interested in - the congestion charge.
"They are not bothered about the hundreds of thousands of people who struggle every day with an inadequate public transport network.
"But this is not about ensuring the car parks of the Trafford Centre are full all day, every day.
"It is about regenerating our towns and cities in the region and providing vastly-improved public transport."
Regeneration
Ms Phelan said the `yes' campaign was `a coming-together of a very wide cross-section of the Greater Manchester community'.
"It's pensioners, drivers, students, the voluntary sector, trade unions and businesses," she said. "It is being added to all the time.
"The idea of the campaign is to make sure that everybody who will be voting in Greater Manchester in December fully understands the benefits that will be gained by a `yes' vote - and just as important, the drastic implications of a `no' vote.
"If people in Greater Manchester are in possession of the full facts and understand exactly what £3bn investment in the public transport network will bring, then I am absolutely confident we can win.
"There is an awful lot of information to get out but really it's a very simple message - if you vote `yes', Greater Manchester gets £3bn of investment into public transport.
"It means buses, trains and trams will all be improved and pollution will be reduced."
Concerns
A spokesman for anti-congestion charge Greater Manchester Momentum Group said: "We will invite Lis to meet us over the next week to explain our position, discuss the detail of the TIF bid and outline our concerns in full.
"At the very least, we are sure she will be surprised to see so many people who don't work for Peel Holdings but do very firmly believe the bid is very badly thought-out, due to its size, scale and failure to reflect real employment patterns in Greater Manchester.
"All our 250 members share tremendous ambitions for our city and its development and want to see meaningful public transport improvements but, after detailed analysis, they feel strongly the TIF proposals will not deliver them and simply give poor value for money.
"With the world's largest charging zone of 80sq miles, the improvements proposed will simply be too thinly spread to make public transport a safe, practical, door-to-door alternative to the car.
"We must go back to the drawing board and put forward genuine alternatives that tackle congestion where it exists, as well as benefiting our economy, environment and community."
Follow all the news and debate on the Congestion Charge with our interactive timeline.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
shayla (07/10/2008 at 08:02)
That sounds to me like someone is having a tant because they can't get their own way!
The vote WILL decide. It's the fairest way.
The No voters are listening, they are voting no, but it's you who isn't listening.
Most of that money will be spent on set up costs, not on actual extra transport!
I can't wait!
NS (07/10/2008 at 08:14)
Can't the MEN organise some proper debate on the issues? This kind of ill-informed, personal attack adds nothing and is unworthy of a very important decision for hundreds of thousands of people.
PW, Manchester (07/10/2008 at 08:14)
We don't want your con charge Ms Phelan. People cannot afford it. We won't be bullied, nor made to feel 'guilty' because the authorities haven't done their job in bringing PT up to scratch. And all motorists know who is causing the 'increased' congestion and journey times while traffic levels are falling and PT use is increasing. You will not flog this to the Greater Manchester public!
Sir Reginald Ringpull, A-u-L, Lancashire (07/10/2008 at 08:33)
"The idea of the campaign is to make sure that everybody who will be voting in Greater Manchester in December fully understands the benefits that will be gained by a `yes' vote"
No problem Mrs!! You get your supporters to the polling station by bus and the anti's can take em by car.
Iain Monks (07/10/2008 at 08:34)
So when are we going to be told the full facts?
Where is the money going to come from to pay back the loan when everybody abandons their cars and floods this wonderful public transport system?
What guarantees do we have that the C-charge zones or times won't be extended to fill a gap in the council's budget?
When are we going to leartn about the negative aspects of this proposal?
Jay B, oldham (07/10/2008 at 08:58)
Yes Lis please give us all the relevant facts and figures and you may well win.
but you havent and so it can only be a no.
£3bn in debt is alot. especially if everyone is paying.
Trumpetman21 (07/10/2008 at 09:24)
Beaufort (07/10/2008 at 09:29)
The public are sick to death of being taxed to the hilt. Council Tax has doubled in the last ten years, we have had more taxes put on us by this government than any before it and we have had enough. We are entering a recession, energy bills are still soaring, my mortgae went up by 49% and now the council wants an extra £1250 per annum from me! We've had enough.
The government can find billions for Iraq (including building roads etc why not build an integrated transport system and save the planet?), billions for the Olympics, billions for St Pancras Station, billions to bail out Northern Rock etc but we the people of Manchester get a loan from the government (which is money we already paid in tax) and which they make interest on!
Imagine the bank loaning you your savings and charging interest on it?
We have had enough.
The costs will rise anyway - look at the Olympics they shot up and one error was because the forgot to add the VAT, look at the Millenium Dome. The costs will double.
Peter M, Mcr (07/10/2008 at 09:31)
The TIF is supposed to include improvement to cycling and pedestrian facilities. These should be promoted, not polluting buses, yet campaigners somehow always forget them.
Munkey Boy (07/10/2008 at 09:56)
NS: "Lis, get your facts straight before getting involved in a debate. The Trafford Centre doesn't even open its car parks until 10am, long after the 9.30am end of the charging period period being proposed."
Anyone leaving the Trafford Centre in the evening would be charged £1 to get onto the motorway. Besides, her point was a more general notion that Peel have an active interest in keeping Greater Manchester as car-based as possible. So long as it is, the Trafford Centre will keep it's advantage over town centres with better public transport access. Think about it.
Iain Monks: "Where is the money going to come from to pay back the loan when everybody abandons their cars and floods this wonderful public transport system?"
Not everyone switches when you introduce a charge, some do. Those that pay benefit from quicker journeys, those that switch benefit from better public transport.
Everyone ends up with a net saving of money and time in the long run. Think about further than the end of next week for once.
Jay B, oldham (07/10/2008 at 09:58)
yes lis its a very simple message!
if you vote `no', Greater Manchester saves £3bn worth of debt the public would have to pay back.
matt t, tameside (07/10/2008 at 10:18)
How much will they waste on consultants, promotion, advertising, meetings, expenses, fact-finding trips abroad, overheads, administration fees, planning enquiries, lobbying etc.
And how much will go straight into the pockets of First Group, Stagecoach and Serco/NedRail ?
If they are as successful at driving cars off the roads as they suggest, where does the money come from in year two, year three etc. Well, that's easy - they will increase the size of the charging zone and extend the times.
Sir Reginald Ringpull, A-u-L, Lancashire (07/10/2008 at 10:31)
"Not everyone switches when you introduce a charge, some do"
I would sincerely like to know on what figures you are basing that on.
London has the "benefit" of all day charging - if you enter the zone - you pay! If you delay your journey in Greater Mancsland - the loan does not get paid, neither does the company running the infrastructure to charge us!
£2250 a year PAYCUT - NO THANKS - Paul Teeque (07/10/2008 at 10:35)
I do not want to fork out another £2250 a year. I CANNOT AFFORD TO.
Why should I have to fund something the government should be providing free, if it deems there to be a problem.
Any congestion manc has is engineered.
The Yes Trolls need to stop being so naive and see this for what it is - a stealth tax wage cut.
Munkey Boy (07/10/2008 at 10:43)
PW, Manchester (07/10/2008 at 10:44)
Mark,Radcliffe. (07/10/2008 at 10:46)
Munkey Boy (07/10/2008 at 10:52)
Parkie161 (07/10/2008 at 10:53)
NS (07/10/2008 at 10:53)
Munkey you're grasping at straws here. Do you (or Lis Phelan)honestly think that the number of people who will be both hit by the circumstance you describe AND who will then re-consider their shopping trip is really worth Peel get involved in this campaign to the extent they have?
And why are Harvey Nichols against these plans? If the transport revolution for the city centre is going to be so great they should be welcoming it with open arms not opposing it.
Think about it
Black Flag (07/10/2008 at 10:57)
Not really. If the roads were privately owned, rather than operated at below market rate by the public sector, I think you'd find yourself paying significantly more.
Sean Corker MART (07/10/2008 at 11:00)
I'm disappointed that Ms Phelan's first contribution to the debate is the rather hackneyed cliche, 'If people understood the issue'.
How much is Ms Phelan being paid?
The Manchester Congestion Charge Is A Pack Of Lies! Vote With Your Head!, Somewhere in Manchester (07/10/2008 at 11:03)
Sir Reginald Ringpull, A-u-L, Lancashire (07/10/2008 at 11:06)
"You know as well as I do, Jay, that's the debt is £1.2bn, not £3bn.
You also have it wrong, If I lend you £12 and you promise to pay me back at a quid a week for 15 weeks your debt is £15 not £12 & pro rata all the way to £3billion, also the borrowing requirement to 2018/19 is £1.150 billion, which is set aside to be paid for by the charge. From 2019/24 a further £93 million local borrowing is required for replacements (not known how that is to be repaid). Because of the unknown nature of the revenue stream Greater Mancsland have the gohead to borrow another few hundred million (£1.577billon in total to 2024/5). So the debt could be even greater than £3 billion.
Iain Monks (07/10/2008 at 11:13)
So if the scheme is succesful where is Manchester going to find the money to cover the shortfall?
A "fact" that so far hasn't been disclosed.