"The official consultation period ends today. The scheme could now be revised or amended before a referendum is held in December."

Expect more dirty tricks to the effect of, we'll also do this and this and this, if we can... which they will already know they can't.

which was actually pointless and no one would answer any of my questions directly!

complete waste of money. like all the yes and pro toll campaigns.

could have spent all that money on improvements right now.

the council and government are a joke! cant wait for them to be kicked out.
then they might realise the mistakes they'd made.

"The scheme could now be revised or amended before a referendum is held in December."

If the scheme is revised or amended, does that not need further consultation. ATtwhat point does amendment become a new scheme.

I am taking bets that after the consultation, the overwhelming tide of support would have been against Congestion Charging, so it will be scrapped. Any takers?

Just in case I haven't given my opinion often enough. I would

1. Scrap the extension to the Airport. There is a perfectly good service from Piccadilly which is already on the Metrolink. If MAG want it, let them pay for it.

2. Scrap the Metrolink extension on the Oldham Rochdale Loop - Pointless as a railway already exists.

3. Build Large Park and Rides at Bury, Altrincham, Eccles and all other Terminals of the Metrolink and smaller equivalents along the way.

4. Scrap the charging altogether. If you want to cut congestion, introduce a parking tax in Manchester City Centre and inner ring pre 9.30 am. That way it hits those people causing the congestion. That will save a fortune on new spying equipment for the Con Charge

5. Target the NWDA to send all new jobs to areas without congestion rather than piling more and more people into Manchester City Centre. Manchester should have jumped at the chance to move the Co-op out but instead threw £20m of taxpayers money to keep them in.

6. Obtain No Strike agreements from the Unions to guarantee consistency of service. If people have to leave their cars, there should be some guarantee they won't lose the opportunity to work.

My opinion, doesn't matter becuase tha AGMA won't listen, so we will just have to kick the whole scheme out in December.

The "Yes" campaign paint the "No" campaign as selfish car drivers. Most of us would love to use public transport if it was a viable alternative. The current scheme doesn't do that and is trying to tax people into accepting that it does.

A parking tax sounds a good idea, as you say easier to collect than a driving charge, I suppose it could be staggered with higher charges in more central areas.
it would still affect business costs though with the risk of driving away employment, is this not one of the main critisisms of the road charge?

Move the coop out? when did the role of councils or development agencies become reducing employment in their areas?

Not sure about no strike agreements; employees need to have some leverage in negotitions with employers, otherwise its just take it or leave it. current laws mean strikes must be properly balloted and anounced well in advance

Revise or amend...why in the current economic crisis is postponement or a total cancellation not an option ?

Has the grant gone down? I thought they were offering £1.8bn. if this is how it's going to be, the fees have changed frequently and now the grant has dropped. How can we trust this proposal when nothing is fixed as far as what they promise against what they expect us to pay.
Maybe the £3m has already been spent on consultation fees / councillors and Mp's lunches etc as well as to help the yes vote campaign

If everybody says no in the referendum they will still try to push it again but maybe they'll give us more info first. It may be a good idea in the long run, I don't know but I'll vote no while nothing is set in stone, I don't trust this government one iota

Ok, so what was the purpose of getting our opinions? Or did our opinions result in the referendum taking place?

I told them where they can stick their charge, but who read it and where is that bit of paper sitting right now?

Mad Welsh...,

The grant is £1,441 million (notice the MEN: "around £1.5 billion" - as though £59 million is neither here or there), and AGMA with the governments help, are spending £34 million on the scheme this year.

I read yesterday that the increase in rail carriages is restricted to Northern Rail only. So if you use FTPE, EMT, ATW, Virgin etc then tough.

Also Northern Rail serve, Leeds, Southport, Barrow, Winderemere, Blackpool, Chester, Stoke, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Liverpool, Crewe and Warrignton amongst others. Who is to guarantee that the extra carriages will be used on those services in and out of Manchester at peak time? They wont and the whole region will benefit whilst Manchester pays.

Sorry something not right here. Thsi is just to pay for Metrolink. How many places will that go outside of the outer ring?

This whole consultation is simply ammo for GMPTE to ask the "right" question at the referendum to give the best % chance of a "yes" result.

They have spent THREE MILLION POUND of tax payers money to give themselves an unfair advantage.

"Move the coop out? when did the role of councils or development agencies become reducing employment in their areas? "

The Deveolpment Agency is the "North West" agency. As such it should provide tactical support for the whole region. If the Transport Infrastructure can't cope, then rather than pay £20m to keep the Co-op, other options should have been explored. There's no point trying to reduce journey's to the City Centre if when presented with an opportunity, you don't take it. Employment = More Tax Receipits and More Congestion. You can't then say we need another tax to pay for that employment when you have already earned extra tax becuase of it.

"Not sure about no strike agreements; employees need to have some leverage in negotitions with employers, otherwise its just take it or leave it. current laws mean strikes must be properly balloted and anounced well in advance "

I agree that it is not helpful for the employees but if you are trying to move people out of their cars, you need to assure them of continuity of supply. It works for the Police (or it did till the government decided to stiff them).

Rt Hon Dr Rev MC Spanner MP QC FCA FRICS JP OK now if it was revised to your comment before i would be much more likely to vote yes.

Can anyone tell me where the money has come from to pay for all the propoganda for the "vote yes" brigade?

Please say it's not come from my taxes! If so, why hasn't an equal amount been given to the anti charge brigade to advertise their opinions?

Also, it is any coincidence that every road from the north into the city currently has major roadworks (Oldham Road, Cheetham Hill Road etc) - which will presumably last until just after the vote to maximise people's annoyance of sitting in queues in the hope of getting more yes votes?

Mike S have you noticed the traffic light sequences have been changed to slow down the flow of traffic too?
i measured a set the other day and a few months back 20 cars passed through. now only 8 do? its funny how this only has come about when the all important vote is about to take place.
hopefully nobody is fooled by our councils dirty tricks.

Its about time this 'CON' was slung out ...along with the NuLabour bums who want to inflict it on us. How much more do they want to bleed out of us ...the tax paying public ...and we are somewhat depleted nowadays, before they bleed us dry.
Sling this 'CON' tax out, with the NuLab idiots close behind.

They have also been fiddling with the timing of the lights on Denton Island very recently. Just like Red Ken did in London.

Mike S, Manchester
The answers in the "Labour version of democracy" If the vote is what they want they will fund it with taxpayers money ..We dont have a democracy anymore in britain.We need a president and remove ourselves from europe to stand any chance of being a free nation.

Jay B,

It makes sense therefore it won't happen.

Mike S,

The Yes campaign haven't to my knowledge explained exactly where their funding has come from, but I would guess most has come from United City.

I would hazard a guess that one or two United City £s have come from the Public Sector organisations e.g. MAG, that support it but it will mainly be from the likes of Bruntwood, West Properties, InaCity etc.

The gmfuturetransport propaganda has been funded by you

I presume only people in work and crossing the zones at c-charge times will have a vote. What has it got to do with non peak time travellers? (especialy pensioners)

Trumpetman, you get about 5 cars through on a light-change at Denton roundabout, westbound in the morning. That is an arterial route. I know it's been done deliberately as I use it. It also delays buses.

Jay B: I thought I was just being paranoid! Longsight suddenly seems to be much more congested, despite the parking attendants preventing the local community from ignoring yellow lines while they go shopping! I've been noticing that various junctions throughout the area seem to be giving less priority to the heavier traffic flows. Would they really be that devious? I'm beginning to think so!

I didn't receive anything about the consultation. The thing that worried me most is the fact that nobody has mentioned if people living inside either of the charging zones will be charged. When London introduced its congestion charge people who lived inside the zone were charged 50p per day. That's more than £100 a year just because they own a car and live inside the zone. And there are a lot of inner city areas (ie poor areas) inside the zones, especially the inner zone.

And will the pro-congestion charge lobby please stop using our money for political propaganda unless they are going to split it 50/50 with the antis. It makes me sick to the stomach that our taxes have been used to promote this blatantly political message all over the place in an attempt to subliminally insert it in peoples minds before a vote.

The whole concept of congestion charges/ road pricing has New Labour written all over it. While most of us cannot afford yet another punitive stealth tax eating away at our already overburdened takes home incomes. They cannot afford a no vote because it will stall their plans of a national road pricing scheme affecting England only. I say this because the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and N Ireland have responsibility for their own transport policies and they are less keen.

Since this government came to power in 1997 they have rewritten the rules on the relationship between the citizen and their government. They have grabbed the idea of global warming and have used it as a blunt tool to implement a phalanx of new environmental taxes. With the effect that motoring taxes have gone up way ahead of inflation. In many cases it is not unusual to pay several times over for our services and infrastructure.

Also since they came to power in 1997 there has been an explosion in so called road calming schemes. Financed from central government our road system today and especially in England resembles a gigantic obstacle course. And no road has been immune from this. They have literally taken away large areas of road space. Where we once had efficient free flowing 4 lanes A roads these are now covered with hatch lines and under used bus lanes. Most other B routes have been narrowed road humps installed and given crazy little mini roundabouts. Not only have they contributed to congestion this nonsense has also led to premature wear and tear on all vehicles. In effect we the taxpayers have not just had to pay for the repairs on our own cars but also the repairs on vehicles owned by emergency and other services.

Despite this the figures show that congestion in the charging zone has reduced since the late 1990’s. When you add car parking charges in the central zone it is plain to see that people have been and will continue to be priced out of their cars. The congestion charge will be the issue that forces many more out of their cars. And still they insist that just 10% are going to pay for TIF.

The way that the pro-charge have promoted their campaign is based on New Labour’s failure to secure a yes vote for the Edinburgh congestion charge in 2005. They have obviously decided that the public should fund a one sided propaganda campaign and create the impression that only a few will pay for TIF. The fact that they do not want the anti charge people to have a fair and level playing field speaks volumes. As does their reaction to a company like Kellogg’s whose e-mail to its employees encouraging them to inform themselves about both sides of the debate.

It would be a sad day to see this new proposal to make money out of the poor prosper. The goverment does not care about the people. Manchester is a very small city compared to London there is no simalarities, We are struggling to make ends meet, the rising cost of living, and to add to the misery they have more plans to make the people suffer. Its almost like the government hates their own people. I travel to manchester to help the elderly in need at no expense to them, but this will have to stop if these charges go ahead. I need my car to help them with their shopping and etc. I also have my parents within the vicinity, and this would mean i would have to pay to visit them. The government have all this fancy talk to deceive the people, they already charge parking fees which is enough, not to mention car tax. The country has already government prosperity, and they feed of the poor to allow the rich to become more affluent. It is an appalling innovation and someone in power should be in opposition to stand up and fight for the people rights.

Buzza 2008, as a pro-toll merchant I would say "aren't you being a little paranoid, with a very wild imagination?" But as a citizen who has seen it all happening I say you are talking the truth.

Please don't pinch my posts before I've had a chance to get them on here ;-)