C-charge vote plan released

Mike Keegan

November 07, 2008

| Submit Comments | Comments (125) | Previous | Next

DETAILS of how to vote in the congestion charge referendum have been released.

A postal ballot will be held next month to determine whether to introduce peak time charging in return for a raft of improvements to public transport.

And now council chiefs have announced special measures which they claim will ensure everyone can have their say.

Voting packs will be sent out to everyone on the electoral register in the region's ten council areas by 28 November.

They will warn of the 11 December deadline and include arrangements for redirections - which allow postal voters to apply for their ballot papers to be sent elsewhere if they are away from their usual address.

Returning officer Sir Neil McIntosh has also announced arrangements whereby voters can arrange for someone else to complete a ballot paper on their behalf.

He will be working closely with the police and says proxy applications will only be granted in 'very specific' circumstances.

The deadline to apply for a redirection or proxy vote is 5pm on 21 November.

Information is also being sent to those in the armed forces serving overseas in a bid to make sure they get their say.

Sir Neil said: "This is an important decision for Greater Manchester residents but I understand that individual circumstances might make it difficult for some people to return their completed ballot papers in time.

"That's why I've put in place these robust arrangements to ensure that everyone who wishes to have their say is able to do so."

If successful the bid would see more than £2.75bn invested in transport from the Government's Transport Innovation Fund (TIF), including £318m to set up a peak hour, weekday-only congestion charge.

Some £1.2bn of the total would be in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.

Anyone who needs information or advice regarding the referendum should call the Returning Officer's helpline on 0800 7839828.

Click here for the congestion charge story so far.

Click here to read TIF documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

| Submit Comments | Comments (125) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

Ken Elphire, Oldham (07/11/2008 at 23:09)

£318m to set up a peak hour, weekday-only congestion charge? The London Con charge,(excluding the western extension),cost £161m to set up & had annual operating costs of approx 50% of income. From a charge of £8 plus the swingeing fines imposed for avoidance surpluses for the first four years were approx £55m pa,from a scheme running Mon - Fri 7am to 7pm.
To pay back £1.2b over 30 yrs involves finding £40m pa. From a scheme in use only during rush hour with charges half those of London & a fraction of the population? Doesn't seem possible.

Uncle Buck, City of Manchester (not Trafford) (08/11/2008 at 02:43)

"in return for a raft of improvements"

Whoa, just a minute! Where did that emotive term come from? Not from the TIF propaganda, I suspect. If this doesn't prove M.E.N. bias then what does?

How about, "the shortfall in revenue will be funded by a *raft* of local tax increases?

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (08/11/2008 at 09:13)

Make sure you pay the extra 80p or so to get the ballot papers returned via recorded delivery. It's better than £1200 per year

Rammylad (08/11/2008 at 09:33)

I find it amazing that the advertising standard authority have no powers over anything to do with elections and referendum, i.e. they cannot investigate the only 10% of peopl will pay claim, but they can reject an advert MART put up about the likely costs involved in the con-charge.

Why are you immune to get a yes vote but not a no vote?

What kind of democracy is that?

Munkey Boy (08/11/2008 at 10:00)

The big day gets closer! I think some of you guys may be surprised by just how many YES votes there's going to be, the more you think about it, the more it makes sense to get this extra investment in Manchester.

Read the response to Stringer's question about 9 in 10 on the GM Future Transport website, and it seems it's even lower than that! Just 8.1% of the 2.22 million daily road trips are forecast to be charged.

Lizzie Tickles Little Lad, A-u-L, Lancashire (08/11/2008 at 11:48)

Munkey Boy wrote:

"Just 8.1% of the 2.22 million daily road trips are forecast to be charged.

In that case the charge will not work. 8.1 % is 178,200 chargable trips at the maximum of 2 quid that makes £356,4000, Stockholm reckon that it costs 50% to collect the toll, which if correct means that the take after expenses is back at £178 grand a day.

The loan at 5% takes £1.596 million a week to pay off which is £319 thousand a day (That includes the 8 bank holidays where no money is collected). SHORTFALL of over £140 grand a day - Back to the drawingboard Munkey!

Munkey Boy (08/11/2008 at 12:10)

Where do you get 2 quid from?

Rammylad (08/11/2008 at 12:22)

Good to see you completely missing the point again MB.

Of those 2.2m road journeys, how many are wagons which travel from the ports in Liverpool and Holyhead to say Leeds and Sheffield. i.e. how many of the 2.2m journeys are not related to the inner ring roads and not therefore related to this discussion on congestion charging. I hazard a guess that given there are only 2.5m people in Manchester and 2/3rds of homes do not have a car, then take kids out then take 1/2 of pensioners out, then take the PT users out of the question and suddenly those 2.2m jouneys becomes about 100,000 jounrneys. Therefore those that will pay rises to about 80% from your claimed 8%. However as pointed out by others, so few people paying back the huge £1.2bn loan would leave every council tax payer with a £2,500 hike.

Dear oh dear, bring it on..

Lizzie Tickles Little Lad, A-u-L, Lancashire (08/11/2008 at 12:56)

Munkey Boy wrote:
" Where do you get 2 quid from? "

I get it from my bank, If you mean how did I arrive at 2 quid. I got it from your figures of 2.2 million "trips". In the morning less than 20,000 vehicles will cross two charging points (Liz Phelans figure) costing £3 and in the afternoon even crossing two zones will "ONLY" cost two quid.
Did I do wrong? Even if you do £3 for the average it is still touch and go. Has anyone asked you what you will do if the charge is introduced - No one I know has been asked - so how do they know????

I believe that Sir Howard Berstein said that it is to make £180 million a year profit - please ask him how?

Buzza2008, Oldham (08/11/2008 at 12:57)

Munkey Boy – We will see in December who is right.

I do not think that the pro-charge side have done enough to justify confidence in the project. Lower paid people in the charging zones will have no option but to get out of their cars. We are talking about large numbers of people working across all sectors. There are going to be serious shortfalls in funding. Then someone is going to have to explain to Greater Manchester why they claimed 1 in 10 motorists would pay the congestion charge and nearer 100% of households are paying increased fares and council taxes.

Oh yes and as people use their cars less the more likely they are to want to sell or scrap their vehicles. Again they will save a fortune in motoring taxes. The simple fact is New Labour and the pro-charge side needs cars more than the public do. They will not just lose congestion charge payers but a whole range of other motoring taxes.

People will also want to avoid the charging zones and work elsewhere. The North West Tonight survey shows that people in Greater Manchester and beyond will want to shop and work elsewhere. To keep staff businesses will face increased demands on wages. Equally they may walk away from the charging zones. Add to that the 100,000’s who visit Manchester annually as the regional capital these people may start to go to Liverpool, Leeds or Preston instead.

FAT ED (08/11/2008 at 14:31)

Seriously. I'm voting a massive YES for the con charge and it IS going to happen. Anyone who doesnt want to pay it then dont. Leave your car at home and get the bus or train or get a bike and stop whinging. End off.

IanJ, Blackrod (08/11/2008 at 14:39)

Fat ed: "Anyone who doesnt want to pay it then dont. Leave your car at home and get the bus or train or get a bike and stop whinging."

And how do you do that when an alternative PT option does not (and will not) exist?

BTW, that's not just me but pretty much everyone I work with.

FAT ED (08/11/2008 at 14:53)

Ian J : You say public transport isnt an option and it isn't an option for "MOST" of your co-workers?? How can that work?? Some of you can use public transport while others can't?? You are talking rubbish. What you meant to say was that it isnt an option because it is a little bit more inconvenient than using my car!!!! If you maintain that you have to drive to work and its a necessity then you are exactly the person who should be paying the con-charge. You dont have to work where you work so pay up!!!! OR GET THE BUS!!!!!!!

Benedict, Cheshire (08/11/2008 at 14:56)

An acquintance of mine in Warrington says that they can't build new industrial premises fast enough as companies are looking to pull out of the inside of the M60.

A friend of mine has already shut up shop and relocated. Her staff can't afford the charge, she can't afford to top their wages up and can't apss on the increse so she has voted with her feet already.

The charge will reduce the number of cars coming in because they'll be travelling to outlying towns to go to work instead.

We'll have more empty apartments and more empty shops and offices.

Manchester - twinned with Portmeiron. Well done the bright ex-teachers who run our council.

Carl Knott (08/11/2008 at 15:00)

I don't live in Manchester, but was born and raised there, and have family there. Even though the government have promised to pump millions in to Manchesters transport infastructure if the Congestion charging system goes ahead, don't get taken in! It is yet another way of taxation, and I don't beleive joe public will benefit whatsoever. Private motoring is crusified enough without agreeing to more taxation.

Manchesters voice, Manchester (08/11/2008 at 15:10)

If as the Yes campaign says 9 out of 10 people will not have to pay the “Charge” what is the point in saying “Yes” to billions of debt, from the Government Loan? Because no matter what is said the government are not giving us any money, they are loaning it, and at what rate of interest?

I shall be voting “No” as I don’t want to have to pay the charge and also the loan in the form of extra council tax.

dave pickup (08/11/2008 at 15:16)

Who is going to supervise the count? Postal votes are easy to fiddle!Who can we class as independant,who can we trust to count fairly.Maybe someone from outside the UK,like Ireland.

Munkey Boy (08/11/2008 at 15:18)

Rammylad, it quite clearly says there are 2.2 million road vehicle trips made in GM on a weekday. Of those, 8.1% cross a charging boundary (or 2) at a time and in the direction of the charge. What is so hard to understand about that? Stop making up your own figures rather than listen to data sourced from evidence.

I have yet to see any evidence to go alongside the paranoid reassertions that there will be a shortfall, just hollow rhetoric.

MancunianTiger, Radcliffe (08/11/2008 at 15:55)

Can't wait for this whole referendum and CC business to die down and then we can get back to the more serious pressing matters of concern like whether the giant Zippy in Albert Square looks anything like Father Christmas...or whether Manchester City Council should get rid of the Big Screen in Exchange Square...At least the "tolls" will generate revenue to be ploughed into public transport. Spare a thought for people who have to cross the Humber Bridge every day. They are already paying £1200 per year equivalent of the amount that the anti brigade are bandying around. Over there though there is no sign of any of the Humber Bridge revenue being ploughed into Merseyrail style tunnels to serve both banks of the Humber. If you don't want the £3billion I'll take it back to Hull and ask East Riding & Hull City Council to use it to build a Merseyrail system for Humberside.

Munkey Boy (08/11/2008 at 16:39)

Buzza2008: "Oh yes and as people use their cars less the more likely they are to want to sell or scrap their vehicles. Again they will save a fortune in motoring taxes. The simple fact is New Labour and the pro-charge side needs cars more than the public do. They will not just lose congestion charge payers but a whole range of other motoring taxes."

The whole point of introducing the TIF funding system is because the government recognises (at long last) that we can't continue as we are. While you quite rightly say less people in cars would generate less direct taxation from road tax/fuel duty, you miss the point that congestion costs the government billions every year in lost revenue and inefficiency. A healthy economy that can move as it needs is far better for the creation of revenue from taxation - the creation of a virtuous cycle if you will. We earn more, the government gets that percentage increase too.

Once the charge is in place, as has happened across the world, public acceptance will gradually rise, and just as in London, the populace come to realise it's benefits: not one successful mayoral bid in London has stood on the platform of scrapping the charge, not even Boris.

cityman111, Royton (08/11/2008 at 16:51)

this is not funny £25 / week is 10% of my after tax income, I do not live near a train station and using the bus adds 2 hours to my working day, a yes vote means I have to get a new job.

This is an attack on ordinary hard working people by pc idiots who spend too much time with other politicians and have no understanding of how this impacts on the people who will pay for this and every other crackpot scheeme they come up with. I have voted labour all my life but will never do so again after this attack on ordinary hard working people, you lot forget who you represent

How much public money is being spent on this vote and is there a balance between the public money spent on the yes and no campaign, if not is this grounds for a legal challenge ?

The Thunderer (08/11/2008 at 16:57)

There are figures being quoted here without foundation. The only "reliable" data is from the Census and that shows that there are about 2.5 million residents in Greater Manchester in 1,040,229 households, out of which 32.8% had no car/van (341,276). The 698,953 households with cars had 1,009,495 cars/vans but of these 447,551 had only one car/van.

However, most people will not be crossing the two charging zones as their job, if using the car to work, is outside the zone!

Let those who wish to travel into the zones in the morning rush hour/travel out at in the evening rush hour pay for the privilege! Not the hundreds of thousand car owners who have other journeys, do not travel in the rush hour or are pensioners.

Vote Yes for the TIF bid to improve public transport for all!

Ronnie Silver (08/11/2008 at 17:12)

If the TIF offer is so good why did other cities drop it like a hot potato as soon as they saw the hidden catches.Wake up pro people.Brown is using Manchester as a start to National road pricing,

big g, sale (08/11/2008 at 17:38)

It will be a massive NO vote if my friends and work colleagues are anything to go by,I am not aware of one single(right minded)working person who wants this tax against freedom of choice.

MsD, Manchester (08/11/2008 at 17:55)

Well, it's a no from me, even though I'm unaffected. I live and work within the first, larger ring. I do not trust MCC to change the boundaries and prices. The way they have chopped and changed this scheme to desperately make it more appealing already proves that.

()

Report

News