C-charge: Reaction on the streets

Mike Keegan and Nathan Bleaken

December 12, 2008

Submit Comments | Comments (13) | Previous | Next

ON the streets of Manchester, nobody was surprised at the 'no' vote. Within minutes of the decision, we spoke to the public on Deansgate.

Steve Henstalk, a 29-year-old scuba diving instructor who lives in Castlefield, said he voted 'no'.

He added: "It's not a shock. Everyone was talking about it and I don't know anyone who said they were voting yes. The problem is that the car is still the best and cheapest way of getting around. Most people drive cars, so most people voted no."

Alex Smith, a 36-year-old banker who lives in the city centre said he was 'delighted' at the verdict.

He added: "It was never clear what the impact on me was going to be. We pay enough tax as it is without this. What was going to happen with all the money? And the C-charge they have already in London is outrageous."

Jenny Price-Thomas, 21, is a student at University of Manchester University. She said: "I don't drive, but if you live in the city centre, you shouldn't get charged. I don't use public transport it is too slow. I may as well just walk. I guess if the congestion charge was introduced, though, the buses would get quicker. It doesn't surprise me."

But not everyone was pleased. Anthony Moran, a 34-year-old banker who works in the city centre, said he was disappointed with the decision, but added that he could understand the reasons behind it.

He said: "In principle it is a good idea, but they left the public consultation too late. With the current economic climate, it's come at the wrong time. People won't take too kindly to paying £2,000 to £3,000 extra a year. I don't think the 'yes' campaign listened to the public enough.

"However, I don't think this is the end. I think the public of Manchester do want the improvements and if they come back with better proposals I'm sure it will be a 'yes'."

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.

460

275

PNlYN29vK2A

false

Submit Comments | Comments (13) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 13 and replies | View All

Free Red, Manchester (12/12/2008 at 14:19)

I object to public money being used to finance what is essentially a private sector initiative. The article goes on about how the money – "which would have paid for massive investment in trams, trains and buses – will now be taken off the table."

What they didn't say is that they mean it's a massive investment into privately owned trams, trains and buses which can charge the public who paid for their infrastructure anything they like.

I also question the morality of ploughing public money into privately owned banks leaving the private sector in overall control so that the government has to beg the still privately controlled backs to lend each other money.

If the 10 Council and Government can come up with a not for profit, no jobs for the boys, public sector plan that requires a public vote to agree to the new transports system being privatised I might be prepared to vote yes next time round. And mark my works it will come round again, hopefully when we get a real Labour Government.

David of Ashton, Ashton (12/12/2008 at 15:27)

How much money has been wasted on the Yes advertising campaign, heads should roll, it just shows how out of touch with population some people are

Munkey Boy, Audenshaw (12/12/2008 at 15:43)

I don't see how so many criticise the public sector for incompetence/engineering congestion with one breath and then complain about public transport not being run by the public sector with the next?

Henry Piggot-Smythe, Prestbury (12/12/2008 at 16:04)

Thank goodness for that. I was getting really worried that I would have Saver Seven waving tattooed oafs picnicking on my lawns with their Greggs sausage rolls and pasties if they laid on more busses too Prestbury.

Pippa, Manchester (12/12/2008 at 16:32)

Quite right Free Red.

wayfarer, Rochdale (12/12/2008 at 17:08)

Questions must now be asked about why GMPTE, aided and abetted by AGMA, has spent almost £40M on this TIF submission when the outcome was entirely predictable.

Whilst GMPTE continues to work behind closed doors it will continue to make gross errors like this. Just as it wasn't prepared to reveal the full facts about this bid, so it turns out that decisions taken about the Oldham line Metrolink conversion mean that there will be no rail service for two and a half years. A staged conversion could have been arranged to maintain a rail service to Shaw, New Hey and Milnrow for at least half of that time. But the secrecy of the PTE's working has meant that this decision can't now be reversed.

A staged conversion would have cost slightly more, but nothing compared to £40M.

Where are the PTE's priorities?

abbott71, bolton (12/12/2008 at 17:52)

its very quiet on this page from the yes vote is nt it!!!!...

hopefully the government will realise they are pushing the majority too far...and public power will start to sway ...

Dave Dave (12/12/2008 at 17:53)

The quote by "Jenny Price-Thomas" in the article demonstrates the problem that this vote faced - people just don't understand the proposals, and what they were voting for!

Adii (15/12/2008 at 14:40)

I agree the TIF documentation propsals, and other such documentation cost sooo much. That investment could have gone in making new carriages, or refubishing the old ones. They have royally messed up Oldham now.

Shaw has a barrier system, and if train frequencey had increased then more, congestion at the barriers. would have taken place bu cars having to wait.

Liz Pheran, head of the Vote yes campaign, showed a statement of how parents would be able to meet their young children on time due to congestion charge.

What she didn't mention that the loss of £1200 meant parents would have to work longer hours, and working lonnger hours could worsen any health problems they have.

She says your being selfish by not putting Manchester first. Well for most of us family comes first Miss Pheran and if anyone has a negative effect on my family they will defintely not be getting my support.

Black Flag (15/12/2008 at 14:59)

Free Red: "it's a massive investment into privately owned trams, trains and buses"

Since when have the trams been privately owned?

JTC Formerley JimC (15/12/2008 at 15:06)

Black flag, if the TIF had got thier way, and public money had been invested in the trams, would the public then own them !!!.

I dont think so.

Trumpetman21 (15/12/2008 at 15:11)

"The quote by "Jenny Price-Thomas" in the article demonstrates the problem that this vote faced - people just don't understand the proposals, and what they were voting for!"

Rubbish.

Black Flag (15/12/2008 at 15:29)

JTC: "Black flag, if the TIF had got thier way, and public money had been invested in the trams, would the public then own them !!!. I dont think so."

Well the public own the trams now and there has been no indication that the extended lines will be any different, so I disagree with you. If you got any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear it.

()

Report This

News