Thay always knew something was needed, but tried blackmail first. What's that smell? General Election in the air, I think.

And politicians wonder why the public don't trust them one bit.

The people of Manchester were nigh on bullied into voting 'yes', no plan b, disaster for the city, children will die etc. It is a good job that the public didn't fall for this hook, line and sinker just like the council did with the government proposal.

What is astonishing is the person from the DfT who says '“We have considered carefully the lessons from TIF and recognised that too narrow a focus on one solution for tackling congestion is not effective.”!!!

If she had only read the solutions that were being on this site we would have saved millions that were wasted on the campaign. People on here were suggesting all sorts of ideas like resetting the lights, better signage for traffic jams, widening lanes, getting rid of measures introduced that help cause congestion etc. We were told that all possibilities had been explored and that the congestion charge was the ONLY solution.

Now we are told that they focussed too narrowly on one soloution, so does that mean that they didn't seriously consider all other soloutions? We were told that the congestion charge was our last and only hope before the city faced disaster.

The council ran a very good campaign telling the whole country how gridlocked Manchester is, how everybody is always late for work the air is filthy, no companies will invest here, poor people can't get anywhere etc etc. Friends outside of Manchester have this shocking view of the place which is just plain not true. The council should be promoting the city, not telling everybody it is a hellhole in order to influence people to vote yes. It has backfired big style.

They would do well to listen to the public as we could save them millions.

Will the Council be able to claim back the thousands of pounds it wasted on surveys? It was only tax payers money, but maybe Sir Richard and his cronies will pay it back out of their own pockets.

Give me strength.

Right. There was the Transport Innovation Fund. It was a grant pot, to bid into. There were conditions - like any grant. One of those was congestion charging. The GM experience shows the public wouldn't support Congestion charging (that's not to say it wasn't the right way to go, but the public wouldn't support it). So TIF is finished.

Now, there is the Urban Challenge Fund. A new, different grant pot, with different conditions. One of those is there is NOT a requirement to manage demand for roadspace i.e. congestion charging.

Two grant pots - two different sets of conditions - as there are a myriad of government grant pots, with different conditions.

This is all very simple - we've been over this. why don't you people understand this?

"change the traffic light phasing, better signage, widen lanes, get rid of cycle lanes, get rid of bus lanes, get rid of measures introduced that cause congestion. zzzzzzzzzzzz. change the record, someone.

congestion is caused by an ever increasing number of vehicles wanting to use a finite resource (roadspace) at the same time (peak times) which the roadspace cannot accommodate. A bit like having a pipe of fixed diameter that you try to pour more and more water through at increasing pressure. water won't go through.

Do you see?

Sir Richard says: “This is not a plan B. It is a new plan.”

They really do take us for fools. By saying that there was no plan b and there wouldn't be a plan b most would assume that there isn't any other plan. It was said that this was it, there wouldn't ever be anything else.

So there wasn't a plan b at the time but this is now plan b. Leese says that it isn't plan b, but a new plan. You can call it what you like Mr Leese - plan x, plan c, plan 2, but if plan a doesn't work and you devise a 'new' plan, that is alphabetically plan 'b', whether it was up your sleeve at the time or only just thought of yesterday. To say that there would not be an alternative was just not true.

I like politics. I don't always agree with their policies but that it politics. What I don't like is the way in which some politicians treat the public. The really do take us for fools. They spin things out and expect us to believe it, when we disagree we are treated with contempt (look at the anger of some of these pro-TiF ones) and accused of lacking intellligence and when they come up with another plan (plan b) we are expected to just accept there one liner and get on with it and accept it.

The people of Manchester work damned hard to pay our council tax. For many we rare worried about our jobs, the recession has really hit us, family memebers are out of work and we bust a gut to pay the bills. We are owed an explanation to the scant waste of millions that this TiF campaign cost US, the taxpayers. We were told that we would not get these improvements unless we voted yes, there was no plan b, it was last chance saloon etc and lo and behold we get most of it anyway.

Either these politicians are incompetent or are not truthful.

Knowledge Poverty. I like your pipe analogy. Sometimes people might stick things in the pipe to slow down the flow of water in order to get a better pipe.

Here is one small example. Two lanes on Whitworth Street going to Piccadilly. One is taken over by a building site at Princess Street so two lanes of traffic go into one (building site so not delibertate). However at the junction of Aytoun Street there was an ample pedestrian crssoing in the middle of Whitworth Street. This was widening by two thirds thus reducing two lanes to one, thus creating an bottleneck. A ten year old could tell that that would cause traffic to slow.

Overseas there way of tackling congestion is to do everything to keep it freeflowing, to get it in and out of working cities as quickly as possible. Ours is too slow it down so fumes are belching out for longer in the city.

The council should stop encouraging people in to the city if it wants less people coming in causing pollution (whether by bus,car or train). Keep them away. You can't expect to encourage people in and still have clear roads, loads of space on buses etc. Sell the polluting airport if they are so green.

What you will find is that the thing that peopel are really angry about with the TiF is that the feel lied to and it was at great cost to us, the taxppayer. That is a serious issue. You may be pro or anti congestion charge but it should worry anybody when politicians have such contempt for the electorate are not straight with us.

Next time it might be something that you strongly disagree with that they steamroll in this way.

What if they decided to build more bypasses, widen road, build another motorway, add another runway, take 20% of buses offthe street and they spun they same 'it's now or never, no plan b, decaeds of disaster unless it happens'. It isn't the cause, it is the nature of how and what happened that should concern anybody with interest in a democracy. This is not China.

3 million pounds, how many potholes will that fix, give me the job, id have least done the survey online and saved thousands in paper.

Knowledge Poverty. I don't know if the subsequent post by Audenshaw Bob was meant as a reply to your post, but it does the job beautifully. WE WERE GIVEN NO ALTERNATIVES. WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE.

I commute by bus for my sins by the way, and they are affected very much by road narrowing, pathetic light sequences etc. Bus lanes do not help my journey as they create tremendous bottlenecks while cars etc are forced to queue to get out of them in rush hour. The bus lane doesn't even make up for that time-loss most mornings.

Now when the kids are off.....

Audenshaw Bob: "Overseas there way of tackling congestion is to do everything to keep it freeflowing"

I love that quaint implication that "Overseas" is one homogenous place where everything is done exactly the same way.

No plan B but a plan 9 from outa space.

Audenshaw Bob: "Overseas there way of tackling congestion is to do everything to keep it freeflowing"

---------------------------

You can't drive a car overseas you would need a boat or a hovercraft.

Knowledge Poverty, The Range
3/03/2010 at 09:43

"Give me strength. "

"Right. There was the Transport Innovation Fund. It was a grant pot, to bid into. There were conditions - like any grant. One of those was congestion charging. The GM experience shows the public wouldn't support Congestion charging (that's not to say it wasn't the right way to go, but the public wouldn't support it). So TIF is finished."

Knowledge is not everything in your case, as the article says,
"Money from the Transport Innovation Fund, which was conditional on charging schemes being introduced, will now be made available to all councils – including those in our region - with NO strings attached."
and maybe thats why i'm one of these people you say just don't understand this !

NO you've been hoodwinked by the writer / editor of this article. They only want to upset you.

The TIF scheme is dead, closed.

There is now a NEW scheme - the Urban Challenge Fund.

It's not the case that 'the TIF money that had conditions attached has had the conditions taken away, and its now the Urban Challenge Fund, we've been diddled'.

TIF was, effectively a failure - people in GM wouldn't support it with the condition of congestion charging.

So there is now a NEW scheme that Councils can bid into.

Again, Why don't people understand this?

Its like people who say 'i pay my road tax, £120 a year (whatever it is) a year, i expect that to pay for mirror smooth roads, traffic lights who's phase is biased in the direction i want to travel. Look at the state of the roads, and the traffic lights just aren't biased enough in my direction. I pay my road tax, why isn't all my road tax and everyone else's road tax going into building more mirror smooth roads and traffic lights that are phased in my direction? I'm going to FOI this etc etc etc

It doesn't work like that. Most taxes go into one big pot, and the government decides how to spend it. Always been like that.

OK, Black Flag, 'in my experience', when living 'overseas' in Australia, USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Delhi. Also having spent considerable time working in China, Holland, Germany, France, Italy,Argentina, Chile, UAE, Spain, Mexico, Indonesia and having visited forty other countries as a tourist having used cars, buses, trains, trams etc to get around it is my experience that these places solutions is to get people moving swiftly.

If somebody drives into Los Angeles to work, let them get in quickly and get out quickly. We seem to think that creating bottlenecks will make people angry and make them go on a tram!

Why can't politicians work with the people? It also also negative campaigns. The negative campaigns all the time. It is the most basic form and is wrong.

'If you don't do x then x will happen'. It is 'If you don't do what I tell you to, bad things will happen'. Just like telling a child to get to bed 'If you don't go to sleep no w amonster will get you'. It is laughable.

'If you vote no, your children will die'.

'If you don't recycle the human race will be wiped out in eighty years'

'If you don't stop using as much electricity the ice caps will elt and we will be under water in thirty years'

Bair slammin his fist on the dispatch box shouting 'Sadam can launch chemical weapons ON THIS COUNTRY within 45 minutes'.

It is like the if you don't believe in God terrible things will happen syndrome.

As an electorate we deserve better.

"change the traffic light phasing, better signage, widen lanes, get rid of cycle lanes, get rid of bus lanes, get rid of measures introduced that cause congestion. zzzzzzzzzzzz. change the record, someone.

congestion is caused by an ever increasing number of vehicles wanting to use a finite resource (roadspace) at the same time (peak times) which the roadspace cannot accommodate. A bit like having a pipe of fixed diameter that you try to pour more and more water through at increasing pressure. water won't go through.

Do you see?


Knowledge Poverty, The Range

To use your analogy........ you would not reduce the diameter of that pipe carrying water to reduce the capacity, why reduce the capacity of the roads? And your "do you see?" condescending comment is not called for, I see very well and probably am better informed on highways matters than you.

Before you go on to dismiss my comment, I worked in the highways department in Salford for more than 25 years, untill recently. We worked in partnership with other local authorities in GM that use the same or similar road policies. I would confirm that it has been policy to reduce traffic capacity to calm traffic. If you reduce traffic capacity you create congestion.

Do you see?

Knowledge Poverty, you don't get it do you?

When we are told that this is it, no other alternatives, loss of 10,000 jobs, disater for the economy, THIS IS IT and then IT ISN'T IT, what are we to think. Incompetence or lied to? Which do you prefer?

I was sceptical about some politicians as it was but if ever again I am given such an ultimatum I'll treat it with the respect it deserves. None.

The way politicians go about things to get their way - bully, invoke fear, use millions of our money on propaganda etc is a disgrace. If you buy into everything that they want you to believe then good luck in life, you'll need it,

Audenshaw Bob: "As an electorate we deserve better."

No, unfortunately, we don't. There are huge numbers of reactionary idiots in the electorate, who don't think, will respond to incoherent arguments and can be made to agree to almost anything if you throw them a scapegoat. Politicians just respond to those facts and do whatever it takes to get votes from people.

What a joke!!!!

How very slippery of you CityCtr.

You know very well that you do indeed reduce traffic capacity to calm traffic. Because there are places that it is not desirable for traffic to go - so you discourage it from going there, by making it harder.

You don't create congestion by reducing traffic capacity, it's the absolute insistence of people of using roads with reduced capacity that is the problem.

And yes, i know the alternatives aren't good enough. I admit, they're not. But that's another argument.

Bob, i make my own luck.

I own my own house, I own a car i use for leisure purposes, I have a reasonable amount of disposable income, some savings in the bank, and my pension is tootling along as well as can be expected.

You however, are a bitter angry man who believes the entire world is a tyrannical conspiracy against you. This may well be the root cause of why you struggle.

I am sorry - that you have failed.

"Audenshaw Bob - Here is one small example. Two lanes on Whitworth Street going to Piccadilly. One is taken over by a building site at Princess Street so two lanes of traffic go into one (building site so not delibertate). However at the junction of Aytoun Street there was an ample pedestrian crssoing in the middle of Whitworth Street. This was widening by two thirds thus reducing two lanes to one, thus creating an bottleneck. A ten year old could tell that that would cause traffic to slow. "


In all fairness, that bottleneck was done to save lives... If you were going down whitworth street towards picadilly, there was a point where you couldn't see the pedestrian crossing lights as there wasn't one on the right hand side for some reason...! and if a bus was in the left lane that would block the view of the only other traffic signal so you were going through blind...! I myself very nearly knocked over people on two occasions due to buses blocking the signals and people stepping out from infront of them. And i am a reasonably careful driver... I'm sure someone probably got injured or worse, thus the change...

Now that is what I call a U turn! This is nothing to do with an election coming up is it?

Remember all you sheople who voted them in last time, the current state of the economy is a direct result of their mismanagement.

We said no to the con, now say no to Labour.

"Sir Richard" also said he'd resign if Manchester voted "no" to the con charge, but I'm still waiting for that too...

CityCntr: "Knowledge Poverty, The Range, To use your analogy........ you would not reduce the diameter of that pipe carrying water to reduce the capacity, why reduce the capacity of the roads?"

The problem is that, unlike with a pipe, roads aren't an even capacity. Increasing the capacity on one stretch of road could be a bit like increasing the diameter of one short section of a pipe, but leaving the rest the same size. It wouldn't necessarily improve flow rates.

How very slippery of you CityCtr.

You know very well that you do indeed reduce traffic capacity to calm traffic. Because there are places that it is not desirable for traffic to go - so you discourage it from going there, by making it harder.

You don't create congestion by reducing traffic capacity, it's the absolute insistence of people of using roads with reduced capacity that is the problem.

And yes, i know the alternatives aren't good enough. I admit, they're not. But that's another argument.
Knowledge Poverty, The Range


Firstly, what is slippery about my comment?

Secondly, there has been reduced traffic capacity as calming measures on major routes. Cheetham Hill Road, Stockport Road in Levenshulme to name but two. These are arterial roads not side streets or play roads, where cars need to be discouraged, as you seem to suggest. They have indeed been reduced in capacity to slow down the traffic, but to then to state that there is no resultant congestion is absurd. It is a direct attributable to the schemes and in fact is a desirable result as their implementation.

Thirdly, you state that the congestion is caused by people insisting they use the reduced capacity roads. Had the capacity not been reduced there would be less congestion, increase capacity, less congestion. Its not that hard to understand surely?