Manchester Congestion charge film

[SAMJE123456]

The Mancs are not as daft as the manc council good on you mancs.Shop in Manchester there is no congestion charge and great shopping facilitys.

[CCinlondondidntwork]

I run a small sameday transport business based alongside the M602 which I started myself after being made redundant in 2005. I never agreed with the CC in London and time has proved that, London is still as congested now as it was before the CC was introduced. Let the supporters go to London for a week and see for themselves how the CC has solved its problems and then come back to Manchester and vote yes!

Another tax on top of RFL and fuel duty.

I vote NO, NO, NO!

[manclad9]

VOTE YES! I already did.

[Quizcos]

Well done!

[xxseanpbxx]

just think of all the jobs that will be lost due to companys moving from manchester should charge the public transport users instead there the only people saying vote yes there wont be a need for better public transport when you have no job to go to

[thirteenfingers]

For the benefit of those who don't understand - the point of these videos is to show what kind of impact £1200 a year would have on most people, in this case the example is that £1200 a year will mean you can't go on your holidays.

The simple fact is that even the proposed system does not meet the needs of everyone, the proposed charge penalises those who aren't provided for by public transport. It charges those who cross a charging ring but don't contribute to the jams.

continued...

[thirteenfingers]

...just looking at the difference we see on the roads in the school holidays shows the supposed congestion problem up for what it really is.

The congestion "problem" is more of a "school run" problem for the most part.

The charge needs to be stopped, the ads by the "we vote yes" campaign are disingenuous to say the least.

Students, workers driving the other way or off peak may be persuaded to vote yes, but when they take a new job that brings them into town they will regret it.

continued...

[thirteenfingers]

The proposed changes to public transport would be nice, but they can't be the answer for everyone. It is wrong to penalise those who aren't provided for by public transport.

Public transport is not safe, even promises of police on public transport couldn't solve that and can be easily removed at a later date.

This was forseen years ago when the government pulled out of funding the "Big Bang" - congestion charging is as wrong now as it was then.

Vote NO!

[ReviewThatCar]

If you work Central Manchester from the outside you have an option. Its called train, metrolink and bus. There is no excuse not to use it once the transport improvements have been put in place. There will be 100km+ of Metrolink lines, 200km of Rail Lines and 1000s of buses connecting everything up. This plan is based on travelling into Central Manchester and improving main routes in and out. Its not based on giving everyone there own underground line. There is no excuse to vote no!

[thirteenfingers]

If it was as simple as that then you'd almost be right (other than the absolute immorality of pricing the poorer off the roads leaving them clear for the richer)

Ok let's see - we live in a country where you can't carry anything for self defence - so safety is a serious factor for public transport.

What for those people who start early (meaning rush hour in) and finish late (meaning dark streets and unsafe public transport out) they'll be charged one way per day.

contd...

[thirteenfingers]

...contd

Charging isn't only for travel TO the centre - it's for travel TOWARDS the centre.

If you live *just* inside the M60 and come home during AM rush hour - you'll be charged. No reduction of traffic jams, but still a chargable journey.

If the improvements are that good, there's no need for the charge, people will use public transport just like in New York. If the improvements don't meet someone's needs, they should NOT be forced to pay a charge to make their own transport arrangments.

[ReviewThatCar]

There is a need for the charge. The reason is lack of FUNDING. How do you afford these improvements when the Government have just decided to lend another £115 Billion a year? Where does this magic money come from? If we don't invest now, it stays as it has done for the last 50 years, for the next 50 years. btw New York is considering a Congestion Charge and it has a system like it does because after the 1970s if invested heavily in its self. It called 40 years of investment. Same we want to do.

[thirteenfingers]

NYC bus and subway needed no c-charge to set up. It pays for itself.

NYC public transport = world class. You can cross all 5 boroughs in 1 journey for just $2 there's no more incentive needed - most New Yorkers don't own a car because the transport is so good. That's choice - not being priced off the roads.

How about we cut the office of the Deputy PM (made up job for Prescott) and use that money instead?

Still Voting NO (and no, I don't own a car)

We "want" 4 years of investment, not 40.

[ReviewThatCar]

It doesn't pay for itself. That would be a myth. They spend $Billion in tax a year keeping it going. To reduce CONGESTION they are looking a Congestion Charge! Obama is looking at the possiblty of doing what Manchester is doing and doing the same thing to a number of American cities! GOOGLE IT. Its all there. Money doesn't grow off trees, things have to be funded! On the Deputy PM, you won't do anything about it. Neither will anyone else. Come up with a plan, then come back to me.

[thirteenfingers]

NYC has world class public transport. People use cars there by choice - very much fewer use them through necessity.

A C-charge there is no more than pricing the poor off the roads regardless of whether public transport meets their needs.

Just like is happening in Manchester.

"Jill Bloggs" lives in Prestwich, works nights in Bury, drives home at 8am, contributes nothing to congestion, but will soon be charged to get home every morning.

Punished because public transport doesn't meet her needs.

[LebaneseBrit]

Reviewthatcar has put a clip on Youtube where he tries unsuccessfully to burn a leaflet from the No campaign.

He has got to be the most cack-handed arsonist in Manchester (with far too much time on his hands.)

He has had so much ridicule and abuse that he disabled comments on his video...

Aw diddums!! Are the No campaign winning the argument?

Clearly they are.

[thirteenfingers]

Hahaha.

Thanks for the post there LB.

The cack-handed arsonist part gave me a good laugh.

No...

...no...

NO!!!!!

Just a few more days until we find out if common sense prevails - or if the mountains of money spent by First and Stagecoach advertising for a "YES" on billboards, full page ads and teams of people handing out propaganda - just so they get a PILE of free money.

NO!!!

[delusion23]

Actually Jill Bloggs wouldn't need to pay the charge as it only applies travelling INTO the city in the morning.

But hey, i'm voting NO on this thing anywho.

Just thought i'd show that the NO campaign makes stuff up awsell as the YES :P

[thirteenfingers]

I'm glad you're a NO, but you're mistaken about Jill Bloggs.

I've made nothing up other than the scenario (and that's based loosely on reality).

The charge ISN'T for driving into the city - it is for driving TOWARDS the city (in the AM)

Jill works in Bury and lives in Prestwich, which means she has to cross the outer charging ring on the way home from work, even though the jams don't start that far out.

She is punished with a fee because public transport doesn't provide for her.

[delusion23]

Ahhh, thanks for clarifying.

[thirteenfingers]

No problem at all.

Now we've just got to hope that enough people see the sense in voting NO and put this ill-conceived congestion charging bid behind us.

The question to ask then will be, how do we get the public transport improvements that we need (and I do believe we need them) without resorting to charging those who don't use the system for safety, practicality or any other reasons - and without giving £3billion of free money to First, Stagecoach, Serco and so on.

[ReviewThatCar]

Why make it about rich and poor? Pricing people off the road? No because there are discounts for low income workers. There is a max limit to being charged which is £5. If you could afford to drive 3 months ago you can afford the charge. If you brought 16 litres fuel that you brought 3 months ago it would work out £6.40 cheaper! Public Transport isn't dangerous, light or dark. I use it all the time and I've never had a problem. Your reasons for voting no are made up myths.

[thirteenfingers]

I suppose the two guys who singled me out on the bus, followed me off it and beat me up for fun are a made up myth too.

I've got a crime number and had a swollen shut eye that say otherwise.

There's no maximum charge. It went up in London and it would go up in Manchester too. No hard limit has been given - just a "promise" which isn't worth the hot air it was spoken with.

I'm not making it about rich and poor. The whole concept is about pricing people off the road - I'm just objecting to it.

[ReviewThatCar]

So it was the buses Fault? I was walking home and I got attacked by 4 lads in a car. Nothing to do with anything they were just dickheads. Its like anything else, my mate got rammed off the road 3 weeks ago. While driving. Same again the guy who did it was a dickhead.

The MAXIMUM charge will be £5! This isn't controlled by central government its controlled by Manchester. They won't rip us off. They have been trying for 30 years to get money into Public Transport and all people can do is moan.

[thirteenfingers]

That wasn't the busses fault - please don't try to make such obvious strawmen.

You told me that public transport was safe, day or night. I gave just one of the many examples of why people justly feel unsafe on public transport. Being out in public, in a place you are not allowed to arm yourself for defence, is unsafe. Cars are door-to-door, public transport requires walking around alone at night. NOT safe.

contd...

[thirteenfingers]

That incident ONLY happened because I was on public transport. I still use public transport, but to claim that it doesn't carry an inherent risk of violent crime is an utter nonsense.

I don't expect you to accept anything I say, but will continue to respond while you misrepresent reality.

There's NO solid maximum charge. NOW it's a £5 maximum - but that maximum can easily become a £6 maximum, then £7.

If you genuinely believe it won't go up at all - you're a fool. I don't believe you are.

[LebaneseBrit]

I agree. You have no say on who you share public transport with. I caught a train into and out of the city centre last Friday. It was full of boozed up chavs looking to start something.

The Yes campaign miss the point about investment entirely.

This investment is long-overdue ALREADY. Charging people to use their cars in exchange for a commitment to invest in publice transport is nothing short of blackmail.

People are seeing through the lies and spin though.

Vote NO... I have.

[thirteenfingers]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the injustice... We've needed improvements for years, after having the rug pulled out from under us because our small "big bang" was "too expensive" (at the time London got something like 10 billion for ANOTHER underground line) they have the gall to blackmail us into congestion charging to qualify for the investment we've needed for so long.

I'm voting NO...

...taking it to Bury in person, I don't trust the post, they delivered my ballot to next door!

[matmataudi]

Well if thats all they have to show, then i'm still voting YES, a large blue fish / shark running away with your suite case! If you have an argument against the TIF bid, then do it in an adult way!

[njw3000]

If that's the best the 'no' campgaign can do then they deserve to lose the vote. I agree, it didn't even make sense. What the HELL has the congestion charge got to do with going on holiday?! Pathetic. VOTE YES, for a better transport system for the future.

[manclad9]

this video made no sense at all, I will be voting yes now thanks to this bloody awful video.

[NinjaRebel]

But think seriously about it!

If most motorists move to public transport then how will the loan be paid off??? Existing public transport will be full and overwhelmed with new passengers.

Businesses and tradesmen will pay the charge, but this will be passed on to the everyday customer YOU! Just as fuel prices have pushed up goods by 40% this charge will add to that with more hardship.

Congestion will move to other times and different routes, and business and shops will suffer. Say NO!

[jammymum]

no - fuel charges are from companies and tax - and if you notice - it's come down lower than a year ago!!! Credit crunch is caused by lazy, greedy, "want to have it all" people. Now the congestion charge will fund public transport which will aid those who can't afford to drive the cars that some have had repossessed! The party's over people - time for the hangover!

[njw3000]

No, NinjaRebel, 'most; motorists will not move to public transport. But a proportion of them will, meaning that those that don't:

a) will be able to travel more efficicently, thus reducing their travelling times and CO2 emissions and other pollution;

b) will be subsidising the improved transport infrastructure that the rest of Manchester's citizens will benefit from.

It's gotta make more sense than doing nothing. vote yes!

[NinjaRebel]

Well if most motorists won't or cannot move to public transport, then what's the point in having congestions charge at all then? It won't do a damn thing for congestion except tax workers, and create local inflation.

[njw3000]

Don't be stupid. You only need about 20 percent fewer motorists on the roads to make a massive difference to congestion. And at the same time they're subsidising other forms of transport. It's a win win situation. Just saying "what's the point?" over and over when the point has just been pointed out to you is...well, pointless!

[NinjaRebel]

Looking at the London model much of the revenue raised doesnt go to public transport, and there are plans to charge across the country and to smaller towns if Manchester charge goes ahead.

Yes lets have better public transport that we all have already paid for.

Yes provide cycle routes, more buses and trains, and most people where possible will use them with out force, but dont tax workers travelling to work.

[NinjaRebel]

I can say a lot about this subject but overall I am totally against it and it will affect and hurt everybody but the rich.

A £3 billion loan will be taken out to fund it and pay for technology to monitor motorists, with the remainder going to public transport that should already be provided by taxes and fares.

[jammymum]

how will the rich not be affected? I'm not rich, but surely public transport is a good thing? Eases stress in travelling and I bet the high fuel costs would mean overall it's cheaper to go by public transport? People who live near to each other should travel together if they can - but they don't. Too much pride, too much keeping up with the Jones'

[jammymum]

I agree - sick isnt it. But if it has to be done, it has to be done. Us Mancs are tough - Londoners are just toffs.

[NinjaRebel]

Open your eyes! It's the toffs that want the congestion charge!

To keep the roads clear for them to drive free on. No point having sports car if they are stuck in a jam.

Keep the poor off the roads and tax them at the same time!! Why not if people like you will let them?

[jammymum]

say YES to the congestion charge - reduce your carbon footprint! Enjoy travelling by train and enjoy more holidays in the beautiful country that is Britain! We dont need to allow more cars on our roads! VOTE YES!!!

[jammymum]

what a rubbish video!

the shark is rubbish.

sorry - but I vote yes!

the congestion is caused by mostly toffs who are the only ones who can afford to park in manchester! - you know - owners of 4x4's - etc!

[Rug13y]

You really are a tool aren't ya?

[jammymum]

so you're the toff!

[Rug13y]

no mate, im no political do-gooder like you. You are heading right into their trap of a global government.

[jammymum]

paranoid much?

[Android617]

What an idiot!