Manchester mumsnetters - how are you going to vote re the Congestion Charge?

[Tinker]

I'm on the fence.

Agree with it in principle but think Manchester's public transport is still too crap (from where I live)

What do you think?

I think it'll get a No vote anyway because it just feels like another expense atm

Obviously a subject quite personal to you FC.

Im still a NO and just to add so if dh. YES the charge will affect everyone at some time. There will be occasions when people will have to travel into manchester during peak times so your comments are wrong.

We won't agree on this and you won't change my mind.
Post as many facts as you wish, make as many comments as you wish. As I said, lets see how the VOTING goes. Only then can one of us be right. Until then.....

so I assume everyone returned their papers in time?

does anyone know when the result will be known?

lunchtime today i believe

It's a NO!!!!

All 10 boroughers voted against!

here

I found it difficult to decide, as I agree that public transport could be improved to encourage people to leave the car at home. However the public transport improvements should be viable in their own right, not by charging drivers. If the public transport offering is better then more people will use it thus decreasing congestion... it's not rocket science!

I'm delighted it a 'No'

A NO!!!???

You're all bloody MAD, you Mancs.

And I am one so am allowed to say that, though no longer live there.

God, we're fucked when the oil runs out.

Never mind 'peasant wagons', you'll all be scrabbling around for acorns to eat and be glad of a lift to the farm on the back of a hand-pulled cart to beg for milk.

Looks like the no's have it with a resounding 10-0 defeat. What a waste of public money, a simple bit of market research would have shown the negative feeling towards the workers tax congestion charge, maybe the government thought they could bully us backward Northerners!

Goodwilf, what a nonsensical statement! So basically Londoners and Mancunians should pay this charge to get more cars off the road whereas the rest of the country happily travels to work in their car each day, rest assured they are £1200 better off than us? Thanks!!

jojosmaman, the nonsense has nothing to do with individual costs, which I actually think everyone should pay, in one form or other, to get cars off the road.

The nonsense is believing we can all carry on as we are.

If big cities don't start (with their particular congestion and pollution problems and their economic ability and need to provide public transport systems), do you really expect rural areas to instead?

Head in the sand if you think 1200 quid a year is going to be nearly enough to keep your own children or grandchildren alive, sheltered and fed if the oil dependency is not tackled...

Do you think that it is that simple though wilf? This wasn't a vote on whether we want to preserve our future, this a vote about whether already heavily taxed car users should be taxed further in order to drive to work. It was also a backlash against the inept Councillors who put forward an ill thought out proposal and just expected everyone to roll over and accept it. If this proposal had only included an inner ring road then the result may have been quite different, if they had suggested a cap on the congestion once the debt from the cost of carrying out these improvements had been made then many more would have voted yes.

Don't get me wrong, if the vote was whether we should ALL pay a £1200 tax to pump into looking into alternative fuels or ways of reducing pollution I may well have voted for it but this wasn't. This was a tax on those who go to work everyday to make a living, many of those who are on an ave wage of £14000 and who could ill afford to fork out £1200 per year for the privilige.

Ridiculous arguments. Not everyone would have to pay. You only would have to pay if you were driving in at peak times during week days. Only 1/10 people driving in would pay. You avoid it by driving in not at peak times or by GETTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT. If you insist on driving then you should pay for that because of the costs you are incurring to others in terms of congestion and pollution.

Thanks a lot no voters. We have gained absolutely nothing so that you can carry on sitting in your cars clogging up the roads and atmosphere and those people who do or would get public transport gain nothing.

lol fivecandles, you sound like the Yes vote pamphlet which hundreds of thousands of intelligent Mancunians saw right through.

I don't want to patronise but can I just break down you points?

"not everyone would have to pay"- What use is that arguement for those that DO have to pay?!! Oh, its ok, I know I have to pay £785 a year to drive into work which is on the outskirts of the city but not everyone does. That's ok then.

"only 1/10 people driving in would pay"- see above! Also, I would like to see where the Councillors got this figure from as I know that about 70-80% of my friends and family would be affected and not all of these work in the city centre, myself included.

"You avoid it by driving in not at peak times or by GETTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT"- Unfortunately, like many other people that WORK IN/ AROUND THE CITY, I cannot avoid the peak times!

As for public transport, this is fine except that it would mean higher costs for our family as I would not get to nursery on time to collect ds and so would have to pay for extra childcare and the trams/ buses I would need to catch would outweigh the cost of a congestion charge. I would also not relish a walk through the rough inner city trading estate I work on in the middle of winter to catch my bus.

"If you insist on driving then you should pay for that because of the costs you are incurring to others in terms of congestion and pollution"- Firstly, this is my favourite point! Congestion, which is this whole vote is based on by the way this is nothing to do with environmental issues, is so not a problem at the moment and the number of vehicles travelling in to the city has REDUCED by 20% over the past few years!! My commute to work is 30 mins, my commute home is 20mins and I live in the suburbs out near the airport. How could I do this if the roads were congested?

As I have said, the vote had NOTHING to do with environmental issues, this charge was to be imposed to decrease congestion. As this congestion is in the figment of Councillors imagination, the proposal fell through.

However, if you would like me to talk about the environmental impact then all I will say is, fivecandles, have you ever been to China? Or India? Believe me, if we all left our cars at home for a year the effect this would have on the environment would be literally a drop in the ocean if something is not done about the emissions pumping out of the Far East.

My proposals would be this, reward people for car sharing rather than charging for not, so reduced car tax for car sharers or those who don't drive in peak times. People react better to what they will save if they do something positive rather than what they will be charged if they don't. Also, when is the quietest times on the road? When the kids are off school. Amend secondary school hours to 8am-2.30pm instead of 9-3.30 and increase the American style school bus system to relieve parents of driving to schools, I believe this will make a huge difference to the roads.

I am extremely happy we have not been bullied by the govt in to accepting this proposal, how dare Jeff Hoon say its either this or nothing?! There can always, and in my opinion will be a Plan B. If the govt can pump money into preparation for the London Olympics (Basketball 8.7m, rowing £27m, sailing £25m cycling £26.9m, synchronised swimming £3.5m etc etc) then they can give Manchester the funding we deserve rather than an ultimatum.

You don't think there may perhaps be a link between congestion and pollution?? Duh!

Or that both will get worse if something is not done about it now (in preparation for the future)?

Not disagreeing with your other ideas at all but sometimes people need a big disincentive to drive as well as an incentive to use public transport.

It's like recylcing. I always did recycle little bits but when one collection was taken away and replaced with a recylcing collection I got much better at it as did most people!!

As for the people who 'have to' travel at peak times I really wonder how many of them really would 'have to' if there were more disincentives to do so and incentives not to. If charges were imposed employees would put pressure on their employers who would be encouraged to look at more options for flexible working and working from home and formalised car sharing arrangements - all a good thing. Park and ride schemes are really effective too and there's no reason why large companies couldn't make more of an effort to hire minibuses or company cars to trasfer employees to and from public transport where workplaces were at a distance for example.

Without the disincentives it's far too easy just to go with what's easy. Ultimately some people will sadly always put their own convenience first as is very much in evidence here. Sadly some people and employers only think of themselves rather than their responsibilities to others now and in the future. It's up to Govts and councils to think of the long term for everyone.

Of course there is evidence to link congestion with pollution, there is no "duh" about it. However, the proposal for this instance was put forward as a way to reduce congestion on the roads for reasons of getting the city moving not for environmental reasons which is a key point. You see if it were for environmental reasons then drivers of small low emission cars like mine would have said hang on a minute, why should I pay the same congestion charge as the big 4x4 in the road next to me that would be emitting 3 times as many fumes.

And you can't blame small business like ours for opposing the scheme and for selfishly thinking of themselves and the jobs of their staff when actually there are better things that can be done to improve congestion and pollution can you?

Like I said in an earlier post, if this congestion charge was limited to the inner boundary and didn't include an area far bigger than the London congestion charge then the voters would not have been so dubious of the real reasons behind the scheme and may just, as I think I would have done, voted yes. Many feel as if they were being duped or hood winked into voting yes when there are alternatives that can be explored that are much fairer than this.

I am looking forward to hearing what Plan B will be, hopefully it will be a much clearer proposal

The fact that there may be better ways or equally good ways to reduce pollution doesn't negate the value of this proposal. Frankly, if everyone took this attitude we would all be in a state of complete inertia. What's the point in recycling, turning off lights or water in my house or office? I can't stand this attitude TBH. Oh, well it's not ME that's the problem and it's not ME that's the solution. The fact is that we are all both and have a part to play however small.

My point was that by reducing congestion as you say then, of course, you reduce pollution so environmental reasons is of course one reason out of many why people might have chosen to support the proposal. You said above that the proposal has nothing to do with environmental issues when it quite clearly does.

Of course it negates the value of the proposal, why should those who HAVE to drive to WORK in rush hour be made to pay toward reducing pollution caused by congestion compared to those who are able to drive later in the day, but who essentially still drive??!! Whether we have ten thousand cars on the road between 8 and 9am or ten thousand cars on the road between 10-11 we still have ten thousand cars on the road. My point is that this proposal will not resolve any environmental issues and it certainly will not reduce congestion (that doesnt exist!!) so therefore it has been rejected and we start again to find a BETTER proposal which is more fair. Look at London, far more congested than Manchester and you'd think a prime example for a congestion charge but still the roads are packed and Boris Johnson just last week reduced the boundaries as it wasn't working and busineses in the west end were failing because of it.

I have said that, and if you read my post carefully, the proposal was NOT put forward as an environmental policy it was for way of reducing congestion to get the city moving and improve transport links.

And don't think that because I opposed this proposal I am of the attitude of sticking my head in the sand, you couldnt be further from the truth. I recycled before it became fashionable, I drive a small car and share when I can, have an energy efficient house and encourage others to do the same, despite that it is a minute dent in what we are dealing with on a global scale. What I do oppose though is blackmail by a London centric govt who say to get any funding towards improved transport links then we have to pay billions of pounds towards it whilst they pump billions into Wembly, Domes, Wars and Olympics. This is not a way to reduce so-called congestion, help the environment or improve our transport links, this is a revenue exercise and our efforts would be far better directed.

You keep missing my points. Congestion charge during peak hours doesn't mean that all those people are just going to drive at different times it means there is a real incentive to get people using public transport (or car sharing or working from home)instead. Yes, it's revenue exercise in part but that revenue would have funded the improvements in public transport - a good thing. There is more pollution created during congestion because cars are essentially sitting with their engines running belching out fumes getting nowhere fast. And I don't quite know how you can drive into Manchester and not spot the congestion that's pretty weird. And will get even worse in the future. That's part of the point - without plans and an infrastructure congestion will get worse to the point that it's hardly worth driving except that without good public transport tehre will be no choice.

My point about the peak hours was that you suggested driving outside of the congestion zone hours which many would have had to do by changing working hours as buses/ trams are not cheap and since they are privatised, we would be under the thumb of stagecoach and the like, not a good place to be.

Also if you believe for one nano-second that all the revenue created from the charge would have gone directly into public transport then you are more naive than I thought.

Finally re my drive into the outskirts of the city, you are quite welcome to check my 20-30 min commute, White City, down Chester road, on to motorway M60, then on to M56, off at Wythenshawe, down the back lanes et voila! I finish work at 5.30pm and arrive at ds's nursery at 5.55pm every day (it closes at 6 you see so I have to be there). Quite simple.

Fivecandles, please read my posts carefully, I am NOT against improvements of infrastructure and I am NOT against fighting global warming but what I am against is an unfair blackmail by the government in order to get some much needed funding for the North which is always second to London and the South. Please remember that when London introduced the charge they already had in place a wonderful transport, the underground which I personally find to be perfectly adequate. We don't have this, we have the metrolink which is fine but very expensive (and the funding for the expansion of this IS ALREADY in place despite which way the vote would have gone and quite rightly).

I am not missing any of your points, I have highlighted them all and counter-argued each one with a valid point and am glad to say that I feel I have 100% made the right decision by voting no.

Oh and I re-iterate re the environment, I urge you to refocus your energies on efforts to rally world leaders on carbon emmisions than reducing Manchesters workforce commute by 10 mins. China's greenhouse gas emmisions are set to double by 2010 which would mean that even if the rest of the world (including the USA so very unlikely!!) were to offset their carbon emmisions we would be no nearer to becoming anywhere close to neutral. Depressing reading especially when you see that the Chinese government have openly stated that economic development is far more important that environmental policies.

You do continue to miss my points. Voting yes (for what it turned out to be worth) doesn't stop me campaigning against Chinese govts or anything else. To campaign for one small change doesn't take anything away from any other campaign and indeed the idea of changing people's habits and perceptions and providing models is hugely important. Manchester today - Tokyo tomorrow.

If I campaign for better school dinenners in my kids' school then that helps them and the others in the school but establishes a pattern of good habits and may encourage other schools to do the same. No point holding my hands up in despair and saying what's the point? My kids school is just one in thousands and there's a nationwide obesity crisis. And in fact it doesn't stop me writing to my MP etc etc about the nationwide obesity crisis also.

Driving at other times was just ONE of many suggestions I made and it would be just ONE option that drivers could and would take along with car sharing, wrokign from home, getting public transport, park and ride, employers using minibuses to pick up from stations etc. In itself it would be less helpful than getting people out of cars entirely but still helpful because it would ease congestion (which causes more pollution because you have cars sitting on the road not going very far very fast).

As for the thing about publci transport being expensive I have addressecd that several times. It's not as expensive as driving which is not just about fuel (hugely expensive) but also the cost of parking, insurance, tax, maintenance etc etc. Popped tyres (happened to me yesterday), MOT etc etc and then the cost to others' to the environment, to pedestrians, to people suffering from asthma. In my view city centres should be completeyl pedestrianised.

We need to driving as a privilege. And this is partly a class issue because people without much money and the vulnerable like old people and disabled people very often don't have a choice but to get public transport. It's these people that lose out most who rely on public transport while certain privileged people sit one to a car going on about their safety and convenience.

Ha lol, I like the way you imply that I am priviliged as I have a car! Little do you know. What is interesting though is actually if the proposal had gone through, it would be the rich lawyers in their gaz guzzling Range Rovers speeding on the quiet road into town who would be laughing whilst those on way less than ave wage would be out of pocket, freezing cold stood at a bus stop in the rain. You are right, it would be a class issue.

Right ok, this is my last post as nothing you or any yes voters have said have even made me waiver in my opinion. So, I will repeat my points against the propsal that was put forward (after all, that is what we were discussing right?), sorry for the caps, I just feel like I need to get my point across,

1. THERE ARE FAIRER WAYS OF RAISING REVENUE TO INVEST INTO INFRASTRUCTURE THAN TAXING DRIVERS ON TOP OF THE HIGH TAXES THEY ALREADY PAY. THERE ARE ALSO SIMPLER WAYS OF REDUCING CONGESTION.

1. WE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE INITIAL FUNDING FROM THE GOVT ANYWAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT A BLACKMAIL TO PART FUND IT WITH CONGESTION CHARGES. IF THIS WAS DONE THEN NATURALLY PEOPLE WOULD USE THE CONVENIENCE OF IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND LEAVE THE CAR AT HOME SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A CHARGE.

1. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CONGESTION IN MANCHESTER TO WARRANT THIS CHARGE- WE ARE NOT LONDON. THE OUTER RING ROAD BOUNDARY WAS NOT NECESSARY AND IS WHAT MOST NO VOTERS DISAGEED WITH.

1. PUBLIC TRANSPORT TO AND FROM WORK IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN DRIVING. MOST PEOPLE WILL STILL HAVE TO RUN/ TAX/ INSURE A CAR ON TOP OF THE BUS/ TRAM FARES THEY PAY.

1. THE ENVIRONMENT IS EVERYBODYS RESPONSIBILITY NOT JUST CAR DRIVERS BUT CAR DRIVERS ARE EASY TARGETS. I ADMIRE WITH YOUR "EVERY LITTLE HELPS" ATTITUDE BUT I AM AFRAID IN THIS CASE IT DOESN'T, IT REALLY WON'T MAKE AN IOTA OF DIFFERENCE TO THE GREAT SCHEME OF THINGS.

However, there are things we can do without causing more financial difficulty to those who get up off their backsides and go to work every day. Cheap park and ride schemes from the outskirts of the city into town, changing school hours, increasing school bus services and making them more convenient, taxing high emissions cars (creating a third tier), discounts on car tax for car sharers etc. I am sure there are plenty more.

So, there we have it, no offence if I don't reply to your response, I really will argue all day long on this if I don't draw the line somewhere! Nice talking with you

Wasn't implying that you are privileged. Know nothing and don't particularly care about your individual circumstances but I think it's worth pointing out then when people talk about not wanting to drive through rough estates or driving because they are scared about their safety or want to be warm and comfortable on dark nights that a lot ofthe people on those rough estates won't have the privilege of being able to own a car and are precisely the people who rely on public transport and who are made less safe because of the people in cars. As I say I am particularly concerned with pedestrains some of whom don't feel safe walking because of drivers so feel they ahve to drive themselves causing a vicousl cycle and many of whom cannot afford to drive. City centres should be car free IMHO.

I do agree with your proposals above. In fact I suggested them myself several times. But as I've said I do wonder how many people really do have to travel in single cars at peak times into city centres. And out of those people how many would choose to get public transport with a bit more disincentive to drive and if the public transport were better which obviously a congestion charge would provide.