dcbwhaley wrote:
Moggie
You and I have have studied the arguments in favour and against this proposal in great detail and have come to our own opposite conclusions. But the vast majority of people who voted were swayed by their own immediate self interest and didn't give a flying fish about the long term consequences of their vote. This is an example of why "one man- one vote" is a deeply flawed concept.
MEN wrote:
C-charge: A resounding 'NO'
David Ottewell
12/12/2008
THE PEOPLE have spoken – and Greater Manchester will NOT be getting a congestion charge.
Voters have overwhelmingly rejected the scheme by a majority of almost four to one in a region-wide referendum.
The 'No' vote won a clear majority in all ten local authority areas and delivered a crushing blow to the plan to invest billions of pounds in the region's public transport infrastructure.
The decision sparked jubilation among 'no' campaigners, who had claimed the peak-hour, weekday only charge would have cost commuters up to £1,200 a year.
Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council and one of the architects of the congestion charge proposals, said: “We have a very clear result and I’ve already said what the people of Manchester say is what I will be taking forward.
"This was the only opportunity to get £3billion of investment in public transport over the next five years and 10,000 jobs to go with it. So far nobody has been able to put forward a credible alternative to get those levels of investment.”
Asked if he was personally damaged by the result Sir Richard said “The time for me to hang up my hat is when we stop having these sorts of proposal to put to the people of Manchester.”
Graham Stringer, MP for Blackley in Manchester, a long-time opponent of the scheme, said: “It's a brave politician that goes forward with such a scheme, unless it is an extraordinarily good scheme that virtually everybody benefits from.
“It does show there is a hostility to road charging.
“You have to come up with an extremely good scheme whereby you reduce other road taxes if you ever want road pricing by consent in this country.
“I am delighted with the result.
“It is a pity we have had to waste three years on this ill-thought out scheme which the public have seen through.
“We must now go back to government to talk about how they can invest in trams, trains and buses in Greater Manchester.”
Lord Peter Smith, chairman of Association of Greater Manchester Authorities said the results were “very clear”. He added: “This is not just a vote no for congestion charging, it’s a vote no to improvements on the trams railways and buses and there will now be no improvements."
Official turnout figures showed 53.2 per cent of voters returned their ballot forms. The lowest turnout was in Wigan where 45.3 per cent of voters returned their ballot papers. The highest participation in the referendum was in Trafford, where the figure was 63.6 per cent.
A total of just over a million votes were cast and of those 812,815 - a massive 78.8 per cent - put their cross in the 'No' box. Only 218,860 people, 21.2 per cent of those who voted, said they were in favour of the scheme.
Greater Manchester's 10 councils have been bidding for more than £2.75bn from the government's Transport Innovation Fund, including £318m to set up a charging scheme. Some £1.2bn would have been in the form of a loan, paid back over 30 years out of profits from the charge.
People in seven out of the 10 borough of Greater Manchester would have had to have said said 'yes' for the package to go ahead.
The money – which would have paid for massive investment in trams, trains and buses – will now be taken off the table. Some £1.5bn of grant will be returned to a central government 'pot' for cities that are prepared to bring in congestion-charge schemes. The loan will be cancelled.
Geoff Hoon, the transport secretary, has warned the region there is no 'plan B' for improving its public transport.
The results of the all-postal vote were revealed in a highly-charged declaration at Manchester Central this afternoon.
The decision is expected to be rubber-stamped at a meeting of council leaders next Friday.
Ali Abbas, from Manchester Friends of the Earth group, said that many of the proposed benefits to public transport had been overlooked by voters concerned about the impact of the road charge.
He said: “I'm disappointed at a missed opportunity. It was a great chance for us to make a huge improvement to our transport and to help tackle greenhouse emissions. I think it will be much more difficult for us to improve the way that people get to work and travel around Greater Manchester. When we asked people why they wouldn't vote for it they told us 'we wont vote for it because the transport is so bad'. But our argument was 'if you vote for it, the transport will get better'.”
Roger Jones, the former transport boss who was deposed from his council seat in Salford by campaigners opposed to the charge, said that no other avenues for funding would be available for proposed transport schemes in the region.
“This was our only chance. Anything else we get from the Government will be piecemeal. Ninety-two per cent of the TIF money was ours. It wasn't going to go anywhere else.
“Even if the Government removes the requirement for there to be a charge in order to access the money, it will be a free-for-all. Manchester will not pick up the lion's share.”
The problem was not "selfish drivers" - but the whole area would be payng - and twice and more over as increased costs would be passed on in the prices of goods and services
.. plus paying on the council tax/business rates as a further levy.
Some of the three billion would have paid for cameras to pick up the black boxes in the cars .. so less for the "transport improvements".
They planned bendy buses and cyclists to share bus lanes with these hightly dangerous vehicles.
The tram link to Oldham was not part of the TiF as this was planned before hand... and Manchester had already refused cash to improve and extend the Metrolink across the entire region the years BEFORE coming up with a congestion charge plan.
From what I read in all the Greater Manchester press ..
1. The railway improvements amounted to a "painting of the railway srtations for the route from Wigan Wallgate to Manchester Victoria.
2. Three extra carriages would not carry the extra passengers. This may just about help the current train commuter .. and I gather from my sisters that if you wish to get to Manchester for a 9 am start by rail .. you have to catch the 7 am train to guarantee getting there and not being turned away because of it being "too full". THREE carriages per the proposal was just an insult to those currently travelling by train and a three billion pound investment should have bought a hell of a lot more trains/rolling stock etc. Wigan rejected because it was getting
all out of this proposal.
3. Salford .. Bolton .. Stockport likewise were not going to get any better railway facilities .. nor was the Metro going to be extended to Bolton or Stockport central.
4. Buses? We were buying buses for private companies.. who have removed various essential services on many routes because the companies did not consider them "viable". Folk who live in Westhoughton and need the "Royal Bolton" for medical appointments come to mind here: they need three buses to get there whereas they used to have a direct one only last year...
5. People with Blue Badges were only given an exemption after Jazz raised this issue with the leader of one council who then asked this important question at one of their meetings. Only this only covered Blue Badge holders whose cars were registered Motablity Disabled with the DVLA given the numberplate recognition scheme planned. It thus did not cover the "carer"'s car which would not be registered and who would have to fill in forms to recover the cash.
6. Folk with hospital appointments would be allegedly (but not confirmed as) "exempt" and assuming they had an exemption for an appointment in peak times (or even an emergency) .. they would have to prove their appointment. That proposal was a gross intrusion of privacy since medical records are confidential between doctor/patient and not the business of some farty in a town hall's cash counter.
7. Central Manchester had just refurbed its bus station. Why would it then need to build another one less than a 5 minute walk from the existing one?
8. Traffic moves at an average 20 mph around the city. If 20 mph is plenty and they were talking of a blanket 20 mph limit not so long ago .. then you cannot then claim the city is "congested" if traffic moves at 20 mph due to "volume in steady flow"
9. Given the amount of the money and when folk considered how this "lion's share" was being spent .. they were not getting value for money. A lot of it was being frittered on "congestion charge cash points" and NOT the public transport additions. Folk of Manchester then concluded they were being "short changed" here.
One person who had said he was going to vote "yes" told BBC Look North West that he changed his mind when he read up carefully at what he would be getting in reality.
10. 53% of the GM population actually voted before 10 pm deadline. It was more than turned out for the General Election in some boroughs.
apparently.
They thought they were being short-changed .. as they would still wait an hour for a bus to arrive. At the moment .. three buses from three different bus companies arrive together per one elderly gent . He and many others interviewed by the BBC telly prog came to the conclusion that the only difference would be that the bus companies were send two buses each to arrive together .. thus leading to a congestion of buses ..
It was a vote of no confidence in the local politicians to deliver better public transport given the the constant changes in the proposal. People wanted the black and white proposals.. all they got was "grey fumbling around".
Oh - and there is not that much room on a tram for prams.. wheelchairs etc and not all disabled can sit on the front seats nearest the doors either. Many folk with kids do need cars. I speak from experience of way too many kids in the household .. and now twins on the way.
It was a non-starter in many many respects .. and the people of Manchester saw through it.
By the way .. Swiss law has always been based on referenda.. they are quite a successful and legal minded bunch .. but some are more mischievious than others
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
One more than the other .. as she "subverted" councillors and was perhaps instrumental in getting Blue Badge concession and the referendum on the table. 
Jazz plays the sax and the trumpet in a Jazz band .. I think she deserves to blow that trumpet here 
We have this on tape by the way. The girls recorded this significant factor. 
) 
" : (in her dreams 
The Daily Wail's take on this story
