GREATER Manchester WILL have a vote on congestion charging.
Leaders of the 10 local councils have agreed that a referendum should take place on the controversial proposal.
But the results will be broken down on a borough by borough basis and only if people in seven out of the 10 Greater Manchester authorities vote yes will congestion charges be imposed. Any less and the scheme will collapse.
The government is offering Greater Manchester up to £3bn for public transport improvements in return for the peak hour-only charge of up to £10.
A 14-week consultation on the proposal is due to end on October 10. A referendum will take place in December, probably via postal voting and polling stations.
All or nothing
Lord Peter Smith, leader of AGMA, Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, said: “At the last meeting we asked for an agreement towards a referendum and today’s news is an important step forward for the people of Greater Manchester who now have an opportunity to vote on one of the most important decisions this city region has seen for decades.
"People will have their say on whether thay want to say yes to transform public transport systems in Greater Manchester including a congestion charge to ensure the region can continue to prosper.
“It’s all or nothing.”
A small group of AGMA leaders with officer support will develop the referendum and indtend to sort out the details by the end of September.
Before today’s meeting Trafford, Bury and Stockport councils had already said they were opposed to the government deal.
Manchester, Salford, Tameside, Wigan, Rochdale and Oldham support the plan and Bolton had pledged to hold a local referendum.
At today’s meeting Sir Howard Bernstein, chief executive of Manchester council, said independent scrutiny of the referendum would be crucial.
The Electoral Reform Society will be commissioned to assist with the wording of a question put on ballot papers.
Sir Richard Leese had proposed a single county-wide ballot four weeks ago on condition that all 10 local authorities were bound by the result.
He said: “Since then some local authorities have been told by their lawyers we can’t do that. This proposal gives us a way forward.”
Click here to see an interactive map of the congestion charge zones
Sign up to the weekly
news
Most recent user comments 25 of 25
Because people always complain about tax. If people were welcoming the idea of electronic road pricing with open arms, you might have a point, but the objections to it are far more vocal than the objections to fuel duty.
It is the level of pricing that is the main cause of complaint, not the method of collection. I would bet that if you told most drivers that you were going to charge them a certain amount and gave them a choice of either paying it through electronic monitoring of their driving or paying for it at the pump, most would prefer the simplicity and privacy of paying at the pump.
"however if road use charging is going to be intorduced, a single scheme which works everywhere must be better than each city or area having a different method?"
Definitely, but fuel duty already serves that purpose perfectly well.
31/07/2008 at 11:56 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
when was it tried and abandoded previously? I understand tolling is still used, on some motorways, bridges and tunnels?
the technology involved shouldnt be that expensive, most people now have mobile phones which easily keep track of where they are and these are fairly inexpensive. certainly if added to new cars (cost 5k upwards? an extra 50 quid for a bit of technology would hardly be noticed)
as you say fuel duty is simple to collect and hard to avoid,
however if road use charging is going to be intorduced, a single scheme which works everywhere must be better than each city or area having a different method?
this will complicate things greatly for people who may only visit a city occasionally?
31/07/2008 at 11:28 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Fuel duty is almost impossible to avoid and exceptionally cheap to collect, road tax is a drop in the ocean compared to fuel and could be abolished tomorrow except it helps the government to keep a track of vehicle ownership.
Tolling and metered charging for road use has already been abandoned in this country once, because it didn't work. So why should we not learn from that and just stick with the taxes we currently have?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
31/07/2008 at 09:17 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
30/07/2008 at 20:07 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
with electronic pricing there is potentially no limit to the differentials available
blackflag; the ability to alter the charge to manage condtions, charging more at busy times for example to encourage people to drive off peak, would be the key to the concept as you say keeping the system simple enough would be key, but limiting the divisions to peak times and others, and motorways/trunk roads and urban roads should be possible.
set up would be difficult, but with increasing technology it shouldnt be impossible, sat nav and mobile phone technology already exists and should be easily adapted; and if fitted in new cars would hardly add to the overall price
PW; why would in have to cost more? a metered system would shift the tax cost of driving from road tax and fuel duty to a pay to drive system. depending on how it was set up people could pay more, less, or the same. As i described people who drive a lot would pay a more, those who drive less would pay less; it should be possible to keep the net tax take constant
some element of subsidy could be introduced by selling different rated cards to different people (income rated, or perhaps discounts for people with a medical need for high milage), or other weighting applied if required
i never mentioned emmisions or climate change at all, just that a flat charge for passing a set boundary was charged people relativly more then someone driving from well outside to the center of the ring
30/07/2008 at 16:47 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
The smart approach would be to shift tax, by increasing fuel duty and reducing the lower end of income tax by the same amount. Burning fuel has substantial negative externalities, whereas people earning money doesn't, so it makes sense to tax fuel use more and income less.
30/07/2008 at 16:12 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
A better option? Why is paying more for something going to be a better option? Your gas is going up 35%, and electricity 9%. We should be resisting all attempts by Government to pick our pockets further.
I do make exceptions for the Champagne Socialists like Laura Norder who admits she can afford to shell out more to help others. But unfortunately, not all of us are in that privileged position.
Being on limited income, I unfortunately have to weigh up the whole picture.
30/07/2008 at 15:29 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Not to mention the very low cost of collecting what is fundamentally the easiest tax there is to enforce and one which is exceptionally difficult to avoid.
citycentre. On the point of paying less in congested times compared to 2am, surely you realise that standing in traffic or stop/start traffic will use more fuel than a straight run without stopping at all.
The added bonus being that larger engines will waste more fuel than the economical small cars and motor bikes... If you subscribe to the IPCCs myth of global warming being caused by CO2 then that must be a good thing, yes?
30/07/2008 at 14:25 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
If you charge people by distance travelled, people will tend to look for the most direct route, even if it is congested, whereas, with increased fuel duty, people will be prepared to take a longer route if it less stop-start, which can spread traffic across a number of routes and reduce congestion.
Pay-per-mile does allow the separate pricing of different roads, but if it becomes too fine tuned, with lots of different pricing levels depending on the road and the time of day, it could become ineffective, because people wouldn't be able to plan the best route without very detailed calculations regarding which road to take, what time they expect to be on a given road, etc..
I don't think direct road pricing is in itself a bad concept (especially where motorways are concerned), but I think the simplicity of fuel duty makes it a better option.
30/07/2008 at 14:10 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
fuel duty dosnt allow any variation in rate for the time and place of the driving though. an in-car system would allow motorway use at 2am to be charged less than driving into the city centre and 8:30, for example
true about the data collection though. i suppose it could be done by pre-purchase of cards which fit into an in car reader and allow a certain amount of metered driving; there would not have to be any way of trying the card to a specific car maybe once the card expires, or if no card is inserted a signal could be broadcast, alerting the police to this
take some setting up though
30/07/2008 at 13:41 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
If we are going to take that approach, I think that at this stage, we'd be better off just increasing fuel duty. It would have much the same effect, but be easier and cheaper to enforce and would require less government surveillance and information gathering.
30/07/2008 at 12:16 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
but if it is so short, could it not be made by foot or bike?
maybe all cars could be fitted with an electronic tag and charged for exactly how many miles they drive? differential rates could be applied to busy areas and times. possibly they could even link to the engine management and ensure speed limits are adhered to as well
30/07/2008 at 12:00 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
An equally looney parallel there. Sorry B Attitude.
30/07/2008 at 10:20 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
it isn't!
Thats why its a No from me!
30/07/2008 at 10:08 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
How is that fair?
29/07/2008 at 20:26 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
29/07/2008 at 18:08 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
29/07/2008 at 17:12 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Current plans are that only traffic coming off the M60 in the morning and heading towards Manchester will be charged.
As the ring is inside the M60 (not on it) you wouldn't be charged for heading away from Manchester in the morning or EITHER way in the evening.
As the plans are at the moment. Expect them to change at the end of the consultation and if you don't like it VOTE NO in the referendum in December.
29/07/2008 at 17:06 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
I live in Stockport but drive to work in Didsbury and can either go via the pyramid on Didsbury Road / Parrs Wood Lane or via Cheadle along Manchester Road. Would that mean I would have to pay £3 a day?
Before anyone has a go, I used to use the bus, well 2 buses in fact to get to work but it took so long and was so unreliable, even for such a short journey. By the time the charge is expected to start I will have before and after school commitments for two young children so there’s definitely no way I could consider going back to using the bus, even if it was free. (I don't for one minute expect it to be)
If I do have to pay the charge I think it’s very unfair for such journeys in and around the outer ring and will be penalised (I worked it out at £720 at today’s charges) for what is basically having the wrong postcode and being the wrong side of the M60.
I don’t contribute to inner city congestion, I very rarely go into Manchester but when I do it’s on weekends and I take the train, so I’ll be expected to pay for better services I’m never going to use.
Someone please, please confirm and assure me that only traffic coming on and off the M60 will have to pay the outer ring charge.
29/07/2008 at 13:18 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
“You 'Me-Me'(s) don't want the charge, whereas the people who have the best interest of Manchester, and its people, at heart, do.”
I have never heard anything to so unbelievable stupid and selfish! Please keep up and try to remember previous comments made on here.
Mr two cars (1 jag was it for the wife) Are you serious- all you ME ME’S! Excuse me; the majority of us can not afford 2 cars Another great reason why WE (The majority) don’t want another tax.
It appears you used all your wit/humour and intelligence on your screen name, next time please try and save some if you are to continue posting.
29/07/2008 at 11:27 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
And expect to pay a whole load more on top of what you are paying...cos they'll have to pay the loan off somehow!
29/07/2008 at 09:37 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
"No it won't keep going back to Central Government after the loan is repaid. It will go towards renewing the system and paying for new trams etc as they will be due to be retired soon about that time. Also the ones we have need to be replaced in about 13 years if they last that long. This was said on one of the information sheets." - That's a noble cause, however, ROGER JONES HIMSELF said that it would continue to go to central government... I'm not making this up... He really did say it.
29/07/2008 at 08:11 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Driving is a luxury, like it or not. Nobody needs to drive...the vast majority of drivers who think they do, have actually based their lives around their cars and so have fallen into an awfully vicious circle. My mother for example is a community care worker, and has to drive between houses in order to fit in all her days work...which is fair enough, however if she did decide she couldn't afford to drive then she would be in a bit of a muddle....a job in a care home would be her only option!
Myself, now I have a driving license but chose not to own a car because living 10 miles from city centre Manchester I do not need one. I work in Manchester during the week, as a photographer (so travel around a fair bit too) and cover weddings at weekend...again travelling...but I manage without a car.
As a result...working 4 days a week, I am a lot better off at the end of the month than I am my own mother who works 6 days a week.
This just goes to show how much driving a car can cost!! Those who can't afford their luxury drive into Manchester in a morning, and drive home in the evening will have to opt for the cheaper option, which will inevitably be public transport. A year system one pass will in 99% of cases will cost a damn sight less than insurance, tax, petrol, maintenance etc....
People don't go into Waitrose demanding their free range organic chicken be the same price as a Tesco value chicken do they?? No...if they can't afford the Waitrose, they have the Tesco value...and no body moans about that do they?
28/07/2008 at 21:52 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
28/07/2008 at 19:43 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me that bus passengers pay no fares and that buses pay no road tax, no fuel duty, no mantenance costs, no wages.
28/07/2008 at 18:44 Offensive or Inappropriate?
Please let us know the reason you find the above comment inappropriate.