Post by: Dave on August 10, 2007, 03:50:06 PM
It now seems that Stockport MBC, in which the Lib Dems are the largest single party, was one of only two councils in Greater Manchester to vote against the congestion charging proposals for the city.
And if you visit the Council website to find out why our councillors are not voting for the policies on which they stood for election, you find this:
"We commissioned a survey for Stockport because the leadership of the Council wanted to be clear about local views on this issue. If the majority of Stockport people had been in favour, then the Council would have voted in favour of it. But it is obvious from the results that only a minority would support congestion charging.”
So now we know. Our elected representatives don't believe in congestion charging after all - it seems they now believe in government by referendum! Something to bear in mind when candidates next come knocking on the door asking for our votes - is there any point in asking them what they stand for?
Seriously, if we don't do something to deal with the traffic we shall all come to a complete standstill very soon. These people who don't want congestion charging - do they have a a better idea?
Post by: the rover on August 10, 2007, 08:17:05 PM
Congestion will never disappear no matter what ideas people may come up with it will always be with us and get worse.
Every person upon reaching the age of 17 years old wants to learn to drive and have their own vehicle, even if they cannot afford it they would still like to do it.
The only way to cut congestion is to have a law with imediate effect that nobody under the age of 21 years old is allowed to drive a vehicle, this would take millions of vehicles off the road. The government would have to compensate the existing drivers for the loss of their cars but this would be the only solution and it would save lives as it is a proven fact that younger drivers have more accidents. This would not have to apply at the other end of the spectrum, as drivers over the age of 65 years old normally do not work.
As I see it there is no way of cutting congestion realistically (see below). I work in the same office in Stockport as another man from Marple but it would be impossible for us to car share as we both do totally different jobs which mean we can finish work at different times etc.
For the past 2 weeks I have been able to drive to work in 15 minutes instead of the usual 1 hour, due to the fact that the kids are off school, has the council looked at this as a solution? Change the school times . Who agrees with this? If all the school starting times are changed by a law then companies should be forced by law to allow employees to have alternative starting and finishing times for work. Simple but effective!
Post by: Mike in Marple on August 11, 2007, 09:05:53 AM
| Quote (the rover @ Aug. 10 2007,20:17) |
| As I see it there is no way of cutting congestion realistically ... |
How do you explain the fact that congestion in central London has eased since the introduction of the congestion charge?
Post by: Dave on August 11, 2007, 03:38:14 PM
| Quote (the rover @ Aug. 10 2007,20:17) |
| companies should be forced by law to allow employees to have alternative starting and finishing times for work. Simple but effective! |
No, simple but ineffective, sadly. Companies have for ten years been obliged to give serious consideration to employees' requests for flexible working hours - this came in as a result of the Employment Rights Act in 1996. It doesn't seem to have done much for traffic congestion, tho'.
Post by: wolfman on August 01, 2008, 06:19:50 PM
Post by: Belly on August 01, 2008, 09:36:16 PM
Do people realise that if this charge is brought into effect that if you drive to Tesco or B&Q in Stockport between 7am & 9.30am or 4.0pm to 6.30pm from Marple it will cost you £3. What about all the people who work at these places? You will cross the "outer ring" ie these premises are on the wrong side of the M60. Is this a fair price to pay as Stockport seems to get nothing from these proposals.
I support the principle of the congestion charge. Something has to be done to try to disuade people from travelling ever longer distances at peak times in their cars. Travel by car is not a god given right and if people choose to travel long distances by car in the peak hour - then they can pay their share towards giving others the opportunity to choose an alternative option. We have got to accept that either we face gridlock in future (for free) or we try to manage the problem. There is no point wingeing about congestion when we are the ones creating it - if you are in the queue, you are part of the problem!
I do however to some extent agree with Wolfman and I support Stockport Council's position. When you look at the infrastructure proposals to be paid for by the charge, what is in it for us Stopfordians? Very little. So lets not get involved until there is a proper re-distribution of the pot and we get some proper infrastructure investment.
Post by: wolfman on August 02, 2008, 12:04:30 PM
Post by: Dave on August 02, 2008, 02:37:02 PM
When you look at the infrastructure proposals to be paid for by the charge, what is in it for us Stopfordians? Very little. So lets not get involved until there is a proper re-distribution of the pot and we get some proper infrastructure investment.
I have come round to this view as well, belly. When I started this thread a year ago, I was puzzled by the Council's position, but after writing to my three councillors (Marple North), I got a very helpful explanation from one of them, Craig Wright. He explained that the Council's opposition to the congestion charge is largely because there is not enough benefit for Stockport (as opposed to other boroughs in Greater Manchester) in the £3 billion package of public transport and infrastructure improvements. And looking at the proposals, I fear that's right. There are no plans to tackle the Offerton and Bredbury 'crawls', which we all have to endure. No improvements in public transport between Marple and Stockport. And although we are promised 'more carriages' on trains to Piccadilly, there is no undertaking to replace the pathetic old Class 142 trains which we have endured for over 20 years. So we can assume that 'more carriages' simply means two Class 142 units coupled together! It's not good enough. >:(
I still believe we need the congestion charge, but there needs to be more in it for Stockport.
As for wolfman, I'd just like to know what solution he would suggest to solve the appalling traffic congestion around Stockport?
Post by: wolfman on August 02, 2008, 03:22:25 PM
Post by: wolfman on August 02, 2008, 06:19:05 PM
Post by: wolfman on August 03, 2008, 11:17:16 AM
Post by: LittleBiker on August 12, 2008, 07:38:55 PM
Post by: Dave on August 22, 2008, 02:08:09 PM
Now, there's nothing new about school buses. We've had them for years, and my children used them to get to Marple Hall. So what's the big deal about painting them yellow? It's all very strange! ???
Post by: heather on August 22, 2008, 03:43:47 PM
Post by: wolfman on August 29, 2008, 04:34:04 PM
And the man who will oversee the poll has also been announced.
Sir Neil McIntosh is the man who oversaw the 1999 referendum on Scottish devolution and is one of the most respected authorities on overseeing large-scale votes.
He was unanimously approved by leaders of the region's ten authorities during a meeting in Bolton.
Town hall chiefs also agreed by a split decision of 7-3 to stage the votes over a peak-hour levy for drivers in the run up to Christmas.
The meeting of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities heard fierce arguments over the merits of a December referendum, which will be carried out by post.
Leaders from Stockport and Trafford councils argued that votes would be delayed during the heavy business period for Royal Mail and that the public's attention would be diverted.
However other authorities said that voters would lose faith in the process if the election was put back until January.
Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester council, said that all authorities had previously agreed in principle to stage a referendum this year.
He said: "People will start to suspect that there is an ulterior motive for changing the date. Indeed I suspect there is an ulterior motive for wanting to change the date."
But Dave Goddard, Stockport council leader, said voting turnout would be low if staged during the holiday period.
He said: "You just know how many of these polling cards will sit on the mantelpiece during Christmas. We should have it in January when the pressure is off people."
Although the poll will take place this year, the crucial wording, which could heavily influence the result, will not be decided until a further meeting.
There was also argument over whether new or old versions of the electoral register should be used. The list of eligible voters is updated by councils each December.
The majority of authorities said they would fast-forward their updating process to allow newly arrived residents to have their say.
But Stockport and Bury councils raised fears that they would not be able to change their lists in time, meaning some voters may miss out.
Business leaders had called for their own separate referendum on the city centre congestion fee.
It was decided that a separate survey of local businesses would take place in January but this would not be a referendum and the weight attached to the result would be decided at a later date.
from the MEN website author unknown
Post by: wolfman on September 10, 2008, 10:01:04 AM
The number of cars daily coming into the original charging zone and into the western extension has dipped, Transport for London (TfL) statistics revealed.
But roadworks and traffic management schemes have greatly reduced the road capacity in both zones.
This has resulted in congestion returning to levels experienced before the charge was brought in.
London Mayor Boris Johnson said he had asked TfL to hurry up with his plans to improve traffic flow, including allowing motorbikes to ride in bus lanes, rephasing traffic signals and cracking down on delay-causing roadworks by utilities.
A TfL spokesman said: "Without the congestion charge, the traffic problems in London would be much worse."
The congestion charge generated provisional net revenues of £137m in 2007/08.
Post by: wolfman on September 10, 2008, 10:04:17 AM
seems like London is having the same problem as Stockport "managing" the traffic?
Post by: wolfman on September 15, 2008, 10:09:37 AM
Mike Keegan
14/ 9/2008
A TIMELINE for change has been released in a bid by transport bosses to drum up support for congestion charging.
The document plots when and where £1.5bn of public transport improvements will take place between now and 2016, with congestion charging due to be introduced in 2013.
Traffic chiefs have already promised that 80 per cent of the Transport Innovation Fund project would be completed before the peak-hour charge comes in.
But the previously unseen timeline shows exactly when commuters can expect to see the work finished.
It maps out dates for the completion of tram line extensions to Droyslden, Ashton, Chorlton, East Didsbury, Manchester Airport, Oldham and Rochdale.
Also included are dates for the introduction of `smart cards' to pay for public transport, rapid bus services, new interchanges, yellow school buses and improvements to stations.
The final 20 per cent of improvements, after charging is introduced, include a new interchange in Manchester near Chorlton Street coach station and the final Metrolink extensions from Trafford Park.
Commuters in Trafford Park will only be charged half the congestion fees until this is completed in 2016.
The timeline has been produced by Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.
Lord Peter Smith, leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, said that most of the work `is heavily weighted towards the early stages of the timetable'.
He said: "The package will deliver 50 years' worth of conventional government funded public transport investment in just five years."
In December a congestion charge referendum will be held throughout the 10 Greater Manchester authorities.
The deal will only go ahead if people in at least seven of the boroughs vote in favour of the scheme.
Secret polling data obtained by the M.E.N last month showed that 53 per cent of 5,000 surveyed would vote FOR congestion charging. There was a majority in favour of the
from the MEN online by the above author
Post by: wolfman on September 15, 2008, 04:12:02 PM
Post by: wolfman on September 15, 2008, 04:37:06 PM
Scale: The AGMA proposal seeks to develop from nothing, almost overnight, a congestion scheme significantly larger than any other scheme in the world. It is untested and therefore poses a real risk. A proper study of congestion in the Manchester area would provide better insight into which areas need the greatest immediate and longer term investment. Imbalance: The scheme will capture thousands of ordinary businesses and employees within the M60, but the expenditure on infrastructure for promised transport improvements is almost exclusively aimed at improving commuter journeys into Manchester city centre - the scheme should be developed to reflect the movement of people and goods within the whole Greater Manchester Region. Ignores movement of goods: Businesses will pay significant road user charges yet all of the expenditure on infrastructure is on public transport to move people. None is directed at companies distributing freight or moving goods - new infrastructure should focus on how to move the significant amount of goods made in Manchester for the rest of Britain and the world, with potentially huge benefits for the environment. Adding to the cost of employment: Unlike in London, the charging zone covers many ordinary jobs; people on average wages who cannot afford to pay up to £100 per month. Inevitably employers will have to meet this cost or lose employees to firms outside the M60. The charge should not be imposed on top of road tax, council tax, petrol tax and business rates already levied on individuals and businesses for infrastructural support. No way back: If the economic assumptions are wrong, Greater Manchester will be saddled with £1.2bn of debt over 30 years, which means there will be no way of reversing a damaging scheme. An alternative solution involving infrastructural changes over a period of time would have benefits for financing the debts. This is backed up by experience of investment in the Metrolink, which ran significantly over budget and time. One dimensional: The proposals assume that no measures other than charging can reduce congestion. There appears to have been no work looking at other ways of easing traffic flow - there are many proven methods for tackling traffic in different scenarios. Isolated: All political parties have distanced themselves from a national road pricing scheme which means Greater Manchester will become a more expensive place to do business and work, thereby damaging future job creation and investment - we should use tried and tested schemes first. No guarantees: There are no guarantees on future pricing, the zone covered, the time the charge applies or the actual public transport delivered. In addition there is no guarantee that if a national scheme (e.g. motorway scheme) is introduced we will not end up paying twice on top of existing road taxes. Technology: No detail has been provided on the technology which will support the scheme and abundant experience suggests that large scale IT projects carry huge risks of failure. A tried and tested model should be put in place first.http://www.gmmgroup.co.uk/
manifesto of the Greater Manchester Momentum group
Post by: wolfman on September 18, 2008, 03:44:21 PM
Peter Devine
17/ 9/2008
HUNDREDS of Stockport residents could be prevented from voting in a crucial ballot on congestion charging intended to gauge opinion right across Greater Manchester.
Reddish MP Andrew Gwynne claims Stockport Council’s intention to use out of date electoral rolls to identify Stockport residents for a postal vote means many will not get the opportunity to have their say.
The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) has decided to hold an all postal vote at the beginning of December.
December 11 will be the deadline for receipt of ballot papers to the proposals, which will bring in an investment of up to £3billion across Greater Manchester, and road pricing by 2013 if enough people vote in favour.
However, Mr Gwynne is concerned that while all residents in the Denton half of his constituency - under Tameside Council - will receive a ballot paper because Tameside intends to use up-to-date electoral rolls, Stockport Council insists it isn’t possible to present up-to-date rolls ahead of the election.
Mr Gwynne said the AGMA meeting heard seven of the 10 authorities could present up-to-date electoral rolls ahead of the vote - only Stockport Council said it was impossible to produce it.
The decision means Stockport will use the electoral roll as of December, 2007.
Mr Gwynne said: "All that AGMA was asking Stockport to do was to present its up-to-date electoral roll a few weeks ahead of when they normally do so in December, but Councillor Goddard refused point blank to cooperate."
"As I represent a cross-borough parliamentary constituency, this means unless Stockport Council change their mind, only about 60 percent of the adult population I represent will legally have the right to vote.
"What a silly decision, and potentially a very stupid mistake."
A Stockport Council spokesman said there would be a number of problems arising from trying to produce the annual register of electors for the November 5 deadline, three weeks ahead of its normal deadline of December 1.
The spokesman added: "This gives us just eight weeks to send out 126,000 registration forms and 60,000 reminders, as well as getting our canvassers to visit approximately 30,000 properties in Stockport.
"Not only that, it then gives our small electoral registration office just eight weeks to process all of these forms, input the information, check accuracy and do cross reference checks with other council departments such as Council Tax.
"There is no way that the current staff employed in electoral registration will be able to cope effectively with this increased workload within normal working hours, so it would mean the employment of temporary staff, which in turn increases the risk of mistakes on the register. There is also the impact of the overtime required from the full time staff. And, although it is a very minor consideration, there will also inevitably be an impact on the new performance indicators which were introduced for the first time this year."
from MEN online by the above author
Post by: wolfman on September 19, 2008, 07:29:04 PM
Post by: wolfman on September 19, 2008, 07:47:08 PM
Post by: wolfman on October 31, 2008, 10:33:25 PM
Post by: wolfman on November 04, 2008, 04:44:39 PM
Want to pay? Have your say
Stockport Council is urging everyone to vote in the crucial poll on the controversial Transport Innovation Fund.
You will have the chance to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to paying a Congestion Charge to bring major improvements to Greater Manchester’s transport systems.
Ballot papers on the congestion question will begin to arrive through your letter box after the 24th November 2008. To make sure your view counts, please be sure to return them before 11th December 2008 in the envelopes provided.
If you vote ‘Yes’ for the proposals, it means you support the Congestion Charge.
If you vote ‘No’ against the proposals, it means you vote against the Congestion Charge.
An independent survey by Stockport Council last year showed more than two-thirds of our residents and three-quarters of businesses did not support a Congestion Charge. Stockport Council is maintaining a policy of opposition as long as the public of Stockport remain opposed.
To help you make your decision on what you think of the Transport Innovation Fund proposals and the Congestion Charge, a breakdown of what Stockport can expect can be found under 'Congestion Charge - Your Questions Answered'.
Congestion Charge - Your Questions Answered
Answers to some of the questions being asked about what Stockport can expect from the Transport Innovation Fund proposals and the Congestion Charge to help you make your decision.
from Stockport.gov.
Post by: wolfman on November 04, 2008, 04:46:23 PM
Post by: wolfman on November 19, 2008, 02:26:36 PM
Post by: Dave on November 19, 2008, 06:15:29 PM
Post by: wolfman on November 19, 2008, 08:15:19 PM