futchers briefs Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Here we go.....Another 30 pages of why it should have been yes and all the benefits that it would bring to us all!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Doesn't need 30 pages to outline the benefits of a city with a transport infrastructure that works, doesn't need 30 pages to sum up why a city needs one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Three cheers for Warrington resident, oafc0000. Hip hip....hooray, hip hip.....hooray, hip hip......hooray. Any chance of one of those links yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_latics Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Doesn't need 30 pages to outline the benefits of a city with a transport infrastructure that works, doesn't need 30 pages to sum up why a city needs one either. Yes, but not in the format given....it was clearly unworkable, hence the NO. Manchester will get what every other city gets and not be singled out like it would've been. 78% NO says it all, it's not selfish as the majority didn't want it..........hurrah for common sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_latics Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Three cheers for Warrington resident, oafc0000. Hip hip....hooray, hip hip.....hooray, hip hip......hooray. Any chance of one of those links yet? Sales of tissues in Warrington go through the roof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 If i'm not too hungover tomorrow (not likely) i might well come round and watch, whereabouts in the borough are you playing? And what time? Game is at Bushfield Sports Centre, Orton Centre, Orton, Peterborough, PE2 5RQ. Kick off 10.30. I suspect you will be no more hung over than half the team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Congestion charge in return for massive investment in public transport is an interesting idea in principle but totally wrong timing as the country heads into recssion and people are worried about their jobs, their homes and their bottom line. Another tax on motorists is last thing the public want right now. Return with a fresh proposal, say, in 3 years' time. Could not agree more with this I am not against the principle of A congestion charging scheme in return for investment in public transport I am however, against this particular congestion charging scheme, and still would have been regardless of the global economic situation. The zone is too big, and we are getting nowhere near enough in return considering how much has been ploughed into london. I was expecting 6 yes - 4 no in all honesty, but i think a landslide was needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yard Dog Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) I am disappointed but totally unsurprised that the 'No' prevailed...I had voted 'yes'. The whole vote just became a vote on the congestion charge and not the TIF. It's a shame we've missed out on such a big and much-needed slice of cash...because make no mistake about it, the congestion charge will come in at some point in the future, only when it does we probably won't have the Investment that would have come with it this time. Edited December 12, 2008 by Yard Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) I am disappointed but totally unsurprised that the 'No' prevailed...I had voted 'yes'. The whole vote just became a vote on the congestion charge and not the TIF. It's a shame we've missed out on such a big and much-needed slice of cash...because make no mistake about it, the congestion charge will come in at some point in the future, only when it does we probably won't have the Investment that would have come with it this time. Good point, but I personally voted against the TIF proposals, not against a C charge. I voted no on the basis that - The zone was way too big - In our area (just inside outer ring) people would be charged for making a journey to any of the major supermarkets round here if they were to do something like a weekly shop in the evening. - Getting nowhere near enough investment in return. The thing is though, it would be interesting to see how the no vote was broken down. For example - How many are against road charging full stop - How many were for a c charge, but just not this one - How many would have voted yes had we had more in return What we were getting, some of which was a loan, is peanuts compared to the billions london has been given. Had the investment been say 10-15 billion, and guarantees were in place as to how much of the revenue would have been put back into the public transport system been made, might have been a different story, As flyde latic said, if they go away now, look at this, learn from their mistakes, and come back with a fresh proposal, I'd hear them out. Edited December 12, 2008 by Lookers_Carl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikejh45 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Write to your local MP to get funding! The money is there if they get their finances in order. It should NOT be dependant on a congestion charge. No town/city in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales would be held to ransom like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Did everyone expect the no to prevail so emphatically though??? I expected possibly a 5 yes 5 no with some districts being separated by something like .5 percent. Did not expect such a resounding landslide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyPimp Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I am disappointed but totally unsurprised that the 'No' prevailed...I had voted 'yes'. The whole vote just became a vote on the congestion charge and not the TIF. It's a shame we've missed out on such a big and much-needed slice of cash...because make no mistake about it, the congestion charge will come in at some point in the future, only when it does we probably won't have the Investment that would have come with it this time. Of course the vote centred on the congestion charge and not the TIF. If you're a driver who would be unfairly penalised by the charge, you're not going to give a flying duck about the additional buses and tram stops are you? Judging by the outcome of the vote, a lot of people felt this way. You're probably right about a future congestion charge but if it does happen I would expect the investment to be greater than it is now. If not, it would be tantamount to highway robbery and would cost a few MP's their seats at the next general election. I use public transport but voted NO. The charging zone was too damned big and alienated an awful lot of people. I was also offended by what I saw as under-handed tactics by the protagonists of the C-charge, such as allowing major water main renewal works on Oldham Road in the lead up to the vote (and Christmas) rather than schedule it for the summer months as is the norm and the complete meltdown of the rail service on the Oldham-Rochdale loop line. Never have I spent so much time waiting for :censored:ty, obsolete trains on dismal, dank and rundown railway platforms than I have during the last 2 months. Was this supposed to be time for me to reflect on the need for the TIF? If it was, then it it was successful in galvanising my negative view on the ill-thought out and poorly proposed shambles that was the C-charge. Good riddance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Of course the vote centred on the congestion charge and not the TIF. If you're a driver who would be unfairly penalised by the charge, you're not going to give a flying duck about the additional buses and tram stops are you? Judging by the outcome of the vote, a lot of people felt this way. You're probably right about a future congestion charge but if it does happen I would expect the investment to be greater than it is now. If not, it would be tantamount to highway robbery and would cost a few MP's their seats at the next general election. I use public transport but voted NO. The charging zone was too damned big and alienated an awful lot of people. I was also offended by what I saw as under-handed tactics by the protagonists of the C-charge, such as allowing major water main renewal works on Oldham Road in the lead up to the vote (and Christmas) rather than schedule it for the summer months as is the norm and the complete meltdown of the rail service on the Oldham-Rochdale loop line. Never have I spent so much time waiting for :censored:ty, obsolete trains on dismal, dank and rundown railway platforms than I have during the last 2 months. Was this supposed to be time for me to reflect on the need for the TIF? If it was, then it it was successful in galvanising my negative view on the ill-thought out and poorly proposed shambles that was the C-charge. Good riddance! Aspects of that also worked against them. Like last week when we had the snow on tuesday. Trains and busses going from oldham towards manchester were brought to a standstill, and the metro was delayed a few times due to 'ice on the line'. I'm sure ackey will back me up here, but in places like alaska and canada, where heavy snowfall is not unusual, and they can still maintain a working public transport system. And if something like snow and ice could cause such heavy delays now, god knows what it would have been like had it gone through Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I didn't expect the proposals to get the 7 out of 10 authorities they needed, but I certainly didn't expect 10-0 against. As posted above, I do think those that have voted will have done so for a variety of reasons and not purely to save themselves upto a fiver a day. I would have voted no to this proposal. But I am open to considering an amended proposal on its merits. My reasons are a combination of those mentioned - the zone is too big, and the return investment is too small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danoafc Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I didn't expect the proposals to get the 7 out of 10 authorities they needed, but I certainly didn't expect 10-0 against. As posted above, I do think those that have voted will have done so for a variety of reasons and not purely to save themselves upto a fiver a day. I would have voted no to this proposal. But I am open to considering an amended proposal on its merits. My reasons are a combination of those mentioned - the zone is too big, and the return investment is too small. I completely agree with what's beig said by the majority. Would definitely reconsider my no vote (even though I use public transport to get to work) given a well thought out, meaningful and workable congestion charge proposal. The current proposal was, to my mind, simply a cash cow covering far too large and area, and penalising too many poeple, which was jumped on by our local politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Im gutted...really gutted... I honestly thought it was the best option for Manchester to back the charge. But it was put to the people and the people said no and that's that! Someone above talked about a plan B....there isn't one... 10-0 speaks volumes... Seems to be little point revising the plan with such a heavy no vote. I accept and believe that some people would actually fairly review a revised proposal but I doubt there would be enough to sway so many people... My biggest fear is that the charge will now be forced upon a number of city's without improvements to public transport.... I really hope that dosent happen though. Democracy isnt perfect but its all we have and should be respected... My next biggest fear is nothing changes now as well... More cars...more jams...higher pollution.... All we can do now is lobby local and central government to pay for the needed improvements via some other method and then those improvements tempt drivers onto to public transport....im not hopeful on both counts.... National road charging may well be the next big debate... But that's whole different kettle of fish.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) Did everyone expect the no to prevail so emphatically though??? I expected possibly a 5 yes 5 no with some districts being separated by something like .5 percent. Did not expect such a resounding landslide I think even the most anti and the most pro is shocked at the 10-0... I dont think any of us saw that coming... Interesting and very surprised to find the poll on this site is very close to the actual result!! aka the % Edited December 12, 2008 by oafc0000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 I think even the most anti and the most pro is shocked at the 10-0... I dont think any of us saw that coming... Interesting and very surprised to find the poll on this site is very close to the actual result!! aka the % I don't know how anyone thought that this would be a yes vote - turkeys don't vote for christmas and no one would vote to spend money that they currently don't have to. The only thing I am surprised at is the turnout, I thought it would be much higher as I thought people have voted to make sure they didn't have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec1954 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Thumbs up to the moderators for allowing a non-football topic to remain high profile on the football board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Immediately after the result was announced, officials in the 'Yes' campaign told BBC News they were "disappointed with the voting turnout". Let's have a look at the actual figures shall we? VOTING TURNOUT (%) Bolton, 48.8 Bury, 57.4 Manchester, 46.1 Oldham, 54.4 Rochdale, 50.8 Salford, 57 Stockport, 59 Tameside, 60.7 Trafford, 63.6 Wigan, 45.3 Nothing but sour grapes from the YES camp. Anyone with the slightest clue about electoral patterns would tell you that turnout is pretty bloody impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Let's have a look at the actual figures shall we? VOTING TURNOUT (%) Bolton, 48.8 Bury, 57.4 Manchester, 46.1 Oldham, 54.4 Rochdale, 50.8 Salford, 57 Stockport, 59 Tameside, 60.7 Trafford, 63.6 Wigan, 45.3 Nothing but sour grapes from the YES camp. Anyone with the slightest clue about electoral patterns would tell you that turnout is pretty bloody impressive. You wont hear that argument from me... The turn out was fantastic in most towns ...when compared to other elections etc... Its a shame we cant see numbers up towards 90% though isnt it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Let's have a look at the actual figures shall we? Nothing but sour grapes from the YES camp. Anyone with the slightest clue about electoral patterns would tell you that turnout is pretty bloody impressive. Exactly, its double the turnout of what most local elections get. As has been said earlier though, I still have no doubts that the yes campaign have another snake in the grass, and that in 10 years time, there WILL be a congestion charge imposed on greater manchester. I think they need to do their homework as to why people voted no, although after such a resounding no vote i doubt they would be able to raise as much funding in sponsorship as they have done this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Its a shame we cant see numbers up towards 90% though isnt it.... Agreed. But unless the vote is "We're going to take all your money off you to give to the Welsh" it won't happen. And even then, there'd be some who couldn't be bothered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 Exactly, its double the turnout of what most local elections get. As has been said earlier though, I still have no doubts that the yes campaign have another snake in the grass, and that in 10 years time, there WILL be a congestion charge imposed on greater manchester. I think they need to do their homework as to why people voted no, although after such a resounding no vote i doubt they would be able to raise as much funding in sponsorship as they have done this time. With it being 10-0 there wont be another vote... I think the "snake in the grass" will be national road charging... Black boxes in cars etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon Posted December 12, 2008 Share Posted December 12, 2008 (edited) I would object strongly to black boxes in cars. Not necessarily because of any attached road pricing, but because of the safety and liberty implications. Edited December 12, 2008 by garcon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts