tenthofjune

One from the inbox, portraying exactly how those who want the TIF proposal to go through view the motorist:

We can argue until the cows come home about the accuracy of the ‘only 10% will pay the congestion charge” claim of the Yes Vote campaign (it’s 20% according to the TIF consultation brochure), but let’s play along.

The pro-toll advocates say that it will only be 10% because others will be able to switch to a viable alternative (I can’t as previously posted). Following this logically through, this means that the remaining 10% are precisely the ones for whom the TIF proposals will not provide a viable public transport alternative.

So basically, the yes campaign are happy to promote the notion that the improvements should be paid for by those who can’t benefit from them.

How is that fair?

In the past three weeks, I have contacted a number of people regarding the Manchester Congestion Tax. It is interesting to note the lack of response from the majority, without even the decency of a simple acknowledgement from some.

These details are updated as of 30th November:

Not a very impressive set of figures really; only three replies.

Given Ruth Kelly’s lack of response in the past, I don’t hold out much hope.

I will keep this post updated.

Update: 12th December

Ruth Kelly has finally responded – well sort of…

Only ten minutes after hearing the excellent result of the referendum, I arrived home to a letter from Ruth Kelly, but far from actually replying to my concerns, it would appear that she has simply forwarded my letter to GMPTE whose reply she has simply forwarded back to me without comment. A secretary could have done that!

It clearly stated in my original letter that I was fully aware of GMPTE’s attitude, so what was the point of getting them to repeat their propaganda? Given Ruth Kelly’s support for the TIF bid, it would seem that she is simply sitting on the fence.

Have a read of this letter from Howard Bernstein to the DfT in London. In it he clearly states:

Heavy rail rolling stock and associated infrastructure (platform extensions, turnbacks, depots and stabling). These costs are now assumed to be met by the Department directly through the TOCs (Train Operating Companies) and Network Rail rather than through TIF grant to Greater Manchester and Prudential Borrowing cover.

AGMA are actively promoting extra carriages and platform extensions as part of the TIF package, yet they are clearly not.

I’ve just found this gem on a Manchester Evening News Article from last year:

Oldham and Rochdale may not pay any congestion charges until Metrolink extensions to their town centres are complete. Other outlying areas – such as Stockport, which hopes to get a Metrolink line in the future – are also likely to avoid the charges for the first year.

Yet there is no mention of other outlying areas, such as Bolton and Wigan, who will NEVER get the Metrolink, yet are getting no such exemption.

Is it any wonder, Bolton and Wigan don’t want to be lumped in as part of Greater Manchester when they are discriminated against in this way?

As it happens, it would appear that AGMA have reneged on this exemption and only Trafford Park is getting a 50% discount until they get some more buses, but this clearly shows how some areas are considered more equal than others.

I saw this letter in the Bolton News from none other than Lord Peter Smith, Leader of AGMA, once again reeling off the usual false statements:

While we believe the strengths of the TIF package speak for themselves…

It still amazes me how they make it sound as if they actually believe their own bull.

In Bolton, … Extra seats would be added to peak time trains

Already getting them mate – nothing to do with the TIF.

and an earlier morning train could operate from Clitheroe to Manchester via Bolton in the mornings to further ease overcrowding.

Wow! A Whole Train! I can hardly contain my excitement. Also note the word ‘could’.

Bolton station could undergo extensive improvements, with new platforms built on the Wigan line at Lostock station. Passenger facilities at Hall i’th’ Wood, Bromley Cross, Lostock, Blackrod and Westhoughton stations could be improved.

There’s that word ‘could’ again, twice this time. I’m not particularly interested in improved facilities at Blackrod. I just want to turn up and get on a train.

cyclists will see the creation of a high quality route along the former Bolton-Bury rail line.

How about a rail line along a rail line (there’s a novelty) and reverse some of the damage caused by Dr Beeching?

Across Greater Manchester, the package will deliver thousands of extra seats on trains and trams, new Metrolink lines

Extra seats we’re already getting and Metrolink lines we won’t.

and a travel smart card system.

Perfectly achievable without congestion charges by politicians with the balls to make the bus/train companies comply – ah wait, I see the problem with that last statement.

To help fund this, a limited congestion charge would be introduced, affecting vehicles heading towards the city centre between 7am and 9.30am and away from the city centre between 4pm and 6.30pm, for five hours out of every 24.

Please, please, everyone quoting this last remark, get it through your thick skulls: There is nothing limited about a congestion charge which is in force for FIVE HOURS during the working day, and 100% of the time that most workers will be travelling.

Stop claiming it is limited.