Comment RSS Feed


Columnists

 Lancashire Telegraph comment column Jack Straw column Margo Grimshaw column Rev Kevin Logan column Shuiab Khan column Caroline Dutton column Helen Mead column Nick Nunn column Lord Greaves column Clive Balchin column Ron Freethy s column  Latest stories column What’s on column

Bloggers

 Strictly Come Dancing blog Sir Bill Taylor blog  Adrian Newman’s travel blog  Adrian Wilkinson’s motor sport blog Jason Karl's scare attraction blog

REGISTER NOW TO POST YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE STORIES
It's free and only takes a few seconds. Click here to go to the registration page.

The congestion charge plan got stuck in traffic


IT’S amazing that any politician could have actually thought that the people of Greater Manchester would vote yes to bringing in congestion charges last week.

Of course there are many thousands of drivers, and non-drivers, in the region who can see the sense in more people using public transport.

And many more who know that we cannot just continue to drive like lemmings in ever-greater numbers along grossly overcrowded roads.

But asking people to agree to dig deep into their pockets and pay serious money every day to go to work, shop or for a leisure trip, on top of their fuel and parking costs, is like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.

If that wasn’t daft enough what’s even more astounding is the naivety of all those figures, from councillor level upwards, who thought that they’d get a yes vote on the basis of politicians’ promises.

The promises were that if there was a ‘yes’ vote large amounts of investment would actually be put into providing a fast, efficient, clean and comfortable public transport system that would enable everyone to move in and out of the central area of the city without any need to use their car.

The truth is that folk in the North West, and the rest of the country, are not so gullible that they will commit themselves to big future expenditure on the basis of a promise that others will then do something for them.

Not without the sort of written, legally enforceable document that any sensible householder would insist on from a builder or any other tradesman, particularly one who wanted some money up front!

If you are using a carrot and stick the donkey (that’s us) has got to be able to see the carrot – not merely a drawing of it – for the vegetable to have any influence on its actions.

Unless you are lucky enough to live with within a short walk of Manchester’s Metrolink tram system, or perhaps on the route of some of those fast X buses, the truth is that regular travel into the city is quite impractical without using a car for most or all of the journey.

In East Lancashire a fair number of people have to make the trek on a daily basis.

The only alternative to motorways is a rail system which is woefully inadequate and just not “fit for purpose.”

Until politicians actually use our car and fuel taxes to begin providing the sort of public transport network that can be seen in many, many cities all over world from Western Europe to Singapore and Sydney they won’t get our support.

Pay now, live later isn’t going to get anyone’s vote.


Your Say YourTelegraph

Jozef Goj, Colo Height NSW Australia says...
6:42am Sat 20 Dec 08

Considering the taxes paid by motorists that seem to be spent on anything other than roads is one possible reason it was rejected.
But the other one is possibly that they are offered nothing that makes any sense that works.
Nobody wants to walk far to catch public transport particularly when coming home laden with shopping, prams and children. And as it’s dirty and usually late and not cheap well the pollies must think we have no common sense.
Billions to spend on old technology!
New technology has to be based on new ideas. Current road infrastructure is failing and fails daily.
All current roads intersections create the jams gridlock and congestion. Yes every single one.
I'm Jozef Goj the engineer, inventor, designer of Liquid Flow Traffic intersections.
It’s a simple question.
How can I drive across town in peak traffic and never have to stop at a single intersection?
Followed by the second question all engineers must ask.
Is it foolproof?
The answer is Liquid Flow Traffic www.ubtsc.com.au
What I can say and will continue to state that it is stupidity itself to invest into the 21st Century with infrastructure, namely intersections, that are unable to answer the question I posed.
For that you need 21st Century technology.
If you are to reconstruct the economy, for the sake of the people, do not use outdated infrastructure that has never solved transportation problems in the past, will never solve them today and will hinder forever the growth of tomorrow.
Take a giant step into the 21st Century with ‘Liquid Flow Traffic’.
Invest in the future not the past.

saj5, blackburn says...
8:22pm Wed 31 Dec 08

there was a study that showed that traffic lights caused congestion, by switching them off the traffic movements were smoother, another is intelligent road design, having humps and traffic calming all slow down traffic, increases fuel and co2 and cause wear and tear to suspension

slater9251, aspul says...
9:57am Thu 1 Jan 09

saj5,Congstn chgs not 4 rdcng congstn ! It ws/is 'mlch cow'2 giv
evlstng csh spply.
NB. Cngstn has nvr bn clrly dfnd it is only obsvtn of trffc flw,I prsme!
U cud hv pnt re lghts/trffc flw,thr R mny exmpls of trffc lght systms whch dlay smooth flw!
I wndr how mny ppl R hbtlly late 4
wrk owng to cnjstn??

Your sayYour Telegraph

comment Add your comment

Register for a FREE Lancashire Telegraph account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.

Please register now or sign in below to continue.


Local advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »