Not Leeds yet, but we're on the list...

[simong]

Reginal Perrin wrote: With Manchester's resounding "No" vote will this oput an end to proposals for road priicing? Was it always dependent on referenda? The Manchester referendum came about because not enough of the councils that make up Greater Manchester accepted the proposals. There was no intention to have a referendum when the city's bid was accepted by central government.As to whether it's going to make the government change its mind, probably not. They will try and find another 'friendly' city to take the money, and because of that, I can't see it being Leeds because of the state of the city council and the work needed to make congestion charging viable. The alternatives need to work, that's what lost the referendums in Manchester and Edinburgh.

[Trojan]

Reginal Perrin wrote: With Manchester's resounding "No" vote will this oput an end to proposals for road priicing? Was it always dependent on referenda? If you don't like the answer to the question - ask it again later. That's the usual tactic.

[tyke bhoy]

Trojan wrote: Reginal Perrin wrote: With Manchester's resounding "No" vote will this oput an end to proposals for road priicing? Was it always dependent on referenda? If you don't like the answer to the question - ask it again later. That's the usual tactic. As The EU are doing to Ireland on the question of a Constitution (only its not to be called a constituion)

[raveydavey]

tyke bhoy wrote: Trojan wrote: Reginal Perrin wrote: With Manchester's resounding "No" vote will this oput an end to proposals for road priicing? Was it always dependent on referenda? If you don't like the answer to the question - ask it again later. That's the usual tactic. As The EU are doing to Ireland on the question of a Constitution (only its not to be called a constituion) Yes, that does seem to be a case of, wrong answer have another try....

[patter]

maybe I'm in the wrong century, but ...If we're paying a congestion charge to the council, then the council should run the buses, part subsidised by the charge. We could probably have a much better system if the bus profits were invested back into the system rather than being given to some random group of shareholders.

[simong]

patter wrote: maybe I'm in the wrong century, but ...If we're paying a congestion charge to the council, then the council should run the buses, part subsidised by the charge. We could probably have a much better system if the bus profits were invested back into the system rather than being given to some random group of shareholders. This was the second most common argument I heard from people in Manchester, that they begrudged giving money to First and Stagecoach seemingly with no guarantees of improved service. One of the plans announced was a proposal to make Oxford Road bus-only using First's purple slugs *and* their perennial favourite the guided busway. This government have been promising to reform public transport since they came to power but proposals never seem to get any closer - I had a circular from Paul Trusswell a few weeks ago saying that it was coming, as I'm sure he must get his ear bent about it constantly, but there was no further information.Having said that, Lothian Buses in Edinburgh is majority owned by the city, runs a cheap efficient service with a flat fare of £1.10 everywhere (they make a fortune shuttling tourists along Princes Street) and major routes run 24 hours a day yet the residents still rejected a congestion charge. People seem to want a bigger carrot.

[cnosni]

Reginal Perrin wrote: It will devastate certain shopping venues such as Hunslet Penny Hill, Costco, Tulip Retail Park (well The Range) and Crown Point. You will not pay to go to the shops. Well i will not anyway. But the talk has been of charging at peak periods only,thus leaving plenty of time during the day and evevning to visit these places without incurring the charge.If Leeds were to get this then there would have to be some control of the buses by the council,similar to London,then the council can dictate when and where buses should run,not the private companies.

[cnosni]

simong wrote: Reginal Perrin wrote: With Manchester's resounding "No" vote will this oput an end to proposals for road priicing? Was it always dependent on referenda? The Manchester referendum came about because not enough of the councils that make up Greater Manchester accepted the proposals. There was no intention to have a referendum when the city's bid was accepted by central government.As to whether it's going to make the government change its mind, probably not. They will try and find another 'friendly' city to take the money, and because of that, I can't see it being Leeds because of the state of the city council and the work needed to make congestion charging viable. The alternatives need to work, that's what lost the referendums in Manchester and Edinburgh. Good points,but considering both Manchester and Edingburgh already have,or in the pipeline, better alternatives that Leeds doesnt have then imsure its more likely Leeds would knock it back IF it went to a referendum.Anyway here is a quote from Andrew Carter 16/07/08,which i nthink was in relation to the survey that was about to be undertaken for NGT and why they were doing it in relation to the C charge:-"If congestion charging proposals were brought before the council tomorrow, they would be rejected out of hand by every political party. It would not get past the first post – but the Government would then ask us what information we used to support that view."This process (the survey)gives us the chance to collect very detailed information on exactly where the problem areas are for congestion, and will allow us to form a very detailed proposal of exactly what should be done to improve Leeds's economic competitiveness in the future."That could then allow us to reject the idea of congestion charging far more forcefully in two years' time than we're able to do today."