Heavy rail passenger service to Manchester Trafford Centre

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Unfortunately many motorists have a sense of entitlement that leads them to expect they can drive and park where they wish, without additional charge or impediment. Of course if everyone did that in a city like Manchester it would simply cease to function.

It has managed so far and providing the taxes already paid by motorists in fuel, etc, go towards the provision of better roads and motorways, it should continue.

There is talk of an ever-increasing car ownership but not much talk about the job opportunities, that will be there for the next generation of hopeful car owners to actually purchase a car and run it with all the fuel and insurance costs, plus the road tax.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

If you think that any of those two ideas will be seen as an imposition upon the city residents and will be greeted with delight, then all you need to remember is that when the last time that a two-band congestion charge was put to a referendum in the ten council authorities that go to make up "Greater Manchester", every single area, even the rock-solid Labour areas of Manchester, Salford and Wigan, voted overwhelmingly against that scenario. That referendum put the case that monies raised from the congestion-charge levy would be used in the expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system, but that had no effect whatsoever on those who saw their pockets being hit as car users, just to see a tram system that would not serve many of the areas in the referendum coverage.

The word "impose" is not one that neither GMCA nor TfGM would want to be connected with. With regard to the proposed toll road, where would the contractual finance be sourced, as the finance methodology used to build the still-to-be approved Trafford Park Metrolink line is not a bottomless pit of money to be used.

Many thanks for your responses, some very valid points.
Anyways something that just disadvantaged one major shopping centre would not be fair on them.

 

[edwin_m]

It has managed so far and providing the taxes already paid by motorists in fuel, etc, go towards the provision of better roads and motorways, it should continue.

That doesn't really help with city centres, where there isn't room to provide much more in the way of facilities for cars without demolishing the things that are the reasons to visit it in the first place. Hence why cities above a certain size and density need public transport in order to exist. There is evidence in places like London and to some extent elsewhere that we have reached "peak car", where more people are choosing not to own/use a car - mainly for practical reasons.

It is entirely legitimate for taxes paid by motorists to go towards the indirect costs of motoring such as policing, as well as healthcare to look after those affected by accidents or air pollution (a surprisingly large number according to recent research).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is entirely legitimate for taxes paid by motorists to go to wards the indirect costs of motoring such as policing, as well as health care to look after those affected by accidents or air pollution (a surprisingly large number according to recent research).

If that be the case with air pollution in mind, should airlines also pay a correct amount of fuel taxation and also train, bus and coach companies also be penalised by extra taxation so they too could join in the air pollution cost benefits that you say will accrue to the NHS?

Public transport providers should be equally subject to the same strictures as car owners that you propose.

 

[edwin_m]

If that be the case with air pollution in mind, should airlines also pay a correct amount of fuel taxation and also train, bus and coach companies also be penalised by extra taxation so they too could join in the air pollution cost benefits that you say will accrue to the NHS?

Public transport providers should be equally subject to the same strictures as car owners that you propose.

Yes in principle. But pollution per passenger for buses and trains is far less than for cars. And in the case of trains it is mostly (or totally in the case of electrics) created further away from people so the health effect of the same amount of pollution will be less. Fare increases to recover the costs of pollution taxes on trains and buses would probably increase total pollution, by causing more people to use cars instead.

Charging for pollution caused by aircraft is complicated by the issue of international competition and the claimed economic benefits of more aviation. And is in any case irrelevant if we're talking about access to city centres our out-of-town shopping centres - unless Peel had other motives for purchasing Barton aerodrome...