Metropol

O yer! Classic NuLiebour propaganda!!11! What I really started this thread for was to try and find some intelligent debate because, as we might expect, the manchester evening news' readers are hardly doing it justice. One person sincerely believes that their not receiving a ballot yet (as of last week) is a conspiracy.

Anyway, I have decided which box to cross and shall be posting my ballot today. I just pray that whatever happens it doesn't have a margin of 1!

Sput wrote:Mr Q: They can't build underground things in Manchester because there's a load of bunkers from the cold war. I believe that's why they went for trams rather than a tube (so I've heard anyway!).

I always believed that an underground system was discounted because of the financial cost of tunnelling rather than there being any physical obstacles. Even so, surely cold war bunkers could've been avoided if they knew exactly where they were.

Perhaps that too. They are extensive bunkers though.

nodnirG kraM wrote:Does it matter which way you vote though? Won't the scheme go through regardless?

That's democracy for you.

Stuart* wrote:

Sput wrote:Mr Q: They can't build underground things in Manchester because there's a load of bunkers from the cold war. I believe that's why they went for trams rather than a tube (so I've heard anyway!).

I always believed that an underground system was discounted because of the financial cost of tunnelling rather than there being any physical obstacles. Even so, surely cold war bunkers could've been avoided if they knew exactly where they were.

the plan was to have the metrolink underground through the city centre - but it cost too much - there was even a underground metrolink station in the basement of the Arndale - its not there any more as they have removed it after the bomb and refurbishment.
The Charge does not bother me as I wont be charged as I leave Manchester to go to work.
Not voted yet though...

Yes - tunnelling does tend to be rather expensive, and depends somewhat of the composition of the rock underground. Yet as congestion increases, and in turn the costs of congestion increase, then obviously tunnelling becomes a relatively more attractive option. So I still think it's a valid option to put on the table. But again, it's critical to ensure you've got efficient utilisation of existing capacity: hence the merits of congestion pricing.

all new Phil wrote:I have to go to loads of meetings in Manchester and I don't want to have to pay any more than I do already!

If it's for your job, can you not claim expenses?

Yeah! Good point! And there's always park and ride phillybaby!

Just read the question on the ballot paper...
"Do you agree with the congestion charge proposals?"
they are not asking directly if the charge should be introduced, They can say people didn't agree with the proposals but still introduce the charge - or is that me being cynical?

I've not got it to hand but I think it says "all this stuff paid for by a congestion charge".

Well, have you noticed a huge improvement in public transport in London since 2001? Hey, or in congestion?