A success story:

THE M.E.N. can today unveil details of the controversial planned congestion
charging heading for Greater Manchester.

Officials were refusing to say anything about the plans before a special
meeting of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities today. But we
can reveal:

Rush-hour drivers on the busiest roads will pay £5 a day in charges.

There will be an outer cordon, roughly following the M60, and an inner ring
around the heart of the city. Charges for passing through each will vary
depending on which one of 15 different corridors drivers use.

The scheme, expected to start in five years, will be so sophisticated that
no driver will be able to avoid paying by `rat-running' though minor roads.

But motorists who use the roads outside the morning and evening peak will
NOT pay a penny.

Drivers will have to pay a deposit for an electric tag to go inside their
windscreen.

*Support*

It will be read by sensors positioned along the 15 main routes into the city
centre.

Drivers passing through both zones will pay up to £5 and automatic number
plate recognition cameras will catch those who try to dodge the charges.

The M.E.N. understands the plan - to go to the government in July as a bid
for £1bn from its Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) - will get unanimous
support at the AGMA meeting today.

Greater Manchester is competing against nine other authorities, including
Birmingham, for the TIF money.

The charging scheme, if successful, will pave the way for congestion
charging to be brought in across the country.

It is thought that Liberal Democrat Rochdale and Stockport, Labour Bolton
and Conservative Trafford will withdraw their opposition, clearing the way
for six weeks of consultation.with the public and businesses before the bid
goes in.

The scheme is expected to bring in £118m a year and this will be spent on
public transport.

Before then about £3bn will be spent on Metrolink extensions, new trains and
bus lanes, using the £1bn TIF money and a further £2bn to be borrowed
against the charging revenues.

And we can reveal that plans are in motion to test satellite-based charging
technology to move to a second stage in which drivers would pay for exactly
the number of miles they travel.

So how, exactly, will they stop people rat running?

 

Why don't they just force all public "servants" to travel before the rush hour, or, better still, take their own precious buses?

 

My e-mail to various pillocks at manchester Council, GMPTE and the 'Corridor Partnerships':

Hello,

I hope this finds its way to the right people.
I knew it was only a matter of time before we, the hard-pressed, car-driving public, were told we would have to pay again for the roads which we already fund to the tune of about £40 Billion per year. For the last few years, our roads have been deliberately obstructed by so-called 'safety measures' and bus lanes, build-outs, unnecessary mini-roundabouts and poorly adjusted traffic lights. There would be no undue congestion if you stopped interfering and allowed the traffic to flow freely.
A straw poll of the people in our street has clearly shown that about 80% of residents are vehemently against any 'per mile' charging scheme. They tell me (without any prompting) that they already pay plenty to use their cars - fuel duty, road tax, VAT, parking etc, and they object strongly to the expense and inconvenience of further charges, let alone the 'tracking' of what should be private journeys.
I am now in the process of starting a protest group which will fight tooth and nail to stop this madness. The people of London might be barmy enough to sit idly by and watch Ken Livingstone weave his evil web, but here in East Manchester we are not.


Yours,

Too right Andy.

 

Just look at Nottingham:

The council admited that traffic levels are level in the city.

A year or two back they boasted at some international get together of the ludicrously labelled traffic "planners" that they had cut traffic by 30% in the centre.

They are now crowing about having cut car use in the centre by up to 90%.

 

But, guess what?

Yup:

Congestion has been getting worse and worse!

 

Nothing to do with them closing loadsa roads and widening lots of pavements of course.

No, it's all down to the evil car and it's steady traffic volumes!

 

Even in the centre, where cars are banned.

 

And you can't cross the car-free streets for nose to tail grid-locked buses!

 

> Even in the centre, where cars are banned.

> And you can't cross the car-free streets for nose to tail grid-locked buses!

Funny. I don't seem to have any trouble at all crossing the street in the pedestrianized parts of Nottingham. Oh, I understand. you are making up "facts" to "prove" that you are right. Silly me.

As usual it is f-w who is making things up.

 

And resorting to that old old "anti"-fascist league ploy:

Of wrongfully accusingt their opponents of what they themselves are actually guilty of.

 

We're talking about Nottingham's infamous "car-free", but still traffic-clogged, centre.

Not a pedestrianised area!

 

Or did you miss that photo in the Post of a street jammed solid with nose to tail buses?!

 

 

> Or did you miss that photo in the Post of a street jammed
> solid with nose to tail buses?!

I don't usually buy the tedious provincial rag that is under the delusion that it can boost its circulation by printing your latest effort in green ink.

So, when you said

> And you can't cross the car-free streets for nose to tail
> grid-locked buses!

You meant according to one photograph in a minor provincial newspaper trying to make a rather pathetic point, rather than a general problem with crossing the street in Nottingham. Glad we cleared that up.

The evidence of a photograph.

 

And my own eyes.

 

Including seeing, on more that one occasion.

 

Emergency vehicles gridlocked by buses and a maze of traffic islands and built out pavements!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

See, now we are back with your inability to distinguish anecdote from proof. Of course there will be occasions when there is a queue of buses. There may even be times when an emergency vehicle gets held up (although more likely this is your over-active imagination at work). But for every such example that you can find, I am sure there what ten? a hundred? a thousand? examples of gridlock and delayed emergency vehicles where a road is snarled with cars.

See, now we are back with your inability to distinguish anecdote from proof.

Ahhhhhhhhh, yes, if you observe something once, that's proof.

But if I observe it every time, that's anecdote.

I'd forgotten!

Sorry.

 

 

Of course there will be occasions when there is a queue of buses. There may even be times when an emergency vehicle gets held up (although more likely this is your over-active imagination at work).

Of course.

I'd forgotten you had been stalking me!

 

 

But for every such example that you can find, I am sure there what ten? a hundred? a thousand? examples of gridlock and delayed emergency vehicles where a road is snarled with cars.

Yes, of course there are.

Wherever there is a pavement the right width to accomodate the pedestrians using it.

And a couple of lanes each way, unrestricted by "safety" refuges and islands.

And no traffic "calming" measures.

You are:

sure there what ten? a hundred? a thousand? examples of gridlock and delayed emergency vehicles where a road is snarled with cars.

 

Whereas, wherever the pavements are widened so much you can barely get a bus squeezing past the "safety" refuges and between innumerable islands.

And they, and everything else is forced to a crawl, in both directions, by innumerable mis-phased traffic lights.

And endless traffic "calming" measures.

Emergency vehicles positively fly through the the gridlocked traffic.

 

Obviously, f-w!

 

 

> But if I observe it every time, that's anecdote.

Don't be more ridiculous than usual, BJ. Of course you don't see gridlocked buses and obstructed emergency services every time you visit the centre of Nottingham.

So you were stalking me!

 

Says the man lying in wait to post his usual brilliant pearl of wisdom.

Isn't it about time for your warm milky drink, BJ?

Lying in wait?

Moi?

 

Funny.

 

I could have sworn I came onto MY board for a short while to find you had made a few posts.

I replied to them.

 

Only to find YOU lying in wait and responding to them.

 

And now you've made up yet ANOTHER of your little laws:

I'm not allowed to to post on my own forum!

 

Little wonder you're part of the rip their money off them.

And force it to be wasted on sCams and trams.

And rebuilding perfectly adequate town squares.

Control Freak Brigade.

 

In fact:

It's hardly surprising you always try to get me banned from the Beeb.

 

When you eventually spot I'd returned!

 

 

Are you the same board member who used to spam this forum with hundreds of pages from the BBC Messageboards.

And post hard copies of them to me.

 

To try to stop me from posting on "his" messageboard!

 

 

Oh dear, BJ. Paranoia seems to be mounting again. Perhaps you should get them to up the dose.

Of course, f-w.

 

Keep taking the pills.

Can't keep away eh?

 

Regretting getting me banned already, eh?

 

You sad little man!

 

Banned again already, huh? Nothing to do with me. I was enjoying watching you trying not to play with your own fake breasts.

Already?

 

Strange how you watched me "play with my breasts" (you sad little perv) for three weeks.

 

On several BBC boards.

 

During which time I had no problems.

 

 

But as soon that you realised:

Message 362 - posted by formerly-warning, 4 Days Ago

 

And you post:

Message 362 - posted by formerly-warning, 4 Days Ago

 

I get banned!

 

Nothing to do with your posting:

Message 362 - posted by formerly-warning, 4 Days Ago

 

Then?

 

Or perhaps it wasn't you who posted:

Message 362 - posted by formerly-warning, 4 Days Ago

 

Oh, no, look:

Message 362 - posted by formerly-warning, 4 Days Ago

 

It was you!

 

I hope they don't like board games in your house.

It must be such a bind picking up all the pieces off the floor every time you lose.

 

You sad little loser.

 

> You sad little loser.

Depends on the game, really. I never was much good at chess, but at "not-getting-banned-from-bulletin-boards," there's only one serial loser around here.

I see you are trying yet again. A bit of a slow learner, aren't you?

Yes, what a sad, pathetic, little loser you are!

 

Having taken three weeks to spot my last (latest) return.

Despite me dropping you little hints.

Like I'M Back!

 

You're now trying to get any new face you spot banned!

 

How sad and pathetic is that you sad pathetic little loser!

 

Oh, and are you stalking me on the Post website now?

 

A bit of a slow learner, aren't you?

 

So it was you who used to try to teach me a lesson every time I returned to the BBC Nottingham board by spamming hundreds of cut and pastes of their webpages here.

And posting me hard copies through the post.

And threatening to continue until I left "your" board alone.

 

Still trying to protect what you think is your very own little personal fiefdom.

 

How sad and pathetic is that?

 

> You're now trying to get any new face you spot banned!

Oh, BJ, you aren't trying to pretend that it isn't you, are you? Who do you think you are kidding? Or, put another way,

> How sad and pathetic is that you sad pathetic little loser!

> So it was you who used to try to teach me a lesson every
> time I returned to the BBC Nottingham board by spamming
> hundreds of cut and pastes of their webpages here.

> And posting me hard copies through the post.

Afraid not, BJ. Clearly you have actually managed to annoy someone with your infantile behaviour to a point where they would waste their time on such activities. Personally, I am a long way from caring that much about your idiocy.

As for the former accusation, I am surprised you haven't been poring obsessively over the IP addresses of whoever did it: if you had done so, you would know that it wasn't me.

Afraid not, BJ. Clearly you have actually managed to annoy someone with your infantile behaviour to a point where they would waste their time on such activities.

Wot?

 

Activities such as continually alerting the mods to my return?

When you eventually spot it!

 

Or branding some poor innocent as me when you jump the gun?!

 

Or continually hanging around my forum waiting for me to post!

 

 

Personally, I am a long way from caring that much about your idiocy.

Yeah, right!

 

As for the former accusation, I am surprised you haven't been poring obsessively over the IP addresses of whoever did it: if you had done so, you would know that it wasn't me.

Why, what is your IP address?

 

 

These days!

 

> Why, what is your IP address?

No idea. You are the one who trawls through the logs trying to catch people out, so why don't you tell me?

Gimme a clue:

Where do you post from.

 

 

By the way, you'll soon have that poor Mr Zimmer on the run.

 

Pillock!

 

> Where do you post from.

Same place as usual.

> By the way, you'll soon have that poor Mr Zimmer on the
> run.

See, BJ, if you pretend it isn't you when it so obviously is, you just look even stupider and more of a liar than usual. Not to mention a complete

> Pillock!

My you're well-hard f-w!

 

You'll soon have that poor old duffer on the run!

 

> You'll soon have that poor old duffer on the run!

A rare moment of self awareness there, BJ. Poor old duffer pretty much sums you up, except it doesn't quite put across your nastiness.