Talk:Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

Feel free to add to and modify this page, there is alot to add and go over.

There is discussion here about the article. WP:GM members are hoping to work together to make improvements to this good start. This is likely to continue over the next few days. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

There is a wealth of information on the web about the GM TiF but, unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to edit at the moment. However, I've used a bit of the time I have to sort out some of the more useful links which could be used to add some balance to the article instead of it all being based on the GM Future Transport website. If you use any of them for referencing please delete them from the external links section as you go along. Richerman (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

referendum date[edit]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1064750_date_set_for_ccharge_vote Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Reaction[edit]

Re: This does not however mean the respondents are opposed as anybody complaining about the current public transport system was counted as a negative response

I must admit that I have read this somewhere, but cannot see it in either of the two linked articles Paypwip (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is in this MEN article, quote "For example, criticisms of the existing public transport system would be classed as a negative response." The article was used as a source but I think the account which only ever edits c-charge related article (TIF Commentator) changed it for a blog. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I'd read it somewhere. I see you've changed the ref to the correct one now. Paypwip (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The insistence from Joshii on his/her interpretation of the source is unhelpfuland not supported by the source. I have now changed the reference to quote directly from the sourceon tghe meaing of both negative and positive somments which seems the only evidence based way to resolve a difference of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TIF Commentator (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

map[edit]

If someone has online maps of the charging rings, and any proposed new public transport routes, I'd be happy to create a map for the article for them. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are maps of the charging rings here Richerman (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was don't merge. -- ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone has proposed a merge.
  • Oppose, the article was split because there was so much information for both aspects of the proposal. The c-charge article deals with the charging elements which are not required in the TiF bid, it just happens that AGMA chose the c-charge as the innovative way to secure the money. The TiF page deals with what the money will be spent on if enough people vote for the investment instead of throwing away the money. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes they are closely linked, but I think suffient material exists to maintain the status quo, whilst also best serving the interests of our readership. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Congestion charging in GM is an important part of the TiF proposal. While it may not be the most significant part, it certainly is the most headline-grabbing. If the TiF referendum is successful I can see a lot of expansion and creation of new articles for the TiF. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's successful! Sure looks close! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ferguson[edit]

Perhaps, to resolve this little edit war, the quote would best be placed in his own article. Then just mention him in passing, in this article? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an open letter to a local newspaper would go down well on his own article in terms of notability. I think it should be fine where it is now and should be included as he is a rather big figure, being in charge of one of the biggest companies in the region. I don't really care for football but he is a significant figure in our area. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know things are getting a bit heated and I certainly don't always agree with the way TIFcommentator does things. However, I don't think removing the comments from the manager of Salford Reds was justified. It's not for us to decide which comments are from notable people and which aren't, providing they are referenced - and I thought they did give a bit of balance to what was said by Alex Ferguson. The fact that a newspaper felt they were worth reporting makes them notable, and removing referenced information is just inflaming the situation. Richerman (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The factoid meets notability requirements and is referenced by a reliable source. Of course what's going on here is removing the quote because some editors don't share the endorssment, but Ferguson is a notable person and the support made front page headlines in the region. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses/Legacy[edit]

This article needs updating to correct tenses, for example "would" to "would have", it could probably also use a section on the legacy i.e. The local councils drew up a shortlist of the most pressing and important bits of the TiF plans they wanted to keep and have together scrounged up £1.5bn from existing council local transport budgets to put into a central pot to fund it.

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=103073&news_id=6114641

Schemes Accelerated DfT Package Metrolink: Chorlton to East Didsbury Metrolink: Droylsden - Ashton Elements of Cross City Bus Package Park and Ride in Greater Manchester SEMMMS Scenario* Mottram Bypass and Glossop Spur* Leigh-Salford-Manchester Busway Metrolink: Rochdale Town Centre Ashton Northern Bypass Stage 2 Wigan IRR Metrolink : Airport and Second City crossing Fund contributions to stations Altrincham Interchange Bolton interchange Metrolink: Oldham Town Centre


Additional priorities awaiting further funding are as follows:

Metrolink - Trafford Park Stockport Interchange Stockport Town Centre Access Scheme East Lancashire Railway

83.104.138.141 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to be bold in updating articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative project written by volunteers, and we'd be happy to have you on board. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got round to it WatcherZero (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Manchester Transport Innovation Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Manchester_Transport_Innovation_Fund&oldid=1207415571"