BUSINESSES which combined to support congestion charging are calling for changes to the plans.
The “United City” alliance -which includes several local firms, has announced a range of new demands to the public authorities. The group’s membership has grown to over 50 in just 10 days.
If Greater Manchester’s 10 districts accept the charging plans, it would be introduced by 2013 and would trigger a massive £3bn improvement programme for public transport.
Fearing that vans and lorries will be charged over and over again as they travel around Greater Manchester, the group is calling for a cap of only one charge for business vehicles passing through a charging ring more than once during the charging periods.
This would help businesses which have to make peak-time deliveries across the M60 and inner charging rings.
They are also demanding exemption for firms in Trafford Park until a Metrolink line is built there- as well as exemption for motorcycles.
In the long term, United City also calls for any excess income from congestion charging to be ring-fenced wholly for spending on public transport in Greater Manchester.
United City spokesman Chris Oglesby said: “It is conceivable that after the 30 year period for repaying the £1.2bn of government loan, it will have raised surplus income. United City is calling on the authorities to guarantee that any such surplus will be invested in Greater Manchester’s public transport network.
“We have been hugely pleased at our member numbers so far, and these demands reflect their feedback to us. We understand the needs of companies which make repeat journeys across the charging rings. However, we are not calling for total exemptions, as these are precisely the companies which will benefit from reduced congestion.”
United City, which believes that good public transport is good for business, also includes high street chain Timpson, Sale Sharks owner Brian Kennedy’s Latium Group and property development companies Bruntwood, Ask Developments, Property Alliance and Urban Splash.
The newly-announced demands are in addition to a set of conditions already set out by United City for its support for the transport investment and linked charge.
They are that most of the public transport improvements must be in place before a congestion charge is introduced ; the congestion charge must only be active when congestion causes the economy the greatest cost (during the early morning and evening rush hours);the income from congestion charging is ring-fenced to service only repayments for the capital loan from central government, for investment in and support of public transport in Greater Manchester; and an independent individual or body must be in place to oversee the public transport investment and the implementation of the congestion charge.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
PW, Manchester (18/06/2008 at 10:52)
Now there's a point that is very much open to debate, and I don't believe it one bit.
ace, manchester (18/06/2008 at 10:52)
Chris, Irlam (18/06/2008 at 10:58)
Nelly's Patch, Cheadle Hulme (18/06/2008 at 11:00)
I B Happy, Seven Dwarfs Mansion (18/06/2008 at 11:05)
"United City spokesman Chris Oglesby said: “It is conceivable that after the 30 year period for repaying the £1.2bn of government loan"
What is a certainty is that the Government get any money after the 30 years not the Mancs.
BOBTILTD, URMSTON (18/06/2008 at 11:06)
"The group’s membership has grown to over 50 in just 10 days."
It may be 50 but most of them are still property developers, consultants etc.. with vested interests and strong MCC links.
I don't see many other types of businesses there!!!
Simon B, The North West. (18/06/2008 at 11:19)
Greater Manchester Momentum Group however comprises many of the largest employers in the Greater Manchester area, they oppose the congestion charge.
citycentre, manchester (18/06/2008 at 11:22)
BOBTILTD, URMSTON (18/06/2008 at 11:29)
How can that be independent ????
United city spokesman stated that these were "a group of people acting in an individual capacity, not as a representative of their business"
I will leave readers to make up their own minds on that.
JimC (18/06/2008 at 11:42)
Chickens coming home to roost now fellas, are you starting to realise it will be the death of the city that has lined your pockets for so long.
Jay B, oldham (18/06/2008 at 11:45)
if it goes ahead i certainly will never use shops and services again. i might even move somewhere where the local council listens to its voters. how many others will follow suit?
JAB, Republic of Mancunia (18/06/2008 at 13:25)
Jay B, oldham (18/06/2008 at 13:54)
its rather like charging everyone a pipe rate as an extra on top of your water rates. yes you can have water that you pay for. but now you have to pay for the pipes that it comes through as they're a bit neglected and need investing in. i doubt anyone would like that would they?
Pentest (18/06/2008 at 17:49)
No excemptions, no concessions, you pay like the rest of the motorists who decide to go past the charging zones ...and if it cripples your business, so be it. You made your bed by condoning it ...so ly in it.
oldham labour, oldham (18/06/2008 at 17:56)
Sparky was the best ever (18/06/2008 at 18:09)
If a courier gets charged 5 pounds every time they travel through the zone (in then out) instead of once per day, they'll be paying hundreds every day. That cost will go on to the customer. Either that, or they'll refuse to deliver within the congestion zone as it will be a loss maker to do so.
The whole thing is a really bad joke.
Sparky was the best ever (18/06/2008 at 18:21)
Why go to bars, restaurants or even theaters there for the same reason?
Manchester centre is expensive as it is. Adding an extra surcharge just to get there and back will persuade many not to bother and spend the money somewhere else. That applies at all levels.
Why would a business choose to move there when their employees would expect a cost of living pay rise. Employees would be harder to find, as people would prefer to work outside the zone, being cheaper and more convenient; again raising salaries and making Manchester businesses less competitive.
jomov, Manchester (18/06/2008 at 18:33)
Karney for head of GMPTA(formerly MC Spanner) (18/06/2008 at 22:19)
NO THEY DON'T.
Last Year whilst job hunting I saw GMPTE advertising a series of roles within their Finance department paying approximately 20-30% more than equivalent. Chuck in early retirement on a final salary pension and FREE Public transport.
Teachers on average earn over £30k and get Final Salary Pensions, 13 weeks Holiday a year. Tough Job but don't tell me it's underpaid.
It's a myth that the Public Sector are paid less than their private sector equivalents. So why should they be exempt. People crossing the zone in performance of their duties should be reimbursed but jouneys to and from a fixed place should be treated equally. Private or Public Sector.
stivh, Urmston (18/06/2008 at 22:58)
Whats the point of a charge as a means of reduction if you then exempt the very main causes.
If I or my wife or my children or any other member of my family have to pay then everyone else should be doing the same.
This is just a smokescreen to show that there is a willingness to discuss this issue - those in favour will get their benefits and all against will be just ignored.
The local councillors will get richer with their back handers don't you worry about that.
Karney for head of GMPTA(formerly MC Spanner) (19/06/2008 at 07:06)
Timpsons v Harvey Nichols, Bestway, Parfett, Pets at Home,
Arndale vs Trafford Centre
Revolution v Holts, Hydes, John SMiths, Punch
A double Glazing co v Kellogs, Tyco, Pilkingtons
Nobody v Distribution, Car Dealers, Building Suppliers etc.
City Centre v Greater Manchester
Their leader is hardly independent - Look up Chris Oglesby the CEO of one of Manchesters largest City Centre landlords and yoy will find him abseiling with .....wait for it.....Sir Richard Leese.
Look at the "conditions" they set last week
They are that most of the public transport improvements must be in place before a congestion charge is introduced - ALREADY ON OFFER
The congestion charge must only be active when congestion causes the economy the greatest cost (during the early morning and evening rush hours);ALREADY ON OFFER
the income from congestion charging is ring-fenced to service only repayments for the capital loan from central government, for investment in and support of public transport in Greater Manchester; NOT DIFFICULT WHEN AT THESE LEVELS THERE IS UNLIKELY TO BE ENOUGH TO SERVICE THE LOAN
And an independent individual or body must be in place to oversee the public transport investment and the implementation of the congestion charge. MMM - GMPTE, GMPTA OR A NEW QUANGO RUN BY SIR JOHN LABOUR-DONOR
How about some real condtions such as
Proper Public Consultation including a Referendum
Better Park and Ride
An even spread of any investement
No increases in zones or times EVER
Rate to only increase in line with RPI
If they were really interested in the good of Greater Manchester - They wouldn't blindly accept this charge without question. But are they?
shayla (19/06/2008 at 08:01)
Yes, but what about the people who have to get to work there!
Jay B, oldham (19/06/2008 at 08:49)
Munkey Boy, Audenshaw, Manchester (19/06/2008 at 10:49)
The forecasts published estimate a 10-15% drop in traffic inside the M60 apparently. They have already accounted for the drop in traffic. I'd assume that like other public schemes (Olympics, Crossrail) there will be a sizeable coningency fund to allow for shortfall.
You'd have to hope the people they have running their numbers know what they're doing in their forecasts really, it's the reason economists exist.
Jay B, oldham (19/06/2008 at 11:05)
how can you predict things so exact. people are people and they are unpredictable.
so are councils and their promises. they never seem to keep them.
this is where public consultation to get a mixed response was needed. there are loads of good and bad points to the scheme. its just the council that think otherwise.