A study for economic development agency Manchester Enterprises said the expanded workforce would boost the area's economy by almost £160m by 2026.
The new posts will be in sectors ranging from IT and creative industries to financial and professional services, said the report by consultancy Volterra.
They will come about because an improved public transport system will make commuting easier, and therefore encourage more people to stay in the region, which will attract new companies and encourage those present to expand, it added.
A separate report, produced by those backing the controversial road pricing scheme, claimed businesses would save £5.3bn in travel time over 60 years if the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) scheme, involving a £3bn investment package in public transport goes ahead.
Greater Manchester's 10 local authorities have submitted a bid for the project and will hold local referendums on it later this year.
Under the current proposals, the Metrolink would be extended to Ashton under Lyne, East Didsbury, Wythenshawe, Manchester Airport, Oldham, Rochdale and Trafford Park.
Today's report indicates that the new jobs would improve the economic life of the city centre area as a whole, as there would be more opportunities to do business without having to travel further afield, and therefore greater productivity.
It also shows that house prices could rise by up to £12,000 over time as a direct result of the extension, as the prospect of cutting travelling times would make properties on the routes more attractive.
Mike Emmerich, chief executive of Manchester Enterprises, said: "It is important to understand the impact the expansion programme would have on businesses, and the people who live and work in the region.
"As Greater Manchester assesses the TIF package, this study provides a further source of information to enable people to judge its merits."
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Pete (01/08/2008 at 08:05)
Nelly's Patch, Cheadle Hulme (01/08/2008 at 10:10)
Helenc (01/08/2008 at 10:38)
Caped Crusader, Gotham City (01/08/2008 at 11:52)
Does this take into account all the jobs that will be lost as firms inside the charging zone shut up shop because they can't attract staff?
Jay B, oldham (01/08/2008 at 11:53)
Additional jobs? where? they are just speculating figures here. what about all the other jobs that will be lost or moved out of manchester due to businesses relocating to cut costs incurred by the con charge?
better public transport? we could have that anyway if the private businesses that own these would invest in it themselves. oh and the government promised us the big bang for the metrolink as well. what are getting now? a little fizzle and pop instead.
less congestion? the reason we have this in the first place is because our councils created it in the first place with poor ill thought out road layouts. figures for traffic coming into the city have hardly changed in the last 10 years it was recently found. but public transport use has increased massively in recent years.
All this con charge will do is cost us the working public of manchester more and more money in the long run and drive businesses out of the city to escape these cost to themselves.
Leeds and Liverpool are just laughing at us and rubbing their hands in anticipation of their gains.
Black Flag (01/08/2008 at 15:14)
So, why not fund the lines by taxing the increased land values? That way, the people who profit from the investment would be the ones funding it.
Jay B, oldham (01/08/2008 at 15:38)
Bigears, Greenfield (01/08/2008 at 16:59)
As well as this we have ex councillor Roger Jones claiming (obviously in the know now he is out of the council) that the Tories will water the whole thing down if they win the next election. As a non congestion charge supporter all I can say is bring on the General Election.
Pete in Salford, Salford (01/08/2008 at 18:19)
MC Spanner (01/08/2008 at 19:32)
Just get on with the vote kill the tax and then we will all be able to geton with our lives.
rammylad, ramsbottom (02/08/2008 at 15:06)
rammylad, ramsbottom (02/08/2008 at 15:07)
Do teh MEN want a fine from the ASA?
Athertonian (02/08/2008 at 18:41)
Bolton for example is getting NOTHING from the TIF that wasn't already planned before: including a bus station in a less convenient position than the existing one, and - hey - a bus lane to Manchester! Considering the pig's ear the PTE made of the existing Bolton - Leigh bus lane, with longer travel time for cars AND buses, and a "real time" information system that still does not work half a decade after it was installed, I am not holding my breath.
The Rochdale/ Oldham/ Ashton extensions were also already planned, as was that cheapo fob-off, the Leigh busway.
Half the actual extra TIF funding is to go on the suburban south Manchester corridor, including a tram line. The rest is shared between the remaining 2.2 million of us. Fair, eh?
citycentre, manchester (04/08/2008 at 08:50)
intresting idea, levying an extra tax on people who's property shows a paper value increase due to new transport; but how does an estate agent saying someones house is now 12k more valuable than it was last year actually allow them to find more money to pay it?
jayb
city center properties are generally smaller and more in a higher denisty than sububan ones so pay proportionally higher taxes already
and how do city center residents gain from either reduced congestion coming into the city at peak times (as we are alread there) od improved transport links into it?
if you dont want to pay the charge and are happy to sit in your car stuck in traffic fine, or if people stand on packed trams rather then maybe find a seat on the proposed larger ones to be introduced it dosnt really affect me either. people travelling in will benefit from both less congestion or better transport, neither will affect my journey to work.
If anything we stand to lose out the most, if, as you assure us, the effect is to cause city businsess to sloce or put up prices; by that logic we should see a reduction in out taxes to compensate
Black Flag (04/08/2008 at 09:11)
"how do city center residents gain from either reduced congestion coming into the city at peak times (as we are alread there) od improved transport links into it?"
Because there will be less traffic in the area, resulting in lower pollution levels and congestion. Also, as you say, businesses will be able to move goods and people into and out of the area more easily. If that benefit arises, the property prices will rise in response. If city centre occupants didn't gain, the prices wouldn't rise and there wouldn't be any extra tax to pay.
polkyb (04/08/2008 at 11:55)
As the old buses are what is driving up the pollution level, especially around the picadilly area, I don't see that much of a reduction in the more harmful exhaust gasses... These are private companies we're handing these new buses to so why would they stop running their existing stock unless they are FORCED to by GMPTE (which they aren't being).
Add to that the fact that the London zone now has more traffic than it did when it opened, I can't see much benefits for the city centre residents.
citycentre, manchester (04/08/2008 at 12:16)
"Also, as you say, businesses will be able to move goods and people into and out of the area more easily"
in fact i speculated the excact opposite, going with jayb's thought that the increased staffing costs to business would either be passed to to local residents in price rises, or the businesses would close altogether
home owners dont get any benefit from rising house prices; if the price of mine doubles, i dont get anymore salary because of it. if i die my next of kin would benefit, but that hardly helps me pay any extra tax while alive
Black Flag (04/08/2008 at 12:18)
We've been talking about the impact of using public funds to build new Metrolink lines, not to buy buses. That's a completely separate issue.
If tram use increases, I would expect it to have the effect of reducing both car and bus journeys along the route of the line, reducing both car and bus volumes in the city and therefore reducing the level of pollution from both sources.
Munkey Boy (04/08/2008 at 13:34)
GMPTE currently have no powers to enforce what buses are run by private operators. Part of the TIF documentation read that they would recieve more powers with TIF than without, whatever that means.
polkyb: "Add to that the fact that the London zone now has more traffic than it did when it opened, I can't see much benefits for the city centre residents."
I don't understand? So what? The fact is London has far less congestion with the charging in place than without. Traffic still grows with time, as does ability to pay as we become wealthier.
Simon B, No Taxation without Representation (04/08/2008 at 14:50)
MART now has a discussion forum
http://www.manchestertolltax.com/forum/
polkyb (04/08/2008 at 15:14)
That relates to a bill going through government now which will give unelected bodies like AGMA or GMPTE the right to force changes to traffic management systems on to the whole conurbation without any recourse to your councillor. If it were in place now, we wouldn't be discussing the TiF bid, we'd just have it and stuff what the people think. New Labour, New Ideas.
"The fact is London has far less congestion with the charging in place than without."
Nope. They have the same amount again as they did before it was introduced and, as congestion is pretty much self regulating, I speculate that it probably won't get much worse than it is now. If you have any proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it, as post charge traffic levels were equal to pre charge in November last year and rising (slowly).
Black Flag (04/08/2008 at 15:16)
Well that's at odds with previous comments you've made such as:
"the report estimates that businesess will actually save money, so hopefully some of this will be passed on to customers"
You seem to be saying that the congestion charge will bring a benefit to businesses, but then arguing exactly the opposite when it is suggested that they should pay for the benefit they are receiving.
"home owners dont get any benefit from rising house prices; if the price of mine doubles, i dont get anymore salary because of it."
Nor do I, but I also don't get a wage increase when fuel prices, food prices or any other good or service increases in price. It doesn't mean I don't have to continue to pay my way.
citycentre, manchester (04/08/2008 at 18:57)
i said earlier that the report claimed business will save, and today that jayb thought they would lose
i suppose some will gain and some wont
i was msotly surprised that the thought that city center dwellers should pay an excessive share for congestion reduction, as we dont cause it, or suffer due to it, and public transport improvements into the city, as we dont use it to get here to work in the mornings. especailly as our property taxes are already proportionally higher and our services cheaper to provide than in the suburbs
Black Flag (04/08/2008 at 21:34)
Not an excessive share, just a fair share. They key thing is that, if land values are taxed, it will be the people who get a windfall gain that contribute to the improvements.
People owning houses near to tram stations would almost certainly pay more, to reflect the fact the investment of public funds had increased the value of their investment.
Owners of property in the city centre would only pay more if the investment in public transport made their location more valuable. Whether or not that would happen would depend on whether or not the reduction in congestion, pollution, etc. would make living in the city centre more attractive due to an improved quality of life.
Chris, Irlam (05/08/2008 at 08:53)