SMALL businesses are sticking to their guns in their opposition to congestion charging plans,
Speaking after a meeting with Manchester city council supremo Sir Howard Bernstein - the driving force behind the Transport Infrastructure Fund bid - the
Federation of Small Businesses
said its members were overwhelmingly opposed to the plan.
While major city centre businesses are fairly evenly split on the controversial subject, the small business lobby is firmly in the `no' camp, with the FSB and the Knutsford based
Forum of Private Business voicing concerns over the impact of road pricing on their members.
Holly Bonfield, policy chairman of the FSB in the north west, which represents more than 21,000 businesses, employing over 210,000 people, in the region, said that in a recent poll 96 per cent of members opposed any kind of road pricing.
While agreeing that action needs to be taken to address congestion in and around Greater Manchester, Ms Bonfield told Sir Howard that members firmly believe the congestion charge will only add to their costs without real benefits.
She said: "I was alarmed at the one-dimensional approach to resolving congestion by imposing financial penalties on car users. The FSB's offer to contribute to the original planning last year was declined. Had this opportunity been taken by Greater Manchester, then the real impact on the small business sector would have been better understood.
"Small companies generate half of the UK's GDP and employ 59 per cent of the private sector work force, so Sir Howard needs to understand that road pricing will not just hurt individual businesses, but their employees as well
"Greater Manchester needs a better transport system, but not at the expense of penalising the region's economy. The FSB will be advising its members to vote against congestion charging in the referendum, and it encourages other businesses and residents to do likewise."
Is the FSB right in its approach? Have your say below.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
we deserve better (13/08/2008 at 11:30)
Simon B, No Taxation without Representation (13/08/2008 at 12:24)
They can not afford to absorb the extra costs, or pass them on to their customers and keep their business.
Laura Norder, Didsbury (13/08/2008 at 14:19)
The TIF (C-charge) initiative will happen.
ProMancunian (13/08/2008 at 14:28)
CityCntr (13/08/2008 at 14:40)
Gramsci (13/08/2008 at 14:40)
Gramsci (13/08/2008 at 14:41)
Kurt Stevens, Sale (13/08/2008 at 14:50)
Bring on the referendum!
Simon B, No Taxation without Representation (13/08/2008 at 15:01)
assume 2/3 are over the age of 18.
FSB employs 210,000
Assume 2 adults per house.
so that 420,000.
96% is 403200
Thats very very roughly 16% of the GM population.
Simon B, No Taxation without Representation (13/08/2008 at 15:25)
Gramsci"
The fact that some of them are already close to edge with the present climbing prices, The fact I know 2 owners of small business in the GM area, and they say times are getting hard, they say the CONcharge would make the burden of staying in buisness very very hard indeed.
Oh, and I said Congestion charge, not TiF bid.
Only those in the know tend to say TiF bid in an attempt to divert attention from the CONcharge.
I think AGMA should have put a bid in, but with no congestion charge option, and made it clear they would never add one.
Polky (14/08/2008 at 10:52)
You should go to their website and have a look at some of their alternative ideas.
Raising business rates was just one of them and was leapt upon by the Pro charge MEN so as to paint GMMG in a slightly darker shade of evil than it normally does.
I can't see many people voting YES that aren't city centre based, which I suppose could lead to a Stockholm effect, where Manchester rings itself and the outer ring disappears, even though the majority voted NO.
Most conurbations won't see much of an improvment (especially Bury, Stockport and trafford) even though the two Sirs are still 'biggin' it up'..
well..
Sir Rick has gone very quiet since Roger walked the plank, but I assume he hasn't changed his mind about charging (again).
citycentre, manchester (14/08/2008 at 12:39)
could you describe, or link to the stockholm effect please, as I am unfamiliar with this?
why would you think city centre based people would be most likely to vote yes? we would not pay the congestion charge, but also wouldnt benefit massivly from the new transport links either
the airport already has regular train links, so an extra tram line there isnt a major plus, as is the case with west didsbury
and extra links to the surrounding towns would be of most benefit to those living there and travelling in them rather than in the city centre itself
we also stand to loose, not directly, but certainly indierctly as if, as often predicted, companies close or move we lose out on the services they provide, or pass on increased costs then we will have to pay that way.
of the manchester coucnil areas the biggest benefit would be in wythenshawe, which i suppose could do with the help
tameside and oldham would be the other big gainers, at least in terms of trams and maybe wigan (or parts of it) if the news bus links are any good and the train station work helps
stockport and salford dont seem to gain much, which presumably explains stockport's opposition, and neither would trafford or bury, but they already have the best of the tram system.
Black Flag (14/08/2008 at 12:55)
There would be the potential for a massive windfall gain in property prices, though. As people living in the city centre would be less likely to pay the charge to get to work than people living outside the centre, it would make living in the city more attractive, which would push the prices of flats upwards.
Polky (14/08/2008 at 13:00)
See if this works
www.manchestertolltax.com/index.php/facts-a-figures/34-facts/73-did-stockholm-really-vote-for-a-con-charge
what happened in Stockholm was that of the 15 conurbations, 14 voted no and one (stockholm itself) voted yes... This was after the charge had been in place for 7 months.
citycentre, manchester (14/08/2008 at 16:35)
that is true, but the costs being quoted on here seem to vary from 800-2000 pounds a year
with 1 bed flats starting at about 130,000 (maybe lower just now)i am not holding my breath for a huge leap in prices
certainly for a family (as i would guess a large proportion of people driving daily into the city from outside the M60 would be older, possibly married with children) the lack of good schools, GP's, gardens/open space etc would remain a bigger disincentive
if i can assume that people who live in the city centre would tend to be younger, childless people and that these would tend to use public transport more than drive, it could work the other way with people in, say Ashton, Oldham Wythenshaw etc deciding to stay where they are and use the new trams rather than move to the centre?
polky; thanks it works, I will check it in more detail when I get home;
as i understand the terms of the vote that couldnt happen here as there as to be a majority of yes votes overall, plus at least a 7:3 vote in favour in votes in each borough as well?
Black Flag (14/08/2008 at 19:43)
That amounts to somewhere between 1 and 2 months' mortgage payments for a flat of that size. As a relative cost saving it is huge and it is the kind of thing people will consider when moving.
"certainly for a family (as i would guess a large proportion of people driving daily into the city from outside the M60 would be older, possibly married with children) the lack of good schools, GP's, gardens/open space etc would remain a bigger disincentive"
That isn't relevant to city centre demand, because those people wouldn't be the target market in the city either with or without the charge. The key question is, would people who could easily live in or out of the city be more likely to live in the city with a congestion charge. The cost saving means they probably would.
"if i can assume that people who live in the city centre would tend to be younger, childless people and that these would tend to use public transport more than drive, it could work the other way with people in, say Ashton, Oldham Wythenshaw etc deciding to stay where they are and use the new trams rather than move to the centre?"
There is a lot of assumption there (I know a lot of people who are younger, childless and drive to work in the city centre, in spite of the fact they don't live too far from a tram station), but the key thing to remember is that when people buy a house, they don't just think about what it will cost them, they also consider how easy it will be to sell, so even if the person buying the house uses passenger transport, they'll be aware that the charge will put other people off, which will flatten prices. Properties which are very close to a tram station will tend to go the opposite way and show a windfall gain due to increased convenience and I would expect city centre properties to enjoy a similar gain.
citycentre, manchester (14/08/2008 at 20:34)
New York City Council
Chair, Small Business Committee, regarding the possible effects of congestion charging on New York business
link: http://www.dbpartnership.org/documents/?id=44.
while i havnt read the whole report yet here is a quote from the executive summary, so maybe it wont have the effect people are worried about
"In order to attempt to predict the effects on businesses in the central business district, similar congestion
pricing programs in London, Singapore, Norway, and Stockholm have been examined. These programs
have each had no discernable impact on businesses. Effects of congestion pricing depend to a large
extent on particular characteristics of a city, such as its spatial composition, quality of public
transportation alternatives, existing economic conditions and public reaction. As a result, specific
experiences and conclusions drawn from different cities cannot necessarily be transferred to New York
City. However, in general, the overall experiences, especially in relation to the effects on businesses,
were similar across the different examples and should be similar to the effects of congestion pricing on
business in New York City."
Polky (15/08/2008 at 08:17)
That's how it was sold to Stockholm and AFTER the vote they decided to not count the conurbations and rely solely on the vote from the city centre.
The 7-3 thing, as I understand it, is a load of rubbish so far as AGMA and GMPTE are concerned as they don't have the power to install any form of traffic management or charging in an individual conurbation. Only the local council in each conurbation can change their own roads.
If the vote were 9-1 with Trafford saying no, then they can install charging everywhere except Trafford.
That's why Sir Leese wanted every authority to be bound by it when he first announced the referendum.
PW, Manchester (15/08/2008 at 08:56)
I've heard absolutely NOTHING convincing so far, but I'm just a 'Me, Me, Me' who wants to hang on to his hard-earned money. That's horrifying to the silly socialists, isn't it?
citycentre, manchester (15/08/2008 at 10:02)
i havnt been in hospital, so can i have back the share of my taxes that pays for that please?
citycentre, manchester (15/08/2008 at 10:02)
that was my understanding also, but it thought each council had agreed to abide by the result of a vote, subject to the 7:3 proviso
if not, and any council can still opt out of the scheme, and trafford is opposed and will do so then there dosnt seem any point at all in having the vote;
a scheme with one borough opting out would be pointless
Polky (15/08/2008 at 11:12)
My understanding was that AGMA had come to this 7-3 conclusion, but , as they have no power over the councils policies (being a voluntary committee) they can always be overruled by the council leaders.
Unfortunately, as I live in middleton and the Glib Dumbs have got the majority in Rochdale town centre, we will be dictated to by the few numbskulls 10 miles up the road, where it doesn't really affect them.
PW, Manchester (15/08/2008 at 12:08)
Black Flag (15/08/2008 at 12:24)
citycentre, manchester (15/08/2008 at 12:42)
you seem to know a lot about my political views, although anyone who knows me would be suprised to hear me called socialist.
my major objection to the TiF package is that it calls upon people to pay who will gain very little; those not close enough for the new trams or express buses to be practicable and will still want to drive
but the NHS calls on people who are generally healthy and working (such as myself) to pay into a system for the benefit of those who are sick and unable to work; whilst i may have serious objections to this in principle it seems to be largely effective in keeping the majority of the population healthy and certainly avoids the sick dying in the street so, for the common good, i support it