The Edinburgh congestion charge (also known as Edinburgh street toll road ) is the proposed congestion price scheme for the Scottish capital. It is planned to reduce congestion by introducing daily costs to enter the ranks within the city, with raised money directed to finance improvements in public transport. The scheme became the subject of intense public and political debate and was eventually rejected. A referendum was held and nearly three quarters of respondents rejected the proposal.
Video Edinburgh congestion charge
​​â € <â €
The streets of Edinburgh radiate toward the center of the city which acts as a center for other modes of transport and to facilitate travel-through. An outer by-pass circles the eastern, southern, and western boundary of the city, but no northern bypass or inner ring road is recognized to take vehicular traffic. In 2001, Edinburgh public transport relied on buses and taxis; there were two main railway stations (and ten small ones), no light rail system, and the tram network had been disabled in the 1950s. The city center crosses seven hills; there is an off-road cycle network although there are some special routes in the city center. City commuters can use the Park and Ride scheme, or some bus companies, with the largest being Lothian Buses, formed in 2000 with the Edinburgh City Council as its principal shareholder, carrying 108 million passengers in 2006.
Edinburgh's economy has grown over the last few decades, with 34,800 more jobs predicted to be generated in the city between 2006 and 2015. This has helped drive the growth of local car use in Edinburgh, with daily round trips identified as an increase by 72% between in 1981 and 2001. In 2000 more vehicle registrations took place in Edinburgh than elsewhere in Scotland. Congestion in the city is predicted to rise another 25% between 2006 and 2026.
The Edinburgh road network also needs extensive repairs and repairs; although maintenance has been upgraded to Ã, £ 16m per year, an outstanding job backlog estimated Ã, Â £ 70m.
Traffic delays and road congestion impacts have been estimated to weigh on local economies by around £ 20bn annually. Although the air quality is generally good, some Edinburgh suffer from high concentrations of nitrous oxide (NOx), mostly emitted from vehicle exhaust. Small traffic management changes are planned to reduce this by 5% in the worst affected areas, but overall 40% reduction is targeted, in part by introducing low emission zones to restrict heavy goods vehicles, partly through upgrading of vehicle standards, and the rest through ' Edinburgh Integrated Transport Initiative, with travel moving to public transport as a result of a charging bottleneck. To improve public transport, City is also considering opening an existing railway line, currently used for freight forwarding, to bring new passenger trains, and new tram lines in Southeast Edinburgh.
In short, the Edinburgh Board is faced with an ever-increasing problem with private and public transport, but it has limited options, and a challenging financial series, limited to its annual transportation budget, along with money collected from parking fees.
Meanwhile, the Westminster Parliament passed a law extending possible taxation methods for UK roads, particularly allowing cities to introduce local road usage pricing schemes. Durham introduced its first UK scheme during 2002, followed by London congestion charges in 2003, introduced under the new powers granted to London Mayor Ken Livingstone.
Edinburgh elected to participate in the Partnership Transportation Fulfillment Development Department of a local authority working on congestion charges or parking charges for the workplace, and partly funded by the EU PRoGREURSS project ('The Use of the Road for Greater Responsibility, Efficiency and Sustainability') to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptance of urban road pricing schemes, under the European CUPID European Price Road initiative.
Maps Edinburgh congestion charge
Proposal
The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 makes Scotland's road pricing scheme possible, and establishes the conditions that all proceeds from the scheme should be issued for transportation. In 2002 the City Council of Edinburgh initiated a consultation on future options for transportation in Edinburgh. Three options are presented:
- two congressional congestion charges,
- one congestion congestion charge, or
- has not done anything.
The scheme was seen as a possible blueprint for other areas of Scotland, with Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee awaiting the outcome of the Edinburgh scheme before making their own proposals.
The initial plan envisioned a charging scheme operating in the center of the city between 7 am and 7 pm Monday through Friday, beginning in 2006. The aim was to use technology similar to the London scheme, with an automatic license plate recognition system for recording vehicles that crossed the border- limits, and penalties incurred for those who have not paid using the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database to track the vehicle. Pre-payment will be allowed as well as payment in a number of locations. Vehicles will be charged Ã, Â £ 2 to pass through one of the two cordons. One will be in Bypass Edinburgh City and the other around the city center. There will only be a single charge to enter the city center, even if the two chords are passed or signs are passed several times a day. It was also proposed to block the side road to stop the mice from running.
The all-day scheme was originally projected to raise approximately Ã, Â £ 900 million for a cordon center only and Ã, Â £ 1.5 billion for dual cordon options. Subject to public approval, the fee will begin in 2006, following various transport improvements. Two cordon schemes are expected to reduce congestion by up to 15% overall, with decreases of up to 85,000 trips per day. It is projected to reduce the volume by 18 percent in the center and 15 percent in the west. A cordon scheme is projected to remove 59,000 trips downtown, although there will be a small increase in the west. The cost of setting up congestion costs is estimated at Ã, Â £ 11 million for two common options and Ã, Â £ 8 million for city center proposals only.
Then in 2002 the council stated that they would look at various options for a population discount, potentially ignoring costs up to 20p for those eligible. In September 2002, the board confirmed the original proposal with some variations. The outer Cordon is now proposed to operate between 0700-1000 and 1600 to 1830, and the inner cordon from 0700-1830, although this modification will reduce the available revenue to provide the promised transport improvements. In 2003, the concession was reportedly worth £ 58 million, reducing funding for an increase in transport up to £ 900 million. The cost of preparing the scheme by the end of 2003 is estimated at £ 5.36 million and that the board will not continue the scheme as a Public-private partnership. Transport Initiatives Edinburgh announced Ã, Â £ 435million for a public transport scheme outside of Edinburgh's board area.
The consultation was originally sent to over 250,000 people in the city and surrounding areas. The neighboring Western Lothian Council opposed the scheme, and sent 72,000 bulletins to businesses and residents, criticizing the scheme. The Fife Council is also concerned about justice on the inhabitants of the neighboring regions who contribute to the Edinburgh economy, but has exited the price of the city with high living costs, and is planning a study on the impact of the Edinburgh scheme on the rest of the kingdom. Some political parties and downtown merchants are skeptical of the projected economy, claiming that buyers will go to other destinations outside the city like McArthur Glen in Livingston, diverting business from Edinburgh. They note that the situation is different from London, which is so great that its impact on retail and business will be less significant. The Edinburgh Board then sought public feedback and reevaluated parts of the scheme's operations.
The public inquiry opened on 27 April 2004 and lasted for ten weeks. The investigation report broadly endorsed the Edinburgh board proposal, but recommended removing some of the proposed exclusions and allowing payments the next day. It also expressed concern at the joint implementation schedule with the possibility of receiving needed public transport improvements. The cost of preparing the scheme is now estimated at £ 8.1 million. Cost is divided on a 50% basis with a Scottish Executive.
The Council also proposes to introduce calm traffic measures including speed bumps, road closures, and one-way roads to stop rats running by drivers trying to avoid congestion charges.
The last proposal has an outstanding operation that operates in the morning rush hour with working hours from 0700 to 1830, both from Monday to Friday.
At this stage, the council said that the scheme would raise about Ã, Â £ 50 million per year to finance the increase of public transport, amounting to Ã, Â £ 760m for 20 years. It is hoped that this money will fund new transportation projects:
- 3 tram network serving north, west, and southeast of Edinburgh
- 5 or 6 Park & ​​â € <â € < Ride site around Edinburgh
- new rail services, reopening of several previous passenger service routes in Edinburgh, and new links to Fife, East and West Lothian
- more frequent bus services and new orbital bus routes
- upgrade to main transport arrangement
- information is directly displayed on the bus stop and other public places
- environmental improvement and pedestrian city center
- bicycle route expansion
- 20 mph speed limit and traffic congestion in all residential areas
- road maintenance
Reactions
When the initial consultation was launched, there was initial opposition and support for the congestion cost scheme. Transform Scotland, the transport pressure group, supports two cordon schemes. Friends of the Earth Scotland also welcomes the proposal as they believe they will reduce air pollution and improve the city's environment. The Princes Street Association opposes the scheme, stating that downtown businesses will experience competitive losses. Two public surveys in March 2002 showed resistance to the loading schemes of 75% of Edinburgh residents in the suburbs and 64% across the city. Scottish Executive Support is anticipated, but the Executive states that it is up to local authorities to propose the scheme. AA Scotland expressed its opposition to the scheme. The hotel industry supports the scheme, subject to the improvement of public transport. The Fife Council announced a report of its influence to their area, while the West Lothian Council opposed the outer line of defense as a punishment for commuters to Edinburgh. Concern also states that DVLA will not be able to track 1 out of 12 people who do not pay.
The proposal became part of the political debate in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives argued that the scheme was not about congestion but about raising money and the Scottish National Party campaigned against the charge and made it a problem in local elections in 2003. The Scottish Greens supports the congestion charge. The ruling Scottish Labor Party lost a large number of votes in the September 2002 council by elections (slipped from second to fourth position) with participants claiming that the proposed congestion charge has been a factor. In the City Council of Edinburgh, opposition parties from the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party all oppose the plan. The Liberal Democrats have supported the filling of roads in the Scottish Parliament. Scotland's Transport Minister, Iain Gray, announced government support in principle for the scheme in December 2002, subject to Edinburgh residents supporting the scheme. A referendum offered by the city council, which unlike original consultations, will be limited to residents of the Edinburgh City council area.
The councils around Edinburgh - West Lothian, Fife and Midlothian - are against the scheme. The outstanding Mid Lothian leaflets encourage their citizens to actively oppose the plan. In February 2005, these three councils were allowed to petition for the scheme to be declared unlawful in the Court of Appeal. They argue that concessions to residents in the Edinburgh council area who live far away from some of their inhabitants from the capital, make the scheme unfair. Further they also requested a statement that the Edinburgh City council had acted illegally in not accepting the recommendations of a public inquiry and that there was no legal force to finance public transport outside the city limits. The Scottish Borders Council also opposed the scheme and wanted an extended referendum for their residents.
After the introduction of congestion charges in London, Professor David Begg, chairman of the Integrated Transportation Commission, cited the success report as an excuse to continue the Edinburgh scheme. Two groups are prepared to campaign for the introduction of bills and votes in the referendum, Yes to Edinburgh and Get Edinburgh Move . Objectionable with the indictment is the Edinburgh Community Against Charging Congestion, the retail business, and the National Alliance Against Toll.
The John Lewis Partnership, the owner of a department store in central Edinburgh, called for a reduction in charging hours downtown to reduce the impact on retail stores and public transport system improvements before costs begin. The Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce joins the Transportation Transport Association in requesting that all commercial vehicles be released, arguing that businesses should continue increasing their costs to consumers or leaving the city altogether. An early 2004 survey by the Chamber of Commerce had 90% of respondents reject the proposed scheme with two-thirds opposing road pricing as a matter of principle.
Preliminary results from the consultation showed that among respondents half supported cordon city center, but 44% supported the outer cordon. Concern is expressed on running mice and local air quality in northern Edinburgh if only the city center cordon was introduced. A survey conducted by Mid Lothian council showed 98% of the population opposed to the scheme. Ahead of the referendum, the council proposed an independent monitoring board for the scheme and the possibility of removal after two years if it did not succeed.
Referendum
The referendum was organized by the City Council of Edinburgh and was made by ballot from February 7, 2005 to February 21, 2005. The referendum cost  £ 600,000.
The questions asked in the Edinburgh motorway referendum are:
"This leaflet accompanying the ballot provides information about the Board's transport proposal to Edinburgh.The 'favorable' strategy of the Council includes congestion and increased transport investment funded by it Do you support the Council's 'choice' strategy?"/i>
There are fears that the referendum form is confusing. A dedicated board helpline receives 943 calls in one day. There are complaints that the question is biased, referring to the board's "election" strategy and there are concerns expressed by some political parties that the information leaflet attached to the form will also add to the confusion. Around 30,000 residents who have stated their preference not to receive junk mail on the election registration form can not be sent a voting form.
On February 22, 2005 results were announced, with the majority rejecting the proposal. With 61.7% of voters (179,643 votes) of potential voters 300,000, there are 133,678 votes against and 45,965 votes in favor. Rejection of 74.4% of votes cast.
Aftermath
The Council accepted the results of the referendum and did not implement their proposals. A final bill of £ 9 million was used for proposal development.
The House of Commons select committee on transportation suggested that the rejection of the scheme would delay plans to introduce other schemes in the UK.
Although the cost of public transport schemes is still politically debated at the local and Scottish levels, the council continues to spend money on Edinburgh's tramway network, buses, and new park and ride schemes.
In retrospect, the Edinburgh Transport Initiative notes that, despite an agreement that congestion needs to be confined, there is a clear public opposition to the concept of road pricing as a measure of direct traffic control. Failure to achieve their support is linked to a variety of factors:
- lack of consistent political will
- distrust of authority motif
- no strong whiz for schematics
- significant stakeholder opposition
- commitment to popular referendum
- the difference in perceptions between 'transport professionals' and stakeholders. Edinburgh scheme designers are trying to introduce a road pricing mechanism as a proxy to make road users pay the full marginal cost for their trips, while public opinion is a bottleneck that occurs due to an alternative to improper car travel, yet the scheme does not show a commitment to invest in an alternative before the pricing of the road will begin.
See also
- Automotive taxation in the United Kingdom
- Manchester congestion charges
- The congestion charge in Durham City
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments