1 / 15

29 th November 2005

29 th November 2005. REVENUE Congestion charging in Edinburgh: Cross-boundary acceptability. Russ Tricker Transport & Travel Research Ltd. Edinburgh. The proposed regulation scheme is a review of the current proposals for a double toll ring in Edinburgh.

tobias-landry
Download Presentation

29 th November 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 29th November 2005 REVENUE Congestion charging in Edinburgh: Cross-boundary acceptability Russ Tricker Transport & Travel Research Ltd

  2. Edinburgh The proposed regulation scheme is a review of the current proposals for a double toll ring in Edinburgh. The Case Study compared the proposed scheme to alternatives, looking at options for scheme and revenue apportionment enhancement.

  3. Edinburgh (2) – Main Issues • Institutional structure governing the RUC (Road User Charging) scheme • Review of consultation process • How to develop an acceptable strategy for spatial distribution of RUC revenues • Development of practical guidance for authorities planning equitable distribution of resources

  4. Background Consultation • Completed by University of Westminster • Six phase strategy • Inner and Outer cordon approach favoured most highly • Scheme that was taken forward to Public Inquiry • Early indications in phase 1 showed high levels of support for a type of RUC

  5. Phase 2 Preconditions set in place, with regards to revenue raised: The revenue must be spent on transport The money raised must be additional to existing funding Transparent accounting for income and expenditure Significant investment in public transport from outset Residents believed best allocation of revenue to be enhancements to bus services Background Consultation (2)

  6. Phase 3 14 schemes under consideration – filtered down to a more manageable 6! Preferred option pointed at double cordon scheme, involving a £1 daily charge between 7am-7pm, accepted on the basis of an integrated transport improvement package including: Bus service improvements within Edinburgh Bus service improvements in the surrounding area Background Consultation (3)

  7. Phase 5 Broad agreement from neighbouring authorities that congestion was set to worsen Acknowledgement of too much congestion BUT....... Distinct feeling of charging being a stealth tax Spatial distribution issues Over 50% of respondents in 6 out of 9 authorities believed that Edinburgh residents would be main beneficiaries Background Consultation (4)

  8. Neighbouring Fife Council main opponent of the scheme – went to public inquiry Fife claim over double charging, with little benefits accruing to them Spatial equity issues – Fife residents potentially funding improvements that would largely benefit just Edinburgh (e.g. bus service enhancements, 3rd tram line) Public Inquiry

  9. Scheme before the Public Inquiry Two cordon design (inner and outer cordon) £2 a day for inbound traffic 7.00am - 10am (outer); 7.00am - 6.30pm (inner) Edinburgh residents living outside the outer cordon would be exempt from the charge Concerns and Recommendations Remove outer exemption to Edinburgh residents – Rejected by City of Edinburgh Council The extent to which CEC could influence improvements to bus services (part of the package of measures) Public Inquiry (2)

  10. The referendum was decided upon by City of Edinburgh Council 22nd February 2005 74% Vote AGAINST! Consultation process leading up to referendum criticised as unrepresentative Further criticism in terms of not promoting the scheme effectively – low budget (£600K) compared to London (£12m) Referendum

  11. Consultation with non-city residents Inconsistent around neighbouring authorities Very few transport improvements in place prior to charging Not enough to heavy rail, more to bus and tram CUPID finding: Acceptability falls as scheme becomes more concrete and detailed Factors influencing user attitudes/acceptance

  12. Inconsistent approach – Package badly put together and uncoordinated Error made in commitment to referendum Political constraints Charging exemption and commitment to voters Enhanced orbital routes (bus services) Outer cordon and exemption poorly sold Evidence of funding and commitment to service improvement prior to charging Lessons Learnt

  13. Conclusions • Proposed revenue raising, allocation and application regimes in the case studies are not optimal – Edinburgh sought to maximise welfare for its own residents at expense of other authorities • Political barriers to urban road user charging imply that non-optimal ear-marking commitments must be made • Optimal cordon charges implied inefficient investment into other transport projects

  14. Ear-marking appears to be a pre-requisite for public acceptability, therefore some degree of earmarking is necessary Lack of legally binding mechanism to ensure revenue was ear-marked in the way promised There is a need to build consensus on a regional basis with an agreed and clearly committed use of revenue seen as efficient and fair Conclusions

  15. Russ Tricker Consultant Tel: 01543 416416 E-Mail: russell.tricker@ttr-ltd.com Web: http://www.ttr-ltd.com YOUR NAME POSITION TEL: E-Mail:

More Related