In his June 2004 transport white paper 'The Future of Transport', UK Transport Secretary Alistair Darling set out the need to deliver road pricing across the country if traffic congestion is to be tackled. Drawing on best practice and evidence from London and overseas, this conference questioned what role road pricing can and should play in Scotland.

 

London's city centre congestion charging scheme has proved enormously successful in addressing traffic problems in an overcrowded urban area, despite initial political and media scepticism. On the continent, Austria and Switzerland have put in place charging schemes for lorries on trunk roads and there are plans to implement such a scheme in the UK. The immediate context for the day’s debate was the plan to introduce congestion charging in Edinburgh.

 

The 'Taking Charge' conference brought together experts with varied experience who presented different aspects of the road pricing debate and fielded questions from the audience. The final session offered an opportunity for members of opposition political parties to express their views on congestion charging and provide credible alternatives to resolve the worsening traffic problem. The morning’s proceedings were chaired by David Spaven from TRANSform Scotland.

 

The conference began with Professor David Begg from the UK Commission for Integrated Transport outlining why changes should be made to the way we pay for road use. There are no pure infrastructure solutions to traffic problems. Paris has a good integrated public transport system but any road space vacated is just filled by more vehicles. Therefore improved public transport will not resolve congestion – the shift from private to public transport seen in London was motivated by the congestion charge. Public transport tends to be criticised by people who don’t actually use the services; investment in public transport in Scotland is enormous and Edinburgh in particular has a good, frequent bus system. Congestion charging would further improve bus use, reduce accident rates and reduce the need for additional road capacity. The size and responsibilities of local authorities impacts upon the ability to deliver integrated transport schemes – but this is not insuperable. Without action on the traffic problem now, congestion will continue to grow and Edinburgh will suffer reduced quality of life. David Begg highlighted a "doomsday scenario" for Edinburgh of no congestion charge yet more road-building, such as the proposed Second Forth Road Bridge.

 

Professor George Hazel, from the Institution of Highways & Transportation summarised the results of the Department for Transport's (DfT) Feasibility study of road pricing. Presently in the UK car vehicle excise duty is a single yearly tax. Charging by the amount of use, in the same way that we pay for electricity or gas, would be more fair and equitable. National road pricing is possible and can meet the government's traffic reduction objectives although local political support is required as well as greater public trust of government. Trust will be encouraged by ensuring revenues gained are used appropriately so that charging is deemed to be more than a way of making money for government.

 

Further work on fair and effective road user charging in Britain in parallel to the DfT report has been conducted by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Tony Grayling highlighted how as people have become wealthier they make longer journeys, causing more road traffic growth and more road traffic congestion which in turn leads to the need for additional road capacity. Pollutant emissions from road transport are growing and they presently make up 25% of UK carbon dioxide emissions – a significant contributor to climate change.

 

The proposed reforms to our century-old system of road taxation should not, as feared, have great impacts upon low income motorists from rural areas. Road pricing conforms to the Polluter Pays Principle and charges to business motorists are offset by their gain through decreased congestion. To curb congestion and pollution, road pricing should be in addition to fuel duty as a package of measures including the abolition of the fixed charge vehicle excise duty and greater investment in public transport. National road pricing schemes will take a minimum of ten years to be feasible and intermediate steps such as the national HGV scheme, motorway tolling and urban congestion charging must be implemented now.

 

Malcolm Murray-Clark, Co-Director of Congestion Charging at Transport for London, demonstrated that media scepticism prior to introduction of the congestion charge in London was misled. The charge resulted in positive traffic changes, not least reductions in delays inside and going into the charging zone and successful traffic management on boundary routes. There was a shift in the transport mode used, rather than a reduction in actual numbers of people going into central London. Accidents rates went down and there was a good match between the volume of public transport required and the additional provision.

 

The success rested on the strong political commitment of the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, together with clear policy objectives and effective enforcement, good public transport alternatives and a strong public information campaign with easy to understand payment systems. Presently consultations are underway to extend the congestion charging scheme, and sustaining the current political commitment is crucial for this expansion.

 

London First was set up to promote London in 1992 and represents 300 major businesses. Tim Hockney, their transport project manager, thought it too early to make a comprehensive assessment of the effects of congestion charging on business and the economy. However initial indications show measurable benefits to most business sectors and Londoners in general. It has enabled faster and more reliable journeys, increased safety, and environmental benefits that have contributed to the positive image of London as a city that can deliver. This should be balanced against the generally small loss of sales revenue perceived by the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors. London First think improvements could be made to a number of aspects of the system and they do not support the extension of the scheme. However initial impacts on business and the economy are largely positive.

 

Richard Bourn, from the campaign group Transport 2000, stated that the success of the congestion charge in London was due to a clear understandable aim to reduce traffic. A majority of people were in favour when told that money was to be spent on transport improvements. Doom laden predictions by the press of traffic gridlock and displacement around the zone were accompanied by assertions that congestion charging was a tax on the low paid. However 40% of households in London do not have a car, with the lower paid tending to be more dependent on public transport. Congestion charging seems appropriate for Edinburgh where 40% of people do not have a car and 25% of journeys are made on foot. Reports suggest that retailers over-estimate the importance of car use to customers. In London congestion charging has increased public transport growth, greatly increased cycling, been good for social exclusion and the environment. The politician that introduced congestion charging has also benefited.

 

Leon Daniel, Commercial Director of UK Bus at FirstGroup, explained that his company had made thorough preparations before the introduction of the congestion charge in London through enormous investment to increase their service’s capacity. FirstGroup has gained economically and from improved bus routes and reduced frustration of bus passengers and consequently bus drivers. However the congestion charge is easy to criticise because unlike national road pricing, the charge is a flat rate and it also affects the company's staff. Importantly the charge only operates Monday to Friday and a significant proportion of customers who use cars do so outside of the charging times. Buses give back road space, improve safety and air quality and are value for tax payers. Congestion charging rewards brave political action and has helped to rebalance the long history of preference given to users and promoters of the private car.

 

Rob Edwards, the Environment Editor of the Sunday Herald, chaired the afternoon sessions. Stephanos Anastasiadis from the European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) presented experiences from Europe of traffic charging and restraint. Road transport has huge external costs and T&E represents NGOs in attempts to find real solution to the vicious circle of car use.

 

Giving examples of schemes from closed streets in Ancona in Rome to the controversial Toll ring system in Stockholm he demonstrated that real change requires investment – in terms of money, effort but most importantly political capital. However all are essential because even with money and political will schemes can fail; distance pricing in Germany was unsuccessful because of poor planning efforts evident by use of immature technology. Road pricing needs to be part of a coherent package. Fear of change can prevent action but decision-makers must be aware that published opinion is not the same as public opinion. Looming European air quality targets and London's success are real motivators for change.

 

The role of the Scottish Executive and challenges they face were outlined by Kirsty Lewin from the Executive's Transport Group. Traffic is predicted to increase by 27% over next 20 years and public transport use has decreased since the 1960s. This creates economic, social and environmental costs and clashes with their target to stabilise traffic at 2001 levels by 2021. Therefore the Executive are trying to promote a modal shift away from use of the private car through investment in public transport and encouragement to cycling and walking via development grants. Although road user charging has been enabled by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 the Scottish Executive has no power to charge on the trunk road network if it is part of a local scheme. They also have no control over motoring taxation or how local authorities choose to spend money. Kirsty asked what the Scottish Executive should be doing to help local authorities deliver demand management schemes.

 

Michael Howell from tie edinburgh outlined Edinburgh’s congestion charging plans. Edinburgh’s prosperity has created stress on the transport infrastructure – and the problem will become worse without action. Congestion charging will keep traffic flowing in outer Edinburgh and increase funds for public transport, benefiting the whole region. The scheme will have two cordons, one surrounding the inner city centre and the other the entire city. Both operate from Monday – Friday, although operating times vary:

 

Outer cordon - morning peak 7am-10am
Inner city centre cordon – working day 7am – 6.30pm

 

When you cross either cordon during the active period you will incur a flat fee of £2 per day – no more, no less, irrespective of how often the cordon is crossed. There are a number of exemptions from the charge including the emergency services. Investment is underway now. The inquiry will report in October 2004 [the inquiry subsequently reported in favour of the scheme] and if a referendum of city residents is positive the scheme will commence in 2006. To "do nothing" about the traffic problem is not an option.

 

The final session provided an opportunity of representatives of opposition political parties to present their viable alternatives to the Edinburgh congestion charge. Conservative Councillor Allan Jackson suggested extending the city centre controlled parking. Edinburgh Liberal Democrat Councillor Phil Wheeler was not opposed in principle to charging but was awaiting the outcome of the Public Local Inquiry, proposing significant enhancement of public transport prior to introduction of any charge. Kenny MacAskill MSP of the Scottish National Party (SNP) was not convinced this was an appropriate scheme for Edinburgh. He thought the charge may not be at a suitable level and considered Edinburgh was different from London in that retail customers might be attracted to out of town shopping centres such as Macarthur Glen in West Lothian – perhaps parking charges should be made in such locations. Rosie Kane MSP of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) was concerned that low paid workers would suffer – the organisation of the city means cars become a necessity rather than a luxury. She felt that people should not be taxed further - and that free public transport would reduce congestion.

 

It was clear that all of these concerns had been addressed by presentations during the conference. Mark Ballard MSP of the Scottish Green Party supports the proposed charge and was the only panel member that attended the rest of the conference. He was concerned that the alternatives presented by other political parties were only minor adjustments to existing schemes. Pointing out that there was already enormous investment in public transport and the specific parking controls advocated by the Conservative councillor were already happening. Edinburgh council tax payers deal with pollution caused by those that drive into Edinburgh. It is possible to get around using buses or bicycles but it requires a psychological shift. The congestion charge is a smart way to encourage socially beneficial activity and to create incentives for people to use their cars less – a state clearly desired by the Scottish Executive. In response to Mark Ballard and an audience largely supportive of the Edinburgh congestion-charging scheme Rosie Kane stated she would revise her position when given an opportunity to consider the findings in the conference report.

 

David Spaven concluded the day by drawing out five key issues from the conference:

• the London congestion charge in London had led to a 60% reduction in traffic disruption delays to buses
• businesses in London operating vehicle fleets had secured significant cost savings
• London had improved its image by demonstrating that it can deliver a radical improvement in its transport system in the face of media scaremongering and cynical political opportunism
• London demonstrates that congestion charging rewards brave politicians. Councillor Andrew Burns had been brave enough to put his head above the parapet, continuing the example set by David Begg in his Edinburgh years, and it's time that other Edinburgh politicians showed a bit of leadership and vision on this issue
• the Scottish Executive wants to know what it can do. Well, they could make a belated start by following the recommendations of the UK congestion charging steering group – namely by providing guidance and assistance to local authorities, and by informing and leading the debate.

David Spaven wished the opposition politicians had made the effort to attend the morning session of the conference, in which case they would have been a lot better informed about congestion charging than they evidently were. The Liberal Democrats and SNP had said that they want to see more public transport improvements in place before congestion charging is introduced yet the City Council was already committed to having in place £140 million worth of improvements by 2006. Spaven asked what they wanted before they'd back congestion charging in practice - rather than just "in principle".

Spaven concluded by saying that the critics of congestion charging had argued that it wouldn't work in London - yet it was now clearly working very well, with overall traffic levels in and around the city centre significantly reduced, and big benefits for the city economy, public health and road safety. Over the last couple of years, and despite frequent opportunities to state their case, the opponents of congestion charging in Edinburgh had failed to come up with any convincing alternatives to congestion charging if gridlock in Scotland's capital is to be avoided. If the critics can't put up, it was time for them to withdraw gracefully from the debate.

Conference report by Anna McLauchlan. Photos by Tom Ward.

Additional conference materials:

TRANSform Scotland Taking Charge' report launched at the conference [PDF, 348K]

Conference programme [PDF, 508K]

Media coverage of the conference:

Sunday Herald, 19/09/04: 'Top car makers suppport road-jam charging'

Edinburgh Evening News, 02/10/04: 'Opposition to road tolls will 'evaporate''

Sunday Herald, 03/10/04: 'Capital to use London data to support congestion charges'

Edinburgh Evening News, 04/10/04: 'Begg warns of 'doomsday' on second bridge'

Scotsman, 05/10/04: 'Warning of 'nightmare scenario' if road tolls are vetoed'

Further information on road pricing / congestion charging:

Edinburgh congestion charge proposal: see the Transport Edinburgh website

Transport for London: London's congestion charge website
Transport for London: information on congestion charging schemes worldwide briefing

UK Commission for Integrated Transport: CfIT congestion charging website
UK Commission for Integrated Transport: Paying for Road Use report (2002)

EU: Urban Transport Pricing in Europe website
Progress - website of 8-city European project
T&E: Road Pricing in Urban Areas report (2003)

Nottingham University sustainable urban travel - Road Pricing / Congestion Charging / Economics of Car Use bibliography