29th November 2005

REVENUE REVENUE

Congestion charging in Congestion charging in Edinburgh: Cross-boundary Edinburgh: Cross-boundary

acceptabilityacceptability

Russ TrickerRuss Tricker

Transport & Travel Research LtdTransport & Travel Research Ltd

EdinburghEdinburgh

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.

Edinburgh (2) – Main IssuesEdinburgh (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

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

Background Consultation (2)

• 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 (3)

• 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 (4)• 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

Public Inquiry

• 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 (2)

• 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)

Referendum

• 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)

Factors influencing user attitudes/acceptance

• 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

Lessons Learnt

• 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

ConclusionsConclusions• 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

Conclusions

• 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

Russ TrickerRuss Tricker

ConsultantConsultant

Tel: 01543 416416

E-Mail: russell.tricker@ttr-ltd.com

Web: http://www.ttr-ltd.com