Edinburgh's traffic toll plan raises a stink

As in Auckland, Edinburgh's streets are clogged with traffic, but a recent poll showed that 65 per cent of people were against the council's proposed congestion charges. Picture / Reuters

With a nickname of "Auld Reekie", it is perhaps not surprising that the Scottish capital is in the front line of efforts to cut the congestion clogging its streets.

But with a week to go before the result is known of Britain's first referendum on congestion charging, it appears the inhabitants are gridlocked in their support for reducing traffic pollution while at the same time limiting their personal transport options.

Edinburgh council is seeking residents' views on its preferred transport programme, which includes the introduction of a congestion charge for motorists entering the city to be invested in an improved and increased public transport system.

A "yes" vote would make Edinburgh the first city in the UK to be entirely cordoned for charging - London's scheme is restricted to the city centre only - and pro campaigners claim the 2 ($5.25) charge will generate 760 million over the next 20 years, to be spent on developing world-class tram and train links.

Although Edinburgh is a booming European capital, a world heritage site and the centre of Scotland's financial power, years of investment failures in the public transport system have left many commuters with little choice but to use their vehicles.

"Edinburgh is producing jobs faster than it is adding to its population.

"This is good news for the people of the whole region, but we have to find a way of getting them into the city without choking the streets with cars which are often carrying only one person," said Ray Perman, chairman of Yes to Edinburgh, and board member of Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothians.

According to Edinburgh City Council, the last 40 years has seen a dramatic rise in traffic congestion and with the latest economic trends predicting more than 50,000 people will move into the area, increasing traffic by some 25 per cent in the next decade, the situation is rapidly becoming critical.

Now the council hopes to address the issue with the introduction of a two-cordon scheme, with one inner cordon around the city centre boundary and an outer cordon following the city ring road.

Drivers would pay at ticket machines, by text message, online, by post or in shops while cameras will be placed at the cordons to identify non-payers.

However, motorcycles, bicycles, taxis, buses and coaches, disabled badge holders, breakdown trucks, car club vehicles and emergency vehicles would be exempt from the charge, which would apply from 7am to 6.30pm at the inner cordon, and from 7am to 10am at the outer boundary on weekdays.

Those motorists who have to pay would be charged only once a day and would not have to pay extra for crossing both cordons.

Despite the city's promise to invest all the money from congestion charging in developing improved public transport, the proposal has been condemned by critics as putting the stick before the carrot.

Many argue that alternative options need to be in place before vehicles are driven from the roads.

Edinburgh's motorists already feel set upon by the city's harsh privatised parking control system whose uniformed wardens, The Blue Meanies, are widely criticised for raising millions in profits from errant drivers.

"This is all really about dissuading unnecessary or non-essential journeys," said Andrew Burns, Edinburgh's transport chief, who denies being anti-motorist.

"There is no city with a population of 500,000 that has decreased congestion just by improving public transport.

"We all know that current traffic trends are unsustainable and, frankly, no other alternative solution is on offer.

"Only a 'yes' vote will secure an Edinburgh with less congestion and cleaner air, more buses and trams, fewer accidents and safer streets."

But a yes vote is far from certain as many residents claim to have found the arguments in favour of congestion charges unconvincing.

Polls carried out by the local Edinburgh Evening News have suggested that more than 65 per cent of the city's inhabitants are against the scheme. Edinburgh's retailers are also concerned that the charge will not be enough to solve the city's traffic problems but it will be enough to damage their businesses.

A survey of 1500 shoppers at John Lewis, Jenners, Harvey Nichols, Debenhams, and Marks & Spencer stores revealed fears that shoppers might abandon the city centre if the plan goes ahead.

It is estimated by the 'No' campaigners that retail sales could drop by as much as 7 per cent from Monday to Friday, resulting in lost revenue of more than 38 million a year to shopkeepers.

The heated debate has also achieved a rare show of unity among Scottish parliamentarians, from the Tories, LibDems, Scottish National Party (SNP) and the Scottish Socialist Party, who are all opposed to the charge.

"We accept congestion is a problem and that the status quo is not an option, but this proposal is the wrong scheme at the wrong time," said Kenny McCaskill, of the SNP.

The Edinburgh LibDems, the main opposition party, insist further transport improvements should be in place before charging is introduced.

"We believe that these plans do not deliver the package that Edinburgh deserves. We need trams before tolls, carrots before sticks," said Margaret Smith, of the Liberal Democrats.

While supporters claim a yes vote will avoid large parts of Edinburgh breaking air pollution standards and prevent some of the 240 deaths attributed city-wide to air pollution every year, opponents see it as another stealth tax.

"This is nothing more than another tax on motorists who already pay the highest fuel tax and duties in Europe," said David McLetchie, Scottish Conservative leader.

"The 2 proposed charge is only the thin end of the wedge as can be seen from [London Mayor] Ken Livingstone's plans to hike the London fee by 60 per cent to 8 per day."

Despite the relative success of the London congestion charge introduced last year, only Durham council has followed suit with a self-styled congestion charging policy.

If the Edinburgh proposal is approved by the city's 291,200 eligible voters, who have until next Monday to return their ballot papers, the first congestion charging scheme in Scotland will begin next year.

"With traffic levels rising, and legal air pollution targets set to be breached, putting health at risk, there is no excuse for delay in introducing congestion charging," said Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, who claim the political parties opposing the scheme are damaging their own green credentials.

"All these parties have previously claimed to support environmental concerns. All their environmental credentials must be called into question by this strange alliance."

But an apolitical umbrella group of community associations and councils is also against the scheme.

"Most people agree that car use needs to be reduced, but the City of Edinburgh Council has put together a two-cordon double-noose which neither reduces car use nor improves air quality," said Tina Woolnough, co-ordinator of Edinburgh Communities Against Congestion Charging.

"Traffic is predicted to increase between the two cordons, as drivers rat-run to avoid the city centre charge and the morning rush-hour bypass charge.

"In the city centre, where there should be benefits, air quality is predicted to get worse because taxis, vans, buses and lorries will significantly increase in numbers and they are the worst polluters."

- INDEPENDENT