Published Articles
01.03.05 - The Parliamentary Monitor:
Edinburgh congestion charge - Prof. David Begg
The result of Edinburgh's referendum has firmly put the brakes on the city's proposals to introduce congestion charging, so what are the implications for the city and the rest of the UK?
Well, if the solution to congestion has disappeared, the problem is not going to go away so easily. One thing is clear. Traffic congestion is only going to get worse, damaging health, the environment and quality of life, not to mention journey times.
The UK has some of the worst traffic congestion in Europe. Our journey times are slowing and we are stuck in traffic for longer. Without radical action it is only going to go on getting worse.
For Edinburgh, the writing is on the wall but it does not have to be the same elsewhere. The city's politicians put the proposals to the electorate despite the political grief it would cause them because they knew the city had to do something about its congestion.
Charging would have improved city centre life, allowed traffic and public transport to flow more freely - and provided a revenue stream for some of the major public transport projects the city wanted to introduce.
Well now there's going to be no congestion relief and limited funding for the better transport infrastructure. There is no Plan B. The critics of charging could not find one either. With traffic predicted to rise by 25% by 2016 and congestion to potentially treble by 2021, the of quality of life in the city will undoubtedly deteriorate.
Edinburgh politicians were right to try and they fought a good campaign, so why did they lose? First, people do not like paying for something they currently get free, and a single issue referendum tends to expose that.
Second, some political groups were opportunistic, backing charging nationally and rejecting it locally for narrow short term gains. Third, our local authority boundaries are drawn too tightly, allowing neighbouring authorities to actively campaign against the proposals.
For the longer term, Edinburgh may have to wait to benefit from a national congestion charging which will take the heat away from the town halls gates. However, many of our other towns and cities cannot wait for national charging.
The lessons for governments in Scotland, England and Wales are clear. They need to create the structural and policy incentives that will encourage other local authorities to bring charging proposals forward.
Local authorities should be set congestion targets which will require radical action if they are going to achieve them. Failure will mean that funding currently being allocated for their public transport projects will be re-allocated instead to authorities who are willing to take the tough decisions to improve transport conditions and quality of life in their area.
Second, local authorities putting together their local transport plans are being encouraged to take a wider view of transport. This means building partnerships with neighbouring authorities to produce cohesive proposals that consider the wider interests of transport users across a whole travel to work area rather than the artificial local government boundaries.
Third, government funding to support the costs of innovative and coherent transport measures - which, to quote from the 2004 White Paper, will include road pricing, modal shift, and better bus services - will become available from the Transport Innovation Fund although mechanisms for deciding on allocations from this fund have not yet been confirmed.
Since congestion charging began in London traffic in the heart of the city is down 18%, congestion has been slashed by 30% and bus routes in the charging area face 60% less delays due to congestion. And it is all good for our health too. Traffic-related CO2 emissions are down 20% while NOx and PM10 have slumped 16%.
Car journey times are 14% faster, bus use has risen by a third and passenger satisfaction levels have never been higher with 80% of people believing the capital is now an easier place to get around.
No city is going to achieve the transport balance it wants without emulating London and adopting a "carrot and stick" approach". Last year I visited Munich with my colleagues on the Commission for Integrated Transport.
The Bavarian capital is a public transport role model for UK cities: high investment, low fares, trams and urban trains - all integrated. However, there is one snag. Despite rising public transport expenditure year on year passenger numbers are falling and car use is rising. Why? Because there is little car restraint at the home of BMW where politicians are frightened to do anything that appears anti car.
It was Mick McGahey the Scottish miners' leader who said there is nothing as painful as the birth of a new idea. The current belief that we can somehow solve congestion without restraining our car use is one we need to firmly dispel if we are going to turn around results like those in Edinburgh.
Professor David Begg is chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport.