RE: Edinburgh delivers body blow to road pricing
Wednesday 23rd February 2005
Edinburgh delivers body blow to road pricing
"Sack Begg" says ABD as congestion charge rejected in Scottish capital
The ABD has demanded the removal of David Begg, former Edinburgh Councillor and chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport, following the decisive rejection of his policies in his own back yard.
Edinburgh residents today rejected congestion charges by a majority of nearly three to one, in a landmark poll conducted by the council. Of the 290,000 eligible to vote, a 62 per cent turnout delivered a stunning majority against the proposed £2 charge.
The ABD said the rejection of road pricing as a transport solution would have been even more overwhelming had the council not disenfranchised people who live outside the charging zone, but who are nonetheless key transport stakeholders with as much right as anyone to have their say. This was a shameless appeal to Nimbyism by the council in a vain attempt to fix the result in their favour, said the ABD.
"This is a body blow to the Government's road pricing plans," said the ABD's Nigel Humphries. "Edinburgh Council pulled out all the propaganda stops to get people to approve their scheme. But Edinburgh people aren't stupid - they know that much of the congestion is a direct result of David Begg's anti-car measures and opposition to infrastructure investment."
The ABD said that David Begg was made chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport after a long track record of introducing obstructive anti-car measures -- road closures, narrowings, bus lanes, parking restrictions - in Edinburgh. He has gone on record as saying that investment in transport should be a last resort.
"Begg's policies are to obstruct and inconvenience motorists at every turn, whilst charging them through the nose for the privilege and offering them no decent public transport alternative," continued Humphries. "Edinburgh has had to put up with this nonsense longer than most - and now the people have spoken. It's time for Begg to go and for someone with a more sensible, positive approach to transport choices to take his place."
45,965 residents backed the charge, with 133,678 against, in a two-week postal ballot.
Discussion
This is good news and it shows how there is disapproval for the government's road plans, but only if they ask.
I have a feeling that on the back of this the government will just impose whatever they want without asking, just in case the people say 'no'.
Selfish little children, aren't they? Did London get a choice? No.
I have a feeling that on the back of this the government will just impose whatever they want without asking, just in case the people say 'no'.
Selfish little children, aren't they? Did London get a choice? No.
Hmmm - lets not simplify the issue - they're trying to solve a very complex problem......Polution, thousands being killed on the roads every year (imagine the outcry if 3,500 people were killed in plane crashes every year, the effect on the families are no different), destruction of the environment and obesity to name just a few.
I love my cars and bikes, but even I know that opposing everything that is an inconvienience without thought is just as bad as proposing restrictive measures without thought !
I'm not saying I agree with road charging(though London is certainly cleaner for it), but how else do you deal with the problem ??
Is life so great sitting in a traffic jam ?
The best way is to provide good clean virtually free public transport so that it becomes the 'logical' choice for a journey.....but of course that means the Government putting up the money first....
I love my cars and bikes, but even I know that opposing everything that is an inconvienience without thought is just as bad as proposing restrictive measures without thought !
I'm not saying I agree with road charging(though London is certainly cleaner for it), but how else do you deal with the problem ??
Is life so great sitting in a traffic jam ?
The best way is to provide good clean virtually free public transport so that it becomes the 'logical' choice for a journey.....but of course that means the Government putting up the money first....
sketchytrail said:
Is life so great sitting in a traffic jam ?
The best way is to provide good clean virtually free public transport so that it becomes the 'logical' choice for a journey.....but of course that means the Government putting up the money first....
Too true. So it'll never happen.
Public Transport will only ever be the logical choice for commuter tafffic into the centre of big cities.
For other purposes it is too inflexible. I will give you an example my travel itinery for Sunday.
I live in the outskirts of South east London and we first drove to Golders Green in West London to pick up my wife's friend who is visiting the country for the week.
We then drove to Stonehenge (it was bloody freezing and we didn't stay long)-after that we decided to stop in Salisbury for lunch since it was nearby. We then drove to Hampton Court Palace and had a nice look around. Then off to Windsor for a look at the castle before dinner, then drove back to Golders Green and then back home again.
Now if we had gone by Public Transport, even improved public transport this would have taken two days not one. Public transport is simply too inflexible.
For other purposes it is too inflexible. I will give you an example my travel itinery for Sunday.
I live in the outskirts of South east London and we first drove to Golders Green in West London to pick up my wife's friend who is visiting the country for the week.
We then drove to Stonehenge (it was bloody freezing and we didn't stay long)-after that we decided to stop in Salisbury for lunch since it was nearby. We then drove to Hampton Court Palace and had a nice look around. Then off to Windsor for a look at the castle before dinner, then drove back to Golders Green and then back home again.
Now if we had gone by Public Transport, even improved public transport this would have taken two days not one. Public transport is simply too inflexible.
sketchytrail said:But most of this is from buses & taxis in Edinburgh; a car sitting behind a bus will actually be cleaning the air in most cases....
Polution,
sketchytrail said:In Edinburgh most deaths are from buses hitting pedestrians in bus lanes (have a look at Safespeed's site for similar stats for UK)
thousands being killed on the roads every year
sketchytrail said:Yes, but let's have the full figures/stats looked at.
I love my cars and bikes, but even I know that opposing everything that is an inconvienience without thought is just as bad as proposing restrictive measures without thought !
sketchytrail said:Edinburgh isn't that bed, despite the anti car congestion/traffic-enraging measures put in place over the last decade. I can only imagine how much better it would be if they designed things to make cars move smoothly.
Is life so great sitting in a traffic jam ?
My mother-in-law was once told by a councillor:
"There are plenty of busses madam, you just don't want go where they go!"
There would be far less congestion if the road designers hadn't been encouraged to be private transport hostile. A good example on the Isle of Wight is Coppins Bridge. It could be made to be much more efficient fairly easily, but the council (encouraged by central government) spent the money on contraflow bus lanes round Newport town centre instead.
We now get tourists being hit by busses driving the "wrong" way down one-way streets
and the busses still have to queue with everything else to get in and out of town...
And they call it "progress" and "green"...
Grumble!
"There are plenty of busses madam, you just don't want go where they go!"
There would be far less congestion if the road designers hadn't been encouraged to be private transport hostile. A good example on the Isle of Wight is Coppins Bridge. It could be made to be much more efficient fairly easily, but the council (encouraged by central government) spent the money on contraflow bus lanes round Newport town centre instead.
We now get tourists being hit by busses driving the "wrong" way down one-way streets
and the busses still have to queue with everything else to get in and out of town... And they call it "progress" and "green"...
Grumble!
sketchytrail said:
The best way is to provide good clean virtually free public transport so that it becomes the 'logical' choice for a journey.....but of course that means the Government putting up the money first....
Free? How would it be free, you mean free to the end user?
So I, as a tax paying small business man who doesn't need to use public transport, will have to stump up the money to subsidise a system which would benefit large businesses and public bodies who can afford to set up shop in City centres. How is that free?
And where is this clean public transport of which you speak? Outside of the brief rush hours around here we have an endless stream of empty, smoking, choking double decker busses which are clean neither literally nor figuratively.
So lets make them all electric! And what are you going to use to generate electricity, coal, oil and gas because nobody want a windmill on their favourite hill (and thats before we get into the reality of the efficiencies of electrical transport systems).
In the real world cars are the answer if only a government would grasp the nettle of sensible planning and encouraging flexible working (which they wont because they all live in London and have never done a days real work in their lives).
We never used to have 'congestion'; we used to have a rush hour, when everyone travelled to work/school, or back home.
Seems to me we have the same thing now, only it has now been labelled as 'congestion', so it can be used as a political bogeyman, and used as a reason for controlling measures which are otherwise unwarranted.
It seems to have escaped the realisation of the anti-congestion brigade that traffic is people going about their business, be it for work, social, family, shoppoing, or whatever other reason. Reducing traffic will stop people doing these things - and why do you want to do that?
If congestion was really that bad, people would look to alternatives - a self-levelling problem.
And in Edinburgh, most of the rush-hour pollution, and a significant proportion of the congestion, comes from buses.
I know, lets put tram lines all over central Edinburgh to smooth the traffic flow
Seems to me we have the same thing now, only it has now been labelled as 'congestion', so it can be used as a political bogeyman, and used as a reason for controlling measures which are otherwise unwarranted.
It seems to have escaped the realisation of the anti-congestion brigade that traffic is people going about their business, be it for work, social, family, shoppoing, or whatever other reason. Reducing traffic will stop people doing these things - and why do you want to do that?
If congestion was really that bad, people would look to alternatives - a self-levelling problem.
And in Edinburgh, most of the rush-hour pollution, and a significant proportion of the congestion, comes from buses.
I know, lets put tram lines all over central Edinburgh to smooth the traffic flow Easy guys !!!
I didn't say I had all the answers !!
Where does all my income/road tax go ? - to Brussels I expect and then to some scam subsidy instead of into repairing the roads and on our real needs!!!
All I know is that there are answers out there, but anything is going to prove unpopular if it dares change the 'norm' or means putting people out in the short term.
Parents won't let their kids walk/cycle to school bacause of all the traffic....i.e. other parents in their cars - it's a catch 22 with no way out
(and before someone says it I know some people live a long way from school so have no option, but many drive less than a mile)
What's going to happen when the oil runs out - where's the planning for that ??
The main trouble is - as has been said, that most planning is undertaken by those who have their own agenda and don't live in the real world...
I didn't say I had all the answers !!
Where does all my income/road tax go ? - to Brussels I expect and then to some scam subsidy instead of into repairing the roads and on our real needs!!!
All I know is that there are answers out there, but anything is going to prove unpopular if it dares change the 'norm' or means putting people out in the short term.
Parents won't let their kids walk/cycle to school bacause of all the traffic....i.e. other parents in their cars - it's a catch 22 with no way out
(and before someone says it I know some people live a long way from school so have no option, but many drive less than a mile)
What's going to happen when the oil runs out - where's the planning for that ??
The main trouble is - as has been said, that most planning is undertaken by those who have their own agenda and don't live in the real world...
sketchytrail said:
What's going to happen when the oil runs out - where's the planning for that ??
In one corner we have the research and devlopment of fuel cell technology. In the other corner (my prefereance) we have the research and development of vegi fuels - did not a PHer quote somewhere that Brazil are already into this in a big way?
There was an interesting article in the Times on-line earlier this week, which revealed how the Government has published guidelines for local authoritites that states that the cost of transport/congestion improvement schemes has to include the lost revenue if drivers desert their cars for new public transport alternatives.
A large number of potential improvements have been stopped because the loss of revenue to the Goverment would be too high.
If you look at the Dartford Crossing Toll for instance, the toll is not big enough to actually reduce traffic, and actually creates congestion as vehicles stop to pay the toll. This should have been removed last year, but it was decided to continue charging to keep the money coming in, despite the pollution, congestion, time wasting and dangerous traffic bunching that it creates.
A large number of potential improvements have been stopped because the loss of revenue to the Goverment would be too high.
If you look at the Dartford Crossing Toll for instance, the toll is not big enough to actually reduce traffic, and actually creates congestion as vehicles stop to pay the toll. This should have been removed last year, but it was decided to continue charging to keep the money coming in, despite the pollution, congestion, time wasting and dangerous traffic bunching that it creates.
I'm surprised to see no comments on the lead story in The Times the other day, about the Treasury's influence over environmental and 'green' tarffic schemes. Local Authorities, when considering such schemes, have to include in their business case the reduction in revenue (road tax and fuel duty) expected as traffic reduces. In fact, this figure has to be added to the overall cost of the scheme. One scheme in the Midlands increased by 20% when this was taken into consideration - the whole scheme was then shelved (after 3 years consultation) because it became 'uneconomic'. Others are taking years to get approved due the changes forced on the designers when these additional costs are included.
So, the Governments true intentions are revealed. On the one hand they sign up to the Kyoto Agreement, on the other they block the very schemes that may contribute to reaching its targets - they don't want to lose the revenue (£43B and counting) from the hapless motorist.
By the way, these reports have come to light through the Freedom of Information Act - it might be worth targetting Local Councils and see what else has been shelved due to Treasury interfence.
So, the Governments true intentions are revealed. On the one hand they sign up to the Kyoto Agreement, on the other they block the very schemes that may contribute to reaching its targets - they don't want to lose the revenue (£43B and counting) from the hapless motorist.
By the way, these reports have come to light through the Freedom of Information Act - it might be worth targetting Local Councils and see what else has been shelved due to Treasury interfence.
stenniso said:
If you look at the Dartford Crossing Toll for instance, the toll is not big enough to actually reduce traffic, and actually creates congestion as vehicles stop to pay the toll. This should have been removed last year, but it was decided to continue charging to keep the money coming in, despite the pollution, congestion, time wasting and dangerous traffic bunching that it creates.
Seems like revenue is the true goal here then, even at the expense of creating more congestion and thus pollution. Now there's a surprise.
This is what the £761m would have been spent on, base strategy is leaving things as is, prefered is with the charge. Hope the formatting is not too bad
Schemes to be completed under Base and Preferred Strategy options for Edinburgh
Schemes Base Preferred
North and West Edinburgh Trams 375 375
South Edinburgh Tram - 177
Rail Improvements within Edinburgh - 4
Rapid Transit on City Bypass 8 9
Bus service and fare initiatives - 91
Bus Priority,interchange, info & ticketing 7 14
Additional maintenance on main routes - 50
Grants to reduce pollution from taxis and bus 3 11
Community transport (dial-a-bus, taxicard etc) - 18
City Centre improvements to street environment 12 18
City Centre marketing measures - 15
20mph zones, improvements for pedestrians and road safety schemes 8 21
Security improvements on public transport (staff, CCTV etc) - 3
Cycling network and promotion 5 18
Awareness, education and personalised travel information - 10
Allowance for other projects 4 19
Waverley Station upgrade* NA NA
Edinburgh Airport Rail Link* NA NA
* nationally funded project
>> Edited by workshy fop on Wednesday 23 February 13:36
Schemes to be completed under Base and Preferred Strategy options for Edinburgh
Schemes Base Preferred
North and West Edinburgh Trams 375 375
South Edinburgh Tram - 177
Rail Improvements within Edinburgh - 4
Rapid Transit on City Bypass 8 9
Bus service and fare initiatives - 91
Bus Priority,interchange, info & ticketing 7 14
Additional maintenance on main routes - 50
Grants to reduce pollution from taxis and bus 3 11
Community transport (dial-a-bus, taxicard etc) - 18
City Centre improvements to street environment 12 18
City Centre marketing measures - 15
20mph zones, improvements for pedestrians and road safety schemes 8 21
Security improvements on public transport (staff, CCTV etc) - 3
Cycling network and promotion 5 18
Awareness, education and personalised travel information - 10
Allowance for other projects 4 19
Waverley Station upgrade* NA NA
Edinburgh Airport Rail Link* NA NA
* nationally funded project
>> Edited by workshy fop on Wednesday 23 February 13:36
xm5er said:
The best way is to provide good clean virtually free public transport so that it becomes the 'logical' choice for a journey.....but of course that means the Government putting up the money first....
Free? How would it be free, you mean free to the end user?
So I, as a tax paying small business man who doesn't need to use public transport, will have to stump up the money to subsidise a system which would benefit large businesses and public bodies who can afford to set up shop in City centres. How is that free?
Anything that takes a few lentilists off the roads, leaving them for me, is worth a few bob as far as I'm concerned.
Don Veloci said:
sketchytrail said:
What's going to happen when the oil runs out - where's the planning for that ??
In one corner we have the research and devlopment of fuel cell technology. In the other corner (my prefereance) we have the research and development of vegi fuels - did not a PHer quote somewhere that Brazil are already into this in a big way?
Yes ethanol brewed from sugar cane.
In some countries you can now buy a Ford Focus which uses ethanol. Because the fuel supply infrastructure is relatively undeveloped you can put in unleaded petrol or ethanol in whatever proportions you want and the engine management black box wizardry just sorts it all out.
Been in one in Sweden and it really does work well.
stenniso said:
There was an interesting article in the Times on-line earlier this week, which revealed how the Government has published guidelines for local authoritites that states that the cost of transport/congestion improvement schemes has to include the lost revenue if drivers desert their cars for new public transport alternatives.
I commented on this on another thread. It's not just the loss of tax revenue for drivers deserting cars to public transport, it is also included if just the congestion is removed, ie less cars queuing with engines idling and so on.
West Midlands had a scheme to improve a lot of difficult junctions which caused severe congestion. Basically the way the calculation works re the "loss of tax revenue because drivers no longer delayed element" the scheme cost doubled and was therfore not approved.
And they say it's not about the money
Finally I need to add on something that has been said today. Because of the Edinburgh result quite a number of other cities have decided that they are unlikely to be able to proceed with congestion charging.
However a number of the more anti-car ones e.g. Bristol have said that they feel a referendum before charging is installed is an unfair way of going about things. They suggest that charging be installed, operated for one year then hold a referendum.
Eh? Pardon? Lunatics really are in charge of the asylum.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 23 February 15:40
Speed Matters | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff