CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"Alastair Dalton: Congestion charging back on the agenda amid record traffic"

(21 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Paul White, of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents bus and coach operators, said charging should be considered, pointing out that a bus could replace 73 cars.

    ...

    Transport minister Humza Yousaf told delegates at the Scotland Policy Conferences event “It’s not part of the Scottish Government’s ambition at the moment. Local authorities can take a different view” – but he added “It’s going to take political courage.”

    When drivers complain about traffic delays, many forget they contributed to that gridlock.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/alastair-dalton-congestion-charging-back-on-the-agenda-amid-record-traffic-1-4393913

    Posted 7 years ago #

  2. gembo
    Member

    Courage yes and no referendum on it. Those driving turkeys will never vote for Xmas.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    “It’s going to take political courage” said the minister before running off to the wee boys' room.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  4. HankChief
    Member

    What I've never understood about congestion charging is why it is always being framed as charging those coming into the city.

    Yes, 'outsiders' do drive through our city, but an awful lot of unnecessary driving is by 'locals'.

    Shouldn't we be tackling both and wouldn't it be easier to change 'locals' behaviour than 'outsiders'.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  5. stiltskin
    Member

    Dunno about that. When the Bridge closed I thought traffic in the West of Edinburgh was noticeably lighter.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  6. Min
    Member

    It definitely is both. If you go to somewhere like the Royal at kicking out time you will see a massive queue of cars waiting to head into town. Meanwhile, up the hill south of there is a massive queue of cars going out of town. Motorists who live in the city are driving to the outskirts of it and motorists who live outside are driving into the centre. It doesn't have to be that way. There is even a park and ride up there.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  7. neddie
    Member

    "Free at the point-of-use" of a limited resource always leads to demand limitation by queuing or rationing.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  8. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    "Free at the point-of-use" of a limited resource always leads to demand limitation by queuing or rationing.

    Rationing is fine by me, queuing is rubbish. Would our Nordic friends not argue for behaviour management through making alternatives more attractive? Many people who drive hate it. Many young people don't drive because it's expensive and they can't use their phones at the wheel.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  9. gibbo
    Member

    @gembo

    Courage yes and no referendum on it. Those driving turkeys will never vote for Xmas.

    I wonder at what price point that the value of time saved would exceed the cost of the charge.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  10. neddie
    Member

    behaviour management through making alternatives more attractive

    Fully agree.

    However to do that, you would have to limit even further (by a great deal) the resource allocation to private motors.

    Reducing the resource allocation to motors would still mean that demand would be limited by either queuing or rationing.

    I do not think you could make buses, walking or biking so attractive that the supply of the resource for cars would exceed demand, unless of course you banned cars altogether.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  11. neddie
    Member

    @gibbo

    I wonder at what price point that the value of time saved would exceed the cost of the charge.

    Let the free market decide. The pricing should not be determined by politicians, instead it should be decided via 'performance pricing':

    https://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/04/04/donald-shoup/free-parking-or-free-markets

    (What can be applied to parking, can also be applied to moving traffic lanes)

    Posted 7 years ago #

  12. ih
    Member

    I can't understand why workplace parking levies aren't more widely advocated. It's worked really well in Nottingham and generated lots of money for public transport.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  13. Morningsider
    Member

    ih - workplace parking levies are literally that - the workplace pays for them. In Nottingham, some companies pass the charge on to people with a parking space and others have just soaked it up. This means companies are generally against them.

    The key concern for politicians is that it might drive away potential investors - possibly an issue for some deprived former industrial areas, but not really an issue for Edinburgh and the like (I would have thought).

    Posted 7 years ago #

  14. ih
    Member

    @Morningsider I know the workplace pays for them (although I believed some workplaces passed the charge on to the employees - could be wrong there) and I recognise that it might act as some disincentive to investment. However, someone has to pay (literally) for the havoc that our car-based culture has created, and I still can't understand why the workplace parking levy isn't more widely considered as it does seem to have several merits; Nottingham's car usage has fallen, and it has generated money for public transport, especially an expansion of its tram network. Could have something to do with there being a mayor there who was prepared to take the political risk.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. gibbo
    Member

    Let the free market decide

    I was thinking more in the sense of selling it to the public as a good thing for most drivers.

    If it were me, I'd make the point that air quality is below legal levels. The law's the law, so something must be done. These are the options:

    #1: Paris style restrictions where, on some days, only people with certain (either odd or even) license plate numbers are allowed into the city.

    #2: Banning cars from certain main routes, and forcing them to take long detours (e.g. via bypass) This would speed up public transport and disincentivise driving.

    #3: Congestion charge.

    Presented this way, I'm sure option 3 would be very attractive.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. neddie
    Member

    @gibbo

    My point about the free-market is that politicians/councillors should not be allowed to set the prices. If they do, then the issue becomes "political" and hence unpopular.

    If prices are set and adjusted regularly such that roads are kept at say 80% capacity during the peaks, i.e performance pricing, then everything is de-politicised and motorists will be able to see the benefits (rather than blaming politcos for some sort of money making scheme). Funds raised could be ploughed back into public transport or active travel.

    As more money is invested in alternative forms of transport, so the demand from motor cars reduces, thus also reducing the road-charging price until things stabilise at the 80% capacity again. Everyone becomes a winner.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. crowriver
    Member

    The free market model won't reduce pollution sufficiently. 80% of illegally high levels of pollution is likely to still be illegally high...

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. gembo
    Member

    @gibbo we use the toll road around Birmingham a lot. It saves some time and is very quiet to drive on. Bits of London around kings cross now are often fairly quiet too when I am down that way.

    Also found traffic much lighter when bridge closed. Lifting the tolls on the bridge has only encourage the fifers to travel. So much that they are getting another one

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. neddie
    Member

    @crowriver

    The free-market model does not address pollution directly. But one can still use it to reduce pollution by reducing the resource allocation ("supply") to private motors (both moving & parked).

    Prices will then self-adjust, i.e. go up, until traffic ("demand") is reduced & the roads still remain at 80% of max capacity. Pollution would also be reduced proportionally.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    “

    Hackney’s transport boss has signalled a willingness to make the borough a pilot area for road pricing in London – as part of efforts to help reverse climate change.

    Cllr Mete Coban told an audience at a recent council-backed walking and cycling conference that “affordable road user charging” is the next step to drive down traffic.

    “

    https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2023/06/13/medievalism-campaigners-bristle-hackney-transport-boss-borough-road-pricing-pilot/

    Posted 1 year ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    “

    A tramline to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary at Little France was envisaged as Line 3 of Edinburgh’s proposed tram network back in 2001. It wasn’t covered by the cash from the Scottish Government, but the plan was to fund it from the income from the city’s proposed congestion charge. However, the idea of such a charge was rejected in a referendum in 2005 and so there was no money for a line to the Infirmary.

    “

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-trams-latest-whats-next-for-edinburgh-trams-extension-plans-for-granton-musselburgh-and-dalkeith-4186044

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin