Scottish Government

CHAPTER 3: ATTITUDES TO PROPOSED EDINBURGH ROAD CHARGING SCHEME

This chapter looks at Edinburgh residents' overall attitudes towards the proposed road charging scheme, the reasons for its introduction and perceptions of its effectiveness.

SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SCHEME

Table 3.1: Support for Proposed Edinburgh Road Charging Scheme

Q Which of the following statements apply to you?

Source: MORI

This research reflects the views of a representative sample of all Edinburgh residents, not just those who were eligible to vote in the 2005 referendum. However, as table 3.1 shows, support across all Edinburgh residents for the proposed road charging closely reflected the referendum result - a quarter of those with an opinion supported the road charging scheme, while three-quarters indicated they either did not support the principle or objected to the details of the proposed scheme.

Furthermore, the quantitative survey found no majority support for the scheme among any sections of the community. Among those who had an opinion, support was strongest among those who cycle round Edinburgh at least once a week (43%), those who do not own a car (37%), those who live in Central (35%) and South (33%) - defined by the City of Edinburgh Council Local Development Committee Areas ².

In sharp contrast, there was significant opposition to the proposed scheme among other sections of the community. Reflecting the views expressed in the qualitative research, the survey of Edinburgh residents highlighted that support for the proposed scheme was lowest among those living in outlying areas of the city and those who own a car. Overall, support was lowest among those in the West (17%) and East (23%), those who drive to work (13%) and car owners in general (20%).

Table 3.2: Support for Proposed Edinburgh Road Charging Scheme by age and gender

Q Which of the following statements apply to you?

Source: MORI

Men were more likely to have supported the road charging scheme than women - 28% compared to 22%. On the whole, women are less likely to use the car for journeys around Edinburgh. However, they are more likely to travel around Edinburgh in a car as a passenger and more likely to be reliant on their car for certain activities such as taking children to and from school, taking children to leisure activities and for out of town and supermarket shopping.

As shown in table 3.2, views varied across age groups - with older people least likely to say they supported the principle of road charging but opposed specific details. Their opposition was outright. Younger people were not significantly more likely to support the scheme but they did at least express some support for the idea. The research highlighted some variation in the reasons for opposition to the scheme. Older residents were less likely to believe that the money raised would be used to improve public transport and that the Council is already finding solutions to the issue of traffic in Edinburgh. However, they were also least likely to agree that car use should be made more expensive, or that car users should pay higher taxes for the sake of the environment. Support for any form of road user charge, other than the current system of fuel tax and road tax disc, was lowest among older residents.

A significant minority of residents said they supported the principle of the scheme, but not the details (18%). This group revealed some interesting differences in their views from others, which are discussed through this report.

People who supported the idea of congestion charging, but had objections to some of the details mentioned concerns about the definition of the zones and need for both cordons, and also a lack of concessions for Edinburgh residents or for those who need to drive around the city for work. Some felt that the scheme would result in the dispersal of traffic rather than any reduction (perhaps misunderstanding the scheme's underlying objective) or a perceived lack of transport alternatives. Some appeared to have misunderstood key elements of the scheme, for example the fact that only one charge per day would have been levied.

Examples of the comments made by people whose objections were to particular details of the scheme follow:

It should have been simpler, with only one band

I'd have needed to pay to come back from work which is outside the city. There should have been exemptions for residents going "out" to work

It would have cost me a great deal to get my child to school. It should have been free with a parking permit

The outer boundaries made it hard for those who had to live outside the city (for example because it is too expensive to live within it) and there was no suitable public transport they could use

It should have been better worked out for the people like driving instructors or others who need to go in and out of the city on a daily basis for work. It was also difficult for drivers of disabled people

The improvements should have been made prior to the charging system - park and ride, trams, parking. Only then put a road charging scheme in place, not as late as this. They are making enough money.

The planning was wrong. The park and ride just started at Heriot Watt. There should be more park and rides round the city traffic hotspots. They should have had this all in place before they thought about road charging.

Should have made it more positive by providing alternatives, rather than laying on charges, because people would have paid this anyway

I would have been charged for driving to work as a nurse when no public transport or viable alternative was available. It could have been better thought out

And in the focus groups a number of comments were made:

It was riddled with contradictions. It was quite obvious to anybody with half an eye that it wasn't going to work. They ended up in a trading situation where they ran into problems with people in the outer parts of Edinburgh. They just never thought the thing through at all and they boxed themselves in a corner. They were forced then to go to the poll but it was a foregone conclusion that it was going to be a 'thumbs down'

When it was announced I thought it was a foregone conclusion. Mostly people will vote with their pockets. It was never going to win

Most people I spoke to agreed in principle that something like that should be introduced but it was the manner in which it was introduced that created the problems, not the principle of the thing

Everyone wanted to see something done about the traffic. I think that is agreed. This was rash, ill-conceived and badly managed and that was proved in the result. People wanted to see something done, they weren't blaming the Council for having a go at it but they just had the wrong ideas at the wrong time

UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSED SCHEME

Figure 3.1: Understanding of the Proposed Edinburgh Road Charging Scheme

Q Earlier theis year, the city of Edinburgh Council proposed introducing a road charging scheme for Edinburgh. How much do you feel you understood about what this would have neant to you?

Base: All respondents (1,002). 18 ^th September- 17 ^th October 2005
source MORI

As shown in figure 3.1, the majority of Edinburgh residents (62%) felt they understood at least a fair amount about what the road charging scheme would have meant to them.

Self-assessed levels of understanding were highest among those most likely to be affected by the scheme. Eighty per cent of those who always drive to work and the same proportion of those heavily reliant on their car for day-to-day activities claimed to have known at least a fair amount about what the scheme meant to them - by contrast, fewer than half (44%) who do not use a car on a regular basis claimed this level of knowledge. Awareness increased with household income (something which is generally correlated with car ownership too) - those in the highest income households (over £40,000 a year) were twice as likely to say they knew at least a fair amount about the implications of the scheme compared with those in the lowest income households (under £7,500 a year) - (83% and 43%, respectively).

Residents living in outlying areas of the city were also more likely to say they know a fair amount about what the scheme would have meant to them. Across three broad bands of the city (inner, middle and outer) - not specifically relating to the proposed congestion charge zones - awareness increased the further residents lived from the city centre. The proportion claiming to have understood at least a little about the implications of the scheme increased from around half (56%) of those in the 'inner' areas to two-thirds (68%) of those in the 'outer' areas including Queensferry, Balerno and Alnwickhill. There was also a tendency for car use and reliance to increase in the outer areas of the city.

The qualitative research suggested that although most were aware of the proposed congestion charge and of the Council referendum, many did not have a good understanding of the details of the scheme. Many participants highlighted misconceptions about the scheme, such as when it would operate, amount of the charge and the specific location of the charging zones. The quantitative survey revealed that around a quarter felt confident enough to say they knew a great deal about what the scheme would mean for them (with this rising to 62% including those who felt they knew a 'fair amount').

As well as assessing levels of support across different sections of the city, the research aimed to gain a better understanding of the underlying reasons for support or opposition to the Council's proposal. These are explored in the remainder of this chapter.

EXTENT OF THE 'PROBLEM'

Before raising the issue of traffic congestion or the proposed road charging scheme in Edinburgh, the qualitative research took the opportunity to explore the extent to which traffic in the city is a major concern to residents. At the outset of the groups residents were asked about their views of Edinburgh as a place to live, how it compares to other cities, positive and negative aspects of life in the city and their priorities for the future.

Virtually all group participants were extremely satisfied with life in the city, reflecting on the architecture, green spaces, proximity to the countryside, manageable size, local shopping streets and cultural facilities. However, there were concerns - many focussing on street cleanliness, poorly designed or planned developments and antisocial behaviour, but also among them were public transport, congestion, pollution and parking problems.

In the quantitative survey, prior to asking about traffic congestion or the proposed road charging scheme in Edinburgh, the first question asked residents what they would most like to see done to improve the city as a place to live. As shown in Table 3.4, without prompting, the most commonly mentioned improvements were 'improve the transport service', 'sort out traffic congestion', 'improve Edinburgh roads' and 'cleaner streets'.

It should be noted that the prominence of these issues may well have reflected the significant changes being made under the Central Edinburgh Traffic Management Scheme. It is also possible that some interviewers may have mentioned that transport was one of the themes in the survey when they introduced it to respondents (as part of ensuring informed consent to taking part in the survey). In previous research conducted by MORI, residents felt reducing crime, making Edinburgh cleaner and encouraging the development of more affordable housing were greater priorities than investing in a good public transport system.

Table 3.3: Improving Edinburgh as a place to live

Q What would you most like to be done to improve Edinburgh as a place to live?

Source: MORI

Concern over the amount of traffic and its effects was expressed by residents in all areas, regardless of age, gender and dependence on the car. Although predominantly focused on the city centre, participants in the focus groups in outlying areas, such as Balerno, Corstorphine and Portobello, raised concerns about the amount of traffic on key arterial routes in and out of the city centre.

The arterial roads in and out are a shambles quite honestly. Whether it's Mayfield Road or Corstorphine Road etc., if you were travelling in any kind of business hours it's just awful. There's not enough thought being given to access and entry into the town

The focus group and the main survey findings both suggested that residents were broadly agreed on the need to reduce car use in the city in order to tackle issues such as pollution and congestion. As well as being one of the most commonly mentioned aspects of life in the city which focus group participants would like to improve, half of residents in the survey agreed that reducing car use within the city centre should be a key priority - see Table 3.5.

Pollution-wise, living in the New Town, when we first came there wasn't the noise, there wasn't pollution, our children could cross the road and run into the gardens. Anyway, that's past.

Maybe it's not bad enough at the moment for it to actually feel that it's crucial

I suppose if you were say a taxi driver or a delivery person then it is a priority, it's your livelihood and getting round the centre of town is important, but if you live out in Balerno, I don't think traffic in town is a priority

Edinburgh flows. It might be slow but it does flow

Something has to be done about the fact that there's so many cars. I would love it if I could cycle more. I would love it if my children could cycle more, but because there's so many cars on the road, I don't think it's safe

The reason I didn't bother passing a test or getting a car or anything was I thought I'm just about to move into the city centre, and live in Edinburgh. I don't really need a car

Table 3.4: Priorities for the city

Q How much of a priority would you make each of the following, if at all?

Source: MORI

The most common priority for action is in reducing air pollution, which three-quarters say is an urgent priority. There is also widespread agreement that improved bus services are a priority. Opinion becomes less clear-cut when it comes to reducing car use. Half says reducing car use within the city centre is a key priority, however, only a quarter says this about reducing car use elsewhere in the city.

Table 3.5: Priorities for the city by area

Q How much of a priority would you make each of the following, if at all?

Source: MORI

As shown in Table 3.6, residents' perceived high priorities for the city are similar across all areas of the city. The majority of residents in all areas said reducing air pollution, and improved bus routes into and around the city were high priorities. Those living in Central are particularly keen for reduced air pollution and those in the North and Leith and the West are particularly keen for better bus routes into the city centre.

Attitudes differ towards other priorities. Most significantly, Pentland residents are least likely support the need to reduce car use within the city centre, while those in the North and Leith and those in the South are the strongest advocates of the need to tackle the issue. Residents in the South are twice a likely to believe there is a need to tackle car use elsewhere in the city than those in Pentland and the West.

The results of the survey reflect views expressed in the focus groups. On the whole, residents believed there is a need to provide a network of public transport alternatives before introducing measures to reduce car use. Views on what is currently available are mixed. While many in the focus groups were satisfied with current services, some were critical of the frequency of services, ineffective or intermittent bus lanes and lack of routes across the city (as opposed to converging on the city centre, which residents generally feel is well served). Many found it difficult to avoid routes into and then back out of the city centre by bus, resulting in long, expensive and slow journeys if public transport were to be used rather than the car.

I just think it's sad that a city the size of Edinburgh hasn't got what I'd call a co-ordinated transport policy

The bus service is poor down here. I never even drove before I moved down here

I think the bus service is quite good but I only ever take the bus into the centre of town. I have problems trying to get across the city because all the buses go into the centre. You need to change buses to get out the other side and it takes forever

We are very lucky in Portobello - we have one of the best bus services in the 26 bus. It goes every five minutes right through the centre of the town, so therefore, it's easier for us to say we don't need to take the car. It takes us anywhere onto Princes Street, but there are other places where it's not so convenient to use the bus

I think one of the biggest problems we've got in Edinburgh is that we don't have something like a metro system, like some of the big American cities. Even the likes of Boston, New York, Boston, where they've got underground systems, the public transport doesn't conflict with surface traffic, so you can get trams, buses, whatever, running about. The public transport's cheap, it's effective and you'll get anywhere you want much quicker than you could ever get there by other means. We don't have that option

As well as describing difficulties in crossing the city on public transport, many residents were sceptical of the need to reduce car use in areas outside the city centre. With the exception of some key routes, few in the focus groups expressed concern over the volume of traffic in their local area, and they complained that they felt they would have been unfairly penalised for using their car in their local area under the proposed scheme.

CAUSES OF THE 'PROBLEM'

When asked to say what the main causes of traffic congestion are, it is noticeable that people tend to name factors other than themselves. Thus twice as many say that the problem is too many cars being brought into the city as say it is too many local people making short trips. The most commonly selected cause of delay on the roads is road works.

Table 3.6: Causes of delay on Edinburgh roads

Q Which of the following, if any, do you think are the main causes of delay on the roads in Edinburgh?

Source: MORI

Those who are heavily reliant on the car for their day to day activities like shopping, travelling to work, and visiting friends, are more likely to feel that the causes of congestion are external to their own behaviour, as illustrated in Table 3.7.

Furthermore, people's responses to this question were also related to their overall attitudes to the congestion charging scheme (see Table 3.8). Those who supported the scheme were more likely to say the cause of delay on the roads was too many cars coming into the city (71%) than were those who opposed the principle (40%). People who supported the principle but opposed details of the scheme were between the two (63%). Similarly, supporters of the scheme were much more likely to say that congestion was caused by too many local people making trips by car (42%) than were opponents of the principle (18%), again, with supporters of the general idea but not the specific scheme between the two extremes (34%). On the other hand, people whose opposition was to the details were as likely as those who opposed the principle as far as blaming road works, road closures, lack of parking spaces and new one-way systems. In each of these cases, supporters of congestion charging were significantly less likely to select these as causes of the problem.

Table 3.7: Causes of delay on Edinburgh roads by attitudes to the scheme

Q Which of the following, if any, do you think are the main causes of delay on the roads in Edinburgh?

Source: MORI

There's a gradual shift of facilities from the centre to the periphery. More and more you are becoming dependent on a car. There used to be everything imaginable available on your doorstep. There's very little available now. Sustainable communities are those that have mixed uses and that is not happening here, it's the reverse

I don't think it's that bad. I think it's worse now that roads are getting shut off and stuff, but it wasn't that bad in the beginning

TRUST

Trust was clearly another underlying driver of opposition to the introduction of a road user charging scheme - trust in both the reasons for introducing the scheme and confidence that the money raised from the scheme would go towards improvements in public transport. Comments in the focus groups suggested that some were sceptical of the Council's motives for introducing congestion charging and the quantitative survey was used to evaluate this, and to see whether it was related to other views.

I always feel that the Council are always trying to work something. Maybe I'm just too suspicious

I do remember there was a great deal of press coverage from the anti-pricing lobbies which seemed to be more effective than the Council's own attempts to publicise what the benefits were supposed to be. The only thing they kept harping on about was that, if you didn't agree to it, they would lose so much money that they wouldn't be able to implement most of the planned proposed public transport improvements. To my mind that was sort of a backside argument. They were really saying that we want all this money, we've got other plans for it

Table 3.8: Council efforts to tackle congestion

Q To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Source: MORI

Heavy car users and those who opposed the road user charging scheme were more likely to agree that the Council is anti-car, and less likely to feel that all the money from the scheme would go towards transport improvements. They were also less likely to feel that the Council was finding good solutions to the issue of traffic in Edinburgh.

It always seems to be the motorist, so let's charge him for it

The one group the Council have always been enemies of is motorists because they've always closed roads for road works. Motorists are one group that have got annoyed or angry with the Council and the road charging thing was just another level of that

Edinburgh Council has a reputation for being anti-car and it dates from the day of David Begg

The focus group research highlighted dissatisfaction with Council efforts to reduce congestion and several were critical of aspects of the bus services. Despite the introduction of assisted bus lanes, park and ride schemes and the increased frequency of bus services on some routes, a significant proportion of residents' felt that the service remains inadequate to substitute for the kind of journeys that they make across and around the city.

This sense that there was not a viable alternative to much of their car use, combined with misunderstanding of aspects of how the scheme would operate and a feeling among some that the severity of the congestion problem did not merit such radical solutions meant many focus group participants were sceptical of the reasons for introducing the proposed road user charging scheme. Many felt the scheme was being introduced as "money-making scheme" not, primarily, to reduce traffic congestion. Efforts by the Council to restrict the growth of traffic in the city were partly undermined by a lack of trust in the reasons for introducing the scheme, and a lack of faith in the Council delivering the appropriate solution.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's somebody down the line saying, now we've had the vote of no, we'll find another way to go round this

You just think "oh, it's the Council, it's just going to be another pie in the sky scheme"

Some participants in the focus groups raised concerns over the cost of introducing and managing the scheme. Others raised doubt over the likely revenues raised by the scheme, often citing lower than anticipated revenues raised by London's congestion charge. References to the London scheme tended to reflect a view that the two cities did not face analogous problems (in terms of size, relative area to be covered by the scheme, level of traffic and adequacy of public transport alternatives), and some felt that Edinburgh was either being pushed to introduce the charge, or was doing so to enhance the prospects of particular individuals.

I think a lot of people were incensed by the knowledge that the Council were spending a great deal of money which was basically being poured down the drain

MORI research has frequently highlighted the challenge facing individual local authorities in building trust among residents. Research conducted for the Audit Commission ³ highlighted views of local councils lag some way behind other public sector organisations. A range of factors are important in forming people's perceptions of organisation, and local authorities commonly rate poorly for five of the six of these core drivers, namely 'keeping promises', 'learning from mistakes', 'how friends and family speak of the council', 'quality of managers' and 'interest in listening to the views of residents'. Comments from both the qualitative and quantitative research suggest many are similarly critical of these aspects in the City of Edinburgh Council.

Figure 3.2 Trust in public sector organisations

Q And in general how much, if at all, would you say you trust the following services?

Base: 1,706 adults, 15+, Great Britain, face-to-face, in-home, March 2003

PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS THE PROPOSED SCHEME

Many focus group participants expressed concern that the proposed scheme, as they understood it, would not have been effective. Some felt that people would still use their cars, but 'skirt around' zone boundaries, thus actually driving more miles but avoiding payment.

Figure 3.3 Effectiveness of the road charging scheme in reducing traffic

Q To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement….

I thought road charging would have been an effective way to reduce traffic

Base: All respondents (1,002). 18 ^th Septembert- 17 ^th October 2005

This ambivalence about how effective the scheme might be was reflected in responses to the main survey. Across all subgroups of the population, views of whether road charging would have been an effective way of reducing traffic were divided. Overall, 37% agreed, but rather more (43%) disagreed. Furthermore, twice as many strongly disagreed than strongly agreed that the scheme would be effective. Only among supporters of the scheme was there a clear majority who thought the scheme would be effective (84%). Those opposed to the scheme were overwhelmingly of the view that it would not have worked (70%), while those whose opposition was to the details of the scheme were more mixed in their views. Half (49%) agreed that it would have been effective, but around four in ten (38%) felt that it would not.

The greatest concerns expressed in the focus groups were that the scheme would push cars from the city centre to roads in other areas of the city, or that cars would be parked in residential streets outside the zones, rather than being effective in reducing traffic. Thus several felt that current quieter areas of the city would be affected by increased through-traffic and parked cars, especially around the boundaries of the zones.

It was displacing traffic through residential areas - it would not stop it

Outside cordon would just have transferred traffic to outside areas, moved the problem elsewhere

The perceived effectiveness of the scheme was influenced by the extent to which people felt there were practical alternatives to using the car. One in six (17%) said they would like to reduce their car use but felt that there were no practical alternatives. Those heavily reliant on their cars were even more likely to say this (37%) suggesting that they were either not aware of the public transport options, or that they did not feel they were suitable. A clear challenge to reducing car use will be working with regular car users to identify travel patterns and exploring ways of promoting alternatives.

You're not going to solve Edinburgh's traffic problems with one single idea. Public transport in Edinburgh has to combine a number of different modes in order to make it work. The difficulty they've had up to now is that they've never come up with an integrated strategy

Rather than finding alternatives, some drivers felt they were more likely to accept the additional cost of driving their car in the city.

I don't think (the scheme) would make any difference unless the fees were sky high. People would just use their car as they do just now. Let's face it, it's not cheap to run a car and if people are running it they're going to use it

It's like petrol, you moan about it when petrol goes up but you still pay it. It's like everything else you'd just accept it

It's a comic congestion charge. I'd go the other way and say £2 a day wouldn't put anybody off going into the town centre. You need to make it something hefty, because they're trying to discourage cars from going into the town centre. I know that's hard on people that have to go in for their jobs, but £2 to me is neither here nor there

One of the messages in the campaign opposing the congestion charge was the effect the scheme would have on businesses in the city centre. In particular, concern was expressed by major city centre retailers that the congestion charge would discourage shoppers. However, participants in the focus groups said they normally do not drive when shopping in the city centre, but use the bus service (which is seen as being good for journeys into the centre). As well as good bus services, parking in the centre is seen as problematic, and not worth the bother. This was also borne out in the quantitative survey - very few (7%) said they always use their car for city centre shopping trips, although substantially more (49%) said they did when going to 'out of town' shopping centres.