CHAPTER 4: ATTITUDES TO REVENUE RAISING AND CAR USE
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
People do not like to contemplate changes which, they fear, may penalise them for lifestyle decisions which they feel it is their right to make. Discussions in the focus groups illustrated that many people found it particularly difficult to countenance a charging scheme that would apply to them as Edinburgh residents, but not to road-users in other parts of the country. For example, people said that they felt they already paid a premium price for property and Council Tax to live in Edinburgh, paid road tax like every other car user, and sometimes paid for residents' parking permits. Why, they asked, should they pay an additional charge to use their roads?
People that stay out the town have the best of both worlds. They've got cheaper rent or mortgages, less Council Tax, they're coming into Edinburgh and getting the Edinburgh rates for employment. It's the people in Edinburgh that normally get the brunt of everything. Our Council Tax is sky high and we have to put up with the congestion
The one thing that I might have supported it for would have been for people coming into the city centre to pay and anyone who's paid Edinburgh Council Tax not having to pay it
You pay enough for living in Edinburgh. We pay enough road tax and whatever. Should be able to go into where you want, without being a congestion charge, I'm sorry. We pay our rates, our water taxes, everything, we pay for everything
I don't know how it would have worked exactly, but I had the idea I would have had to have paid whatever it was, £2, to get home every night, which is a bit of a nightmare. I already pay road tax. I shouldn't have to pay another tax on top of it
People recognised that there was congestion on the roads, problems with air pollution, and that the problems were getting worse. They did not accept that by paying to use the roads, as set out in the proposed Edinburgh Congestion Charge scheme, they will help to resolve the problems. This is largely because they do not envisage that they will, or will be able, to change their behaviour.
One challenge is that the running costs of a car appear to have a low visibility (with the periodic exception of fuel tax, which is the most unpopular form of taxation 4). In contrast, it is much easier to envisage the cost of public transport or a daily congestion charge. Few focus group participants appeared to have a good awareness of the daily costs of running their car.
None of the alternatives to road tax and fuel duty that were offered as options in the quantitative survey were widely accepted. Assuming the overall amount of money collected remained the same, fewer than one in three would support any of a range of road-use charge options. Although overall revenue raised would remain the same, under alternative road user charging schemes, car use would be more expensive for some. Residents were most likely to say that there should be incentives offered to people to encourage them to use more environmentally-friendly cars.
Table 4.1: Support for alternative road charging schemes
Q Assuming the overall amount of money collected remained the same, Which, if any, of these do you support?
Base: All respondents, 1,002 | % |
|---|
Give people incentives to drive more environmentally-friendly cars | 48 |
|---|
Keep the current system of fuel tax and the road tax disc | 33 |
|---|
Charge people according to when they drive, with people paying more to drive at busy times, such as rush hours | 19 |
|---|
Charge people according to the number of miles they drive on any roads | 17 |
|---|
Charge people according to the type of roads they drive on, with people paying more for some roads than others | 10 |
|---|
None of these/don't know | 4 |
|---|
No opinion - I don't drive | 15 |
|---|
Source: MORI
If there is an appetite for policy designed to change behaviour, it appears to be for one that provides incentives to change, rather than one that penalises 'undesirable' behaviour.
Half of residents (48%) supported providing people with incentives to drive more environmentally-friendly cars. This would not reduce congestion. Instead, this reflects views that reducing air pollution is a greater priority than reducing car use. Few (19%) agreed that car use should be made more expensive. Even among the supporters of the congestion charging scheme, barely half (49%) said that driving should be more expensive, and just a quarter of non-car owners did. Even when associated with the promise of protecting the environment, those supporting higher taxes for car use were outnumbered by opponents by 2:1. Only among people living in higher income households (over £40,000 a year), cyclists and those who never drive to work was there parity in numbers between those favouring higher taxes to protect the environment, and those opposing.
The participants in the focus groups also reflected this preference for incentives rather than 'punitive' schemes. Inexpensive and more widespread public transport, free park-and-ride and the promotion of car share schemes were considered preferable to higher charges for road use.
They need to make it more and more attractive to use small cars, most especially going in and out of town
They're enticing employers to move their bricks and mortar out but they are punishing people like me. If they're enticing employers to take their staff out, give us something to go as well, whether it's a free bus service, whether it's an underground or a tram, but give us something. But don't penalise us