IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/transp/v31y2008i6p641-661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Edinburgh's Congestion Charging Plans: An Analysis of Reasons for Non-Implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Rye
  • Martin Gaunt
  • Stephen Ison

Abstract

The City of Edinburgh in Scotland in the UK had advanced plans for a congestion charging scheme until 25 February 2005. However, these plans were abandoned at that time after a referendum that resulted in a ‘no vote’. This paper explains the origins of the scheme, outlines its nature, extent, charging technology and predicted effect; it also analyses the difficulties that exist when attempting to plan and implement such a scheme in a particular governance context, and when there is little unanimity of public opinion about the need for a scheme. As well as the primary documentation from the proposals (e.g. public inquiry submissions, papers to government), the paper also draws upon a series of face-to-face interviews that were undertaken with key stakeholders. It also provides an analysis of press coverage in the local (Edinburgh) and national (Scottish) newspapers in the run-up to the referendum. These sources explain both the systemic and more local barriers to the scheme's implementation. The paper draws key lessons which are important for authorities considering the implementation of a road user charging scheme, by suggesting how legislative and governance barriers to implementation can be reduced. The lessons are of relevance world wide.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Rye & Martin Gaunt & Stephen Ison, 2008. "Edinburgh's Congestion Charging Plans: An Analysis of Reasons for Non-Implementation," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 641-661, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:transp:v:31:y:2008:i:6:p:641-661
    DOI: 10.1080/03081060802492686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03081060802492686
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03081060802492686?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Morton, Craig & Mattioli, Giulio & Anable, Jillian, 2021. "Public acceptability towards Low Emission Zones: The role of attitudes, norms, emotions, and trust," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 256-270.
    2. Sørensen, Claus Hedegaard & Isaksson, Karolina & Macmillen, James & Åkerman, Jonas & Kressler, Florian, 2014. "Strategies to manage barriers in policy formation and implementation of road pricing packages," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 40-52.
    3. Marsden, Greg & Docherty, Iain, 2013. "Insights on disruptions as opportunities for transport policy change," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 46-55.
    4. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    5. Velaga, Nagendra R. & Pangbourne, Kate, 2014. "Achieving genuinely dynamic road user charging: issues with a GNSS-based approach," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 243-253.
    6. Westin, Jonas & Franklin, Joel P. & Proost, Stef & Basck, Pierre & Raux, Charles, 2016. "Achieving political acceptability for new transport infrastructure in congested urban regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 286-303.
    7. Vigar, Geoff & Shaw, Andrew & Swann, Richard, 2011. "Selling sustainable mobility: The reporting of the Manchester Transport Innovation Fund bid in UK media," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 468-479, March.
    8. Marsden, G. & Frick, K.T. & May, A.D. & Deakin, E., 2011. "How do cities approach policy innovation and policy learning? A study of 30 policies in Northern Europe and North America," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 501-512, May.
    9. Marsden, Greg & Rye, Tom, 2010. "The governance of transport and climate change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 669-678.
    10. Morton, Craig & Lovelace, Robin & Anable, Jillian, 2017. "Exploring the effect of local transport policies on the adoption of low emission vehicles: Evidence from the London Congestion Charge and Hybrid Electric Vehicles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 34-46.
    11. Pierre Basck & Charles Raux & Jonas Westin & Joel P. Franklin & Stef Proost, 2012. "CoAccept. Coordination politique et acceptabilité des péages routiers. Rapport final," Working Papers halshs-01707861, HAL.
    12. Marsden, Greg & Groer, Stefan, 2016. "Do institutional structures matter? A comparative analysis of urban carbon management policies in the UK and Germany," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 170-179.
    13. Akgün, Emine Zehra & Monios, Jason & Rye, Tom & Fonzone, Achille, 2019. "Influences on urban freight transport policy choice by local authorities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 88-98.
    14. Özgül Ardıç & Jan Anne Annema & Eric Molin & Bert Wee, 2018. "The association between news and attitudes towards a Dutch road pricing proposal," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 827-848, May.
    15. Chung, Younshik & Song, Taijin & Park, Jungsik, 2012. "Freeway booking policy: Public discourse and acceptability analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 223-231.
    16. Jens West & Maria Börjesson, 2020. "The Gothenburg congestion charges: cost–benefit analysis and distribution effects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 145-174, February.
    17. West, Jens & Börjesson, Maria, 2016. "The Gothenburg congestion charges: CBA and equity," Working papers in Transport Economics 2016:17, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    18. Christiansen, Petter, 2018. "Public support of transport policy instruments, perceived transport quality and satisfaction with democracy. What is the relationship?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 305-318.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:transp:v:31:y:2008:i:6:p:641-661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/GTPT20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.