No.StB dliilI Edinburgh. In C!4! wontrasts Look at www.transportedinburgh.info for Facts Without Spin Congestion Charging - a Community Perspective 20 Reasons Why You Should Vote Against Congestion Charging Despite the hundreds of concerns and objections expressed at the May 2004 Congestion Charging Public Inquiry, the City of Edinburgh Council remains determined to press ahead with a flawed congestion charging scheme. More than twelve community councils and local organisations took part in the public inquiry. Many were extremely concerned about the negative impact of the congestion charging proposals on their communities. Listed below* are 20 reasons why you should vote “NO” in the February 2005 Referendum. 1. Traffic is projected to increase on over 60 Edinburgh streets in communities which lie between the cordons. Rat-running, as drivers try to avoid the cordons, will impact on everyone. Most affected areas are: Leith Walk, Canonmills, lnverleith and the Botanic Gardens, Dalry-Blackhall, Corstorphine, Marchmont, Morningside, Queen’s Drive, Duddingston and the 6701 orbital route. 2. This is congestion-building scheme, not a congestion-busting scheme. 64% of car journeys will be unaffected, as they are made between the proposed two cordons or inside the inner cordon. 3. Neither details nor a timetable for mitigation of the impacts of the congestion charge on streets which will experience more traffic are available. A report has been promised, but this should have been done at an earlier stage. Mitigation is not always possible (for example, along emergency services routes). Where it is possible, it has a knock-on effect on other neighbourhood streets. Clearly, it can’t be rolled out instantly. 4. There is no guarantee that the promised transport “goodies” will ever materialise. Revenue from congestion charging may be used to subsidise the predicted running cost deficit of Tram Line One. The proposed Tram Line One route is wrong - it is not going to the Western General Hospital and it will remove less than 1% of existing traffic from our roads. It is designed to serve new developments at Granton, where the Council is a developer. 5. Alternative public transport improvements are not yet in place. Promised improvements to bus services have not been specified. 6. Major arterial routes, such as the A90 (Queensferry Rd), need major public transport improvements to attract drivers out of their cars. There are no proposals to reduce commuter traffic along this corridor as no Park and Ride is planned for North Edinburgh. The Ferry Toll Park and Ride in Fife is not enough. 7. In fact, recent proposals to give a discount to those paying to use the Forth Road Bridge and to reduce parking charges in the city centre indicate that the key intention of the Council is to create revenue not to reduce car-use. 8. The MVA computer modelling which is being used by the Council has a margin of error of 30% either way. This means that the increases in traffic which will be caused by congestion charging may be 30% worse. 9. Low-paid out-of-town shift workers will be amongst the worst affected. 10. The trade union Unison said that congestion charging would be “a tax on the sick, and that it would cost NHS Lothian flm per annum as staff and services have to pay the charge. 11. London Mayor Ken Livingstone said “Don’t do it for the money” as London’s scheme has failed to realise the predicted income. 12. Who will bear the cost of the congestion charge payments of 16,000 Council employees, Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament employees, Royal Mail deliveries and city centre retailer employees? 13. There is already recruitment problem in many city businesses and in parts of the public sector. This will worsen. People who work in the city and live outside Edinburgh are already reviewing their positions. 14. Many Edinburgh residents do not think the city has a congestion problem. Council Officer Barry Cross conceded at the public inquiry that “many residents may experience no real problems” with congestion. 15. The cost to retailers and restaurateurs is predicted by the David Simmonds Consultancy, the Council’s advisors, to be f70m. Shoppers are already staying away, preferring out-of- town shopping centres such as the Fort which suffers severe congestion at weekends. 16. When asked why the charges would not apply at weekends, when traffic around out-of-town shopping centres is heavy, Mr Cross explained that he had to i‘sell”congestion charging politically as well as for transport reasons, and that public opinion would be against charging if it was enforced at weekends. 17. Accidents are forecast to increase. 18. Most of our city’s schools are between the cordons and will be badly affected by the predicted increase in traffic between the cordons. Traffic on Annandale St is set to increase 555% - there are six schools within a half mile radius of Annandale St. 19.The Edinburgh residential exemptions are not specified in the draft Charging Order - only a general mention is made. The Council’s leading political group looks set to act against the advice of the Inquiry Reporters, their agents tie and their own officers, who all recommended throwing out the residential exemptions. This affects the people of South Queensferry, Kirkliston, Currie and Balerno. If the Council goes ahead with this exemption, legal challenge is likely from adjacent local authorities. When the Charging Order goes before the Scottish Executive, the exemption may still have to be dropped. In other words, affected residents may vote in the Referendum not knowing what will be included in the final approved Order. The inclusion of company cars and a register of exempted vehicles (there will be a E IOcharge to get on this register) is a late and confusing addition to the proposal. 20.The Referendum question is biased and confusing. Refendum papers will be sent out with a promotional leaflet which is an abuse of Council powers. The Council’s Outlook newspaper also included unbalanced promotional information and did not point out that many Edinburgh streets will face an increase in traffic as a result of this congestion charging proposal. Grass-roots, community-based strategies are very successful in encouraging people to review their car use. Projects such as Safe Routes to School encourage children to walk or cycle to school and will affect the travelling habits of the next generation. Work-based incentives to use public transport would help too. Most of all, improved public transport, along the main arterial roads in the city would, we believe, go a long way to reduce traffic. Better pedestrian and cycling facilities, along with health-promoting campaigns, encouraging people to walk some of their journey, would also help. The congestion charging funds that are to be allocated to these projects are derisory. If you opted out of the Edited Register by ticking a box on your return form for the Electoral Register, you will not get a vote in the Referendum unless you register to vote via a Referendum Form. You have until 14 January 2005 to register for the Referendum which will take place in February 2005. You can check to see if you are registered by phoning 0131 469 5986. To receive a referendum form, telephone 01 31 529 4877 or email [email protected]. *All these issues came to light during the public inquiry. The information listed above can be found in the background papers and in the transcripts of the public inquiry (www.ititime.com). Printed and published by Tina Woolnough on behalf of: Blackhall Community Association, Murrayfield Community Council, Wester Coates Residents’ Assocation Email: [email protected] .