IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sot/journl/y2006i32p95-113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh

Author

Listed:
  • Allen, Simon
  • Gaunt, Martin
  • Rye, Tom

Abstract

In February 2005, residents of Edinburgh, a medium-sized city in the United Kingdom, were given the opportunity to vote in a referendum on the introduction of a road user charging scheme, which had been in development for almost a decade. The public voted against the scheme by a ratio of 3:1 and it was consequently abandoned. This paper describes the evolution of the scheme, and presents results of research to determine the principle factors responsible for the public's overwhelming opposition to the scheme. The research used a postal, self-completion questionnaire that was distributed to 1300 randomly selected households in central and southern Edinburgh three months after the referendum. The questionnaire responses were analysed to assess the influence of several factors on the way respondents voted in the referendum. Car use was shown to be the principle determinant of voting behaviour, with car owners strongly opposing the scheme while non-car owners only weakly supported it. The public‘s limited understanding of the scheme increased the strength of the opposing vote. Further, the public were largely unconvinced that the scheme would have achieved its dual objectives of reduced congestion and improved public transport. The findings suggest that more attention should have been paid to designing a simpler, more easily communicated, scheme and convincing residents, particularly public transport users, of its benefits. Some other aspects of the scheme that militated against its successful introduction are also briefly identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Allen, Simon & Gaunt, Martin & Rye, Tom, 2006. "An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 32, pages 95-113.
  • Handle: RePEc:sot:journl:y:2006:i:32:p:95-113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10077/5896
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R H M Emmerink & P Nijkamp & P Rietveld, 1995. "Is Congestion Pricing a First-Best Strategy in Transport Policy? A Critical Review of Arguments," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 22(5), pages 581-602, October.
    2. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    3. Kenneth Button & Erik Verhoef (ed.), 1998. "Road Pricing, Traffic Congestion and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 940.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    2. Jin, Xia & Hossan, Sakoat & Asgari, Hamidreza & Shams, Kollol, 2018. "Incorporating attitudinal aspects in roadway pricing analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 38-47.
    3. Christian Oltra & Roser Sala & Sergi López-Asensio & Silvia Germán & Àlex Boso, 2021. "Individual-Level Determinants of the Public Acceptance of Policy Measures to Improve Urban Air Quality: The Case of the Barcelona Low Emission Zone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-13, January.
    4. Beck, Matthew J. & Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A., 2013. "Environmental attitudes and emissions charging: An example of policy implications for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    5. Kavta, Kuldeep & Goswami, Arkopal K., 2022. "Estimating mode choice of motorized two-wheeler commuters under the influence of combined travel demand management measures: An ICLV modeling approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 327-335.
    6. Kalina Grzesiuk & Dorota Jegorow & Monika Wawer & Anna Głowacz, 2023. "Energy-Efficient City Transportation Solutions in the Context of Energy-Conserving and Mobility Behaviours of Generation Z," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-28, August.
    7. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Di Ciommo, Floridea & Monzón, Andrés & Fernandez-Heredia, Alvaro, 2013. "Improving the analysis of road pricing acceptability surveys by using hybrid models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 302-316.
    2. Hensher, David A. & Li, Zheng, 2013. "Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 186-197.
    3. Agachai Sumalee & Simon Shepherd & Anthony May, 2009. "Road user charging design: dealing with multi-objectives and constraints," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 167-186, March.
    4. Schuitema, Geertje & Steg, Linda & Forward, Sonja, 2010. "Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 99-109, February.
    5. Schubert, Daniel & Sys, Christa & Vanelslander, Thierry & Roumboutsos, Athena, 2022. "No-queue road pricing: A comprehensive policy instrument for Europe?," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    6. Zheng, Zuduo & Liu, Zhiyuan & Liu, Chuanli & Shiwakoti, Nirajan, 2014. "Understanding public response to a congestion charge: A random-effects ordered logit approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-134.
    7. Georgina Santos & Erik Verhoef, 2011. "Road Congestion Pricing," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Dieplinger, Maria & Fürst, Elmar, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing: Evidence from two studies in Vienna and four other European cities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 10-18.
    9. Yusuf, Juita-Elena (Wie) & O’Connell, Lenahan & Anuar, Khairul A., 2014. "For whom the tunnel be tolled: A four-factor model for explaining willingness-to-pay tolls," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 13-21.
    10. Kottenhoff, Karl & Brundell Freij, Karin, 2009. "The role of public transport for feasibility and acceptability of congestion charging - The case of Stockholm," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 297-305, March.
    11. Odeck, James & Kjerkreit, Anne, 2010. "Evidence on users' attitudes towards road user charges--A cross-sectional survey of six Norwegian toll schemes," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 349-358, November.
    12. Elmar Fürst & Maria Dieplinger, 2014. "The acceptability of road pricing in Vienna: the preference patterns of car drivers," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 765-784, July.
    13. Harwatt, Helen & Tight, Miles & Bristow, Abigail L. & Gühnemann, Astrid, 2011. "Personal carbon trading and fuel price increases in the transport sector: an exploratory study of public response in the UK," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 47, pages 47-70.
    14. Martin, Elliot & Shaheen, Susan & Lipman, Timothy & Camel, Madonna, 2014. "Evaluating the public perception of a feebate policy in California through the estimation and cross-validation of an ordinal regression model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 144-153.
    15. Andrea Baranzini & Stefano Carattini & Linda Tesauro, 2021. "Designing Effective and Acceptable Road Pricing Schemes: Evidence from the Geneva Congestion Charge," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 417-482, July.
    16. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    17. Julie Bulteau & Thierry Feuillet & Sophie Dantan & Souhir Abbes, 2023. "Encouraging carpooling for commuting in the Paris area (France): which incentives and for whom?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 43-62, February.
    18. Romain Petiot, 2004. "Parking enforcement and travel demand management," Post-Print hal-02422664, HAL.
    19. Barter, Paul A., 2005. "A vehicle quota integrated with road usage pricing: A mechanism to complete the phase-out of high fixed vehicle taxes in Singapore," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(6), pages 525-536, November.
    20. Wu, Di & Yin, Yafeng & Lawphongpanich, Siriphong, 2011. "Pareto-improving congestion pricing on multimodal transportation networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(3), pages 660-669, May.

    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:sot:journl:y:2006:i:32:p:95-113. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Romeo Danielis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/xxxxxxx.html .

    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.