Congestion charge referendum - can you vote?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Feb 2005, 23:54

I think you should be joinng the Referendumber Party

CatzVP · Post by **CatzVP** » 17 Feb 2005, 02:20

Porty wrote:I think you should be joinng the Referendumber Party

Yes...... but one thought does not a referendumber make

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 17 Feb 2005, 23:13

CatzVP wrote:
Porty wrote:I think you should be joinng the Referendumber Party
Yes...... but one thought does not a referendumber make

You are only as good as your next referendum.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 21 Feb 2005, 23:17

Well the Polls are closed and now we wait the announcement, which I believe is 11:30am tomorrow morning or later if the dignatries get caught up in traffic.

Personally, I won't mind looking like a bit of an ass should the vote be Yes. Although, I still think a referendum was too big a risk to take.

The story made the national news tonight, the World is watching apparently and it is anticipated that a NO vote could be the death knell for this type of charge all over the UK.

I don't think so.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Feb 2005, 12:37

Edinburgh rejects congestion plan

Edinburgh will not go down the same road as London
The residents of Edinburgh have voted against the introduction of congestion charging in the city by a factor of about three to one.
About 290,000 residents were asked if they were in favour of cordons, similar to those in London and what is under consideration in Bristol.

More than 74% of those who voted rejected the council's plan.

The turnout for the postal ballot was 61.8%. There were 133,678 votes against the proposal and 45,965 in favour.

Scunnered is the word to descibe my feelings. The Council spent Ã‚Â£9m on the Yes campaign and who knows how much more on feasability? Can they claim 26% voting Yes is "clear support" in order to satisfy Holyrood?

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 22 Feb 2005, 12:44

A good result as it was a very awkward and expensive technological solution.

The sad thing is that I believe most people want a solution to congestion and to get people onto public transport.

Let's now have some serious debates about the issues and the solutions.

As the Councillors in favour of this congestion charging proposal were obviously so out of tune with the feelings of Edinburgh residents should they now stand down and repay all the public money wasted on the campaign.

DG · Post by DG » 22 Feb 2005, 12:48

I am glad to hear that this was the result however, I do agree with Brian McC that hopefully this has / will open up the debate about congestion reduction measures.

DG

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 22 Feb 2005, 12:59

We also need to get congestion in context. This morning there was an interview about the vote on BBC1 at 8.22 standing at the junction of London Road and Leith Walk. There was hardly any traffic!!

Whereas the bypass is now a car park from 7am till 9+and the Forth Road Bridge and the A8 into Edinburgh are always busy.

Portobello traffic is also far too busy. Let's tackle these issues but go for simple quick to implement solutions e.g. ban through traffic in Portobello.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 22 Feb 2005, 13:34

Portobello traffic is also far too busy. Let's tackle these issues but go for simple quick to implement solutions e.g. ban through traffic in Portobello. end Brians quote..

And increase the traffic on SHLR (a route for schoolchildren/adults from west Portobello, this road does not even have any safety barriers).

Traffic Flows although unconfirmed shows annual traffic 24/7 is around 15 - 16 million, with approx 10% vehicles HGV's. SHLR is at many times of the day backed up to Milton Roundabout! SHLR was/is inadequate.

I voted for congestion charging, even though I thought the scheme was cr ap - it was at least a start on cutting down on pollution.

Post by **wangi** » 22 Feb 2005, 13:52

Guys, maybe best to make any resonses re HLR and Portobello HS to this thread: http://porty.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=959

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Feb 2005, 14:04

Brian McCrow wrote:Let's now have some serious debates about the issues and the solutions.

Who will be debating? How long do you think it may take to get agreement? Assuming we get said agreement, how will we implement a strategy that needs to also be a net income generator? We have a had a tax referendum and its quite clear that whilst there may be widespread recognition that things need to change. Edinburgh citizens are not prepared to pay.

Sometimes one has to act on gut feeling any action is better than no action. I believe this was one of those opportunities.

ceejam · Post by **ceejam** » 22 Feb 2005, 17:14

WooHoo, the sensible vote won!

Now lets hope CEC come up with a decent solution to reducing congestion.

I.E. putting in alternatives to cars, rather than just closing roads left, right and centre! This just moves congestion, it doesn't reduce it!

Ã‚Â£375 million for trams, what a complete waste of money, how many dedicated park and rides and new bus routes can you create for that money?

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 22 Feb 2005, 22:41

Porty wrote:We have a had a tax referendum and its quite clear that whilst there may be widespread recognition that things need to change. Edinburgh citizens are not prepared to pay.

I don't believe this to be the case at all, more that they were unwilling to pay for this proposed scheme. I voted 'yes' but I had serious misgivings about the solution planned and from speaking to others, they had the same misgivings and voted 'no'.

Now it may be the case that people are just saying they would've voted 'yes' for the right scheme and would have no intention to, and if it's up to the council we may never know. The EN was full of quotes from people today saying not to give it up and to get back around the drawing table and come up with something else, and what do I hear when I switch on the telly tonight, a council leader saying they won't try again. It's like a kid grabbing his football and saying he won't play unless everyone plays the way he wants!!!

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 23 Feb 2005, 08:40

The congestion charge campaigh concerned me because we were told that the only we could fix this serious problem was to accept this 2 cordon scheme AND this was the ONLY way in which funds could be made available. I never like being backed into a corner.

It now appears that the Councillors are taking their football home.

My contention is that they should resign and go home with their ball so some other people can step in to sort out this issue.

Maybe it's time to review the tram proposal as well. I like trams because they don't pollute but they are expensive to implement. Why don't we create dedicated bus lanes where the trams would be going. Buses are becoming cleaner and in the coming years we'll have newer cleaner fuels and engines. They are also more flexible than trams.

I'd like to see a new debate on an integrated transport policy for Scotland not just Edinburgh as our City'd transport doesn't exist on its own. I've always contended that faster and better public transport from Glasgow to Edinburgh and from Fife to Edinburgh would reduce a huge percentage of private transport coming into Edinburgh.

ceejam · Post by **ceejam** » 23 Feb 2005, 10:27

I like trams because they don't pollute

At point of use maybe, but the electricty has to be generated somwhere!

Electric buses (anyone remember trolley buses?) would have the same effect, could be recharged easily at either end of their route, and are much more flexible. e.g if there is an accident, buses can swing out and carry on, but the whole tram netweork would become gridlocked!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Feb 2005, 21:16

Brian McCrow wrote:
It now appears that the Councillors are taking their football home.
My contention is that they should resign and go home with their ball so some other people can step in...

I think its very unlikely any Councilors will resign over this issue. They don't believe in it enough. Some Councillors believe the Council have done the best that they could have done. If you want rid then voting them out is the only option.

Brian McCrow wrote: Maybe it's time to review the tram proposal as well. I like trams because they don't pollute but they are expensive to implement. Why don't we create dedicated bus lanes where the trams would be going. Buses are becoming cleaner and in the coming years we'll have newer cleaner fuels and engines. They are also more flexible than trams.

Maybe, but I don't see how its going to help congestion and provide cash for new transport infrastructure.?

Brian McCrow wrote: I'd like to see a new debate on an integrated transport policy for Scotland not just Edinburgh as our City'd transport doesn't exist on its own. I've always contended that faster and better public transport from Glasgow to Edinburgh and from Fife to Edinburgh would reduce a huge percentage of private transport coming into Edinburgh.

Aye, right. Out of interest, what size of huge percentage reduction have you calculated? Public transport between the locations you have mentioned has improved in recent years. Use of public transport has grown in recent years, yet more and more traffic invades Edinburgh.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 24 Feb 2005, 10:32

quote Brian>>
Portobello traffic is also far too busy. Let's tackle these issues but go for simple quick to implement solutions e.g. ban through traffic in Portobello.<<

(letter from Keith Rimmer - Head of Transport - on this proposal)

22nd January, 2005

Portobello High Street carries a substantial volume of traffic in both directions. This means that a one-way system would displace a large amount of traffic elsewhere in the roads network. I do not consider that the local network can safely or conveniently accommodate such an increase in traffic and the cost of providing new and improved roads to take this traffic would be prohibitive. It is also likely that such a change would undermine some of the businesses on the High Street and I would anticipate substantial opposition from the Local community to such a proposal. end.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 24 Feb 2005, 11:52

Gemini

I never went back to Keith Rimmer as I wanted to respond after consulting other people.

The Sir Harry Lauder Road was built to provide relief to Portobello so I'm unclear why it can't take the traffic it was designed for.

Most people shopping in Porty are local and a one way system would improve the quality of life for local people without affecting local trade. It would also allow us to widen the pavement on the High St. to allow seats outside cafes and pubs for a relaxed seaside atmosphere.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 24 Feb 2005, 13:43

Brian wrote>>
The Sir Harry Lauder Road was built to provide relief to Portobello so I'm unclear why it can't take the traffic it was designed for.<<

What amount of traffic was SHLR designed for? bearing in mind that planning and design stage of this road was in the late 70's.

SHLR (from someone who lives 12 metres from it) at many times day/evening backed up at Milton R/A and Kings Road Roundabout.

Keith Rimmer adivsed the questioner that their requests where not feesible and the reasons why not. I agree with him (this time).

Mimpty · Post by **Mimpty** » 24 Feb 2005, 14:20

Brian McCrow wrote: It would also allow us to widen the pavement on the High St. to allow seats outside cafes and pubs for a relaxed seaside atmosphere.

Brian, do you think people living above or close to pubs want people sitting outside til 10pm or so? When I was flat hunting I viewed and rejected a couple of properties on that ground alone.

mr magnolia · Post by **mr magnolia** » 24 Feb 2005, 23:05

On Wednesday morning I sat on the bypass in the snow at about 0745 and I looked into Edinburgh at the huge lines of stationary traffic and I thought to my self 'what this place needs is some form of congestion charge to stop all these people driving in, and just look at that lovely empty bus lane'

And 50mins later, as I reached the end of the bypass I thought, hmm, theres definitely not much room for more traffic out here at this time of day...

and then I thought briefly of the snowman that Mrs M and I had built late the night before (a la Dada towers) and how sad it was that it had fallen on its side by the time I got up in the morning, before the magnoliettes had even seen it...

and then I remembered the story of how, when the last link in the bypass was opened, lots of car-counter people were stationed around Edinburgh to measure the fall in traffic through central Edinburgh as a result of the wonderful new road. And I remembered that the answer was

NIL reduction. Ho Hum. (It may not be strictly true but it was Council engineers wot told me the story, and it has a ring of truth about it!)

and when I got back later that night I found that the magnoliettes had built two other snowmen and that they cared not a jot about the sideways one left sadly on his own...

and later still I pondered whether my thought train would (a) be late and (b) be better on the snow thread or on the congestion thread

And now its here!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Feb 2005, 11:23

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Feb 2005, 12:31

mr magnolia wrote:On Wednesday morning I sat on the bypass in the snow at about 0745 and I looked into Edinburgh at the huge lines of stationary traffic and I thought to my self 'what this place needs is some form of congestion charge to stop all these people driving in, and just look at that lovely empty bus lane'

And 50mins later, as I reached the end of the bypass I thought, hmm, theres definitely not much room for more traffic out here at this time of day...

and then I thought briefly of the snowman that Mrs M and I had built late the night before (a la Dada towers) and how sad it was that it had fallen on its side by the time I got up in the morning, before the magnoliettes had even seen it...

and then I remembered the story of how, when the last link in the bypass was opened, lots of car-counter people were stationed around Edinburgh to measure the fall in traffic through central Edinburgh as a result of the wonderful new road. And I remembered that the answer was

NIL reduction. Ho Hum. (It may not be strictly true but it was Council engineers wot told me the story, and it has a ring of truth about it!)

and when I got back later that night I found that the magnoliettes had built two other snowmen and that they cared not a jot about the sideways one left sadly on his own...

and later still I pondered whether my thought train would (a) be late and (b) be better on the snow thread or on the congestion thread

And now its here!

Mr M, do you ever feel life is passing you by?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Mar 2005, 21:36

From Maureen Child's latest newsletter:

The people of Edinburgh, on a 62% poll, voted three to one against our congestion charge scheme. As we promised in 2003, we took the 'in principle' agreement of the Scottish Executive and worked up a two cordon congestion scheme, which got the ringing endorsement of independent Inquiry Reporters. That bid, including congestion charging, had already got the 'in principle' agreement and had netted the Ã‚Â£375 million from the Scottish Executive towards Edinburgh trams. This money - and around Ã‚Â£4 million match funding for developing the scheme detail - would not have been forthcoming for Edinburgh if we had failed to proceed as we did. The Council was also required to demonstrate "clear public support" and so we committed ourselves to holding a referendum. That is another promise kept. Who can blame the Edinburgh people? They were fed a daily diet of ill-informed scaremongering and vilification of our scheme in the local press. This constant litany undermines people's confidence, day after day. Edinburgh people were very badly misled into voting 'no' in their droves. Some of us had the vision and leadership to firmly establish that demand management is critical to ensure the future of Edinburgh and our children's wellbeing. It is a great pity that, in acknowledging Edinburgh needs a solution to congestion, the people of Edinburgh failed to vote for the best achievable means. But that is democracy. People may say they voted 'no' because they don't trust professional politicians, but that trust works both ways.

Brian McCrow · Post by **Brian McCrow** » 01 Mar 2005, 22:26

Sorry Maureen you know my views on this.

You thought you had the Vision but YOU didn't communicate it very well. You can't point the finger at the media (an old and tired Labour argument). Remember when you point your finger there are 3 pointing back at you.

It was your job to communicate the Vision and to present counter arguments to any negative comment.

I am anti-congestion, anti-pollution for public transport and I was going to vote YES but couldn't understand the Vision or the implementation.

10 to 15 years ago I heard arguments about Edinburgh pollution but wasn't convinced. I didn't see any stats this time round about pollution.

As for congestion I lived in the West Midlands and travelled to London, Manchester on M1, M6, M40 where there was real congestion. Couldn't see it in Edinburgh now or in the future.

In the time period for implementation of the proposed congestion charge we will see some other technology becoming viable i.e. GPS charging for road users (Alastair Darling favours this, I believe) and the introduction of different fuels/engines such as hybrid, electric, hydrogen etc. Why wasn't this factored into the Vision.

I also couldn't vote YES given the impact on the beauty of Edinburgh centre with some 20+ inner cordon entry points with extra signage etc over a .5 mile radius. I don't want to live in Fortress Edinburgh which depends on tourism and service related jobs employing people living outwith Edinburgh.

I think the citizens of Edinburgh have stated that they want to reduce pollution and congestion. Now is the time to embark on a more meaningful DEBATE with the citizens of Edinburgh.

If the supporters of the YES campaign can't gird their loins to lead this debate they should step aside for fresh blood now. We don't want to lose another 2 years while we wait for the next Council elections.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Nov 2005, 22:05

Cast your mind back to 8 Feb:

Finance chief 'breaks rules' in road tolls yes mailshot

And now:

City chief broke rules with road tolls mailshot

Post by **wangi** » 16 Nov 2005, 22:32

Yeah, one is saying an investigation will take place, and the most recent one is the result of the investigation. Speedy, eh.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

Congestion charge referendum - can you vote?

Congestion charging