National Alliance Against Tolls

National Alliance Against Tolls - Edinburgh

edinburgh naat
HOME England Figures London M6 Toll NEWS Road Pricing Scotland Wales & Severn

EDINBURGH
EDINBURGH TOLL NEWS

The decision by the people of Edinburgh in February 2005 should have delivered a fatal blow to the monster of Tolls in Edinburgh and the rest of Britain.
But we fear that the alliance between the anti roads lobby (who want to use a stick to force people off the roads) and many politicians in power (who would love a new tax and an excuse to spend even less on roads) will not give up.

The failure of the anti roads lobby was a blow to the UK government who see Tolls as a source of extra money, and a way of avoiding spending on road improvements. Toll supporters said that if people were too "short-sighted" to vote for tolls, then tolls would be forced on them. According to the Guardian, an adviser to Alistair Darling (then Secretary of State for both Scotland and Transport) "bemoaned" Edinburgh's "fickle" voters and had: "lost faith in democracy."
We have all been warned, they will use every trick they can to get Tolls, though they won't risk the ballot box again.

The Yes campaign said that there was a "campaign of misinformation" against the Toll. This is strange as we thought that the Toll myths came from their side, we would be happy to answer any queries about the information on this site. We stressed one side of the argument, but we have not presented opinions as "facts". And we didn't have access to the vast resources that the "Yes" campaign had. Edinburgh council obviously wanted a Yes vote, and the Yes campaign was supported by various organisations which were in part funded by the public authorities.
If the No campaign had had equal access to resources, then there would never have been a referendum, as the government spin machine would have realised that it stood no chance.

Tuesday 22nd Feb 2005- Result of the Toll Poll -
No 133,678 to Yes 45,965!
The Edinburgh people have seen through the myths, and rejected Tolls.

If you can help with what may be a continuing fight against the Toll, then contact:- NAAT Scotland

AFTER THE RESULT - Reactions and What now?

The rest of this page is unchanged since the Toll Poll

What is the Edinburgh Toll?
What about the "Yes" claims?
Is congestion of roads a problem and what should be done about it?
Can Tolls be used to finance improvements to public transport?
What about London? 1. General
2. Report on Impact on London
3. Effect on London Businesses
How about the Toll Poll?
A Community Perspective - Why You Should Vote No
Some other Views
Toll & Air Pollution
What other web sites are there?

What is the Edinburgh Toll?

It is a Toll Zone, i.e. it applies to an area and not just one road or river crossing.
There are 2 existing Toll Zones in Britain.
The Durham one started on 1st October 2002 and is Ł2, but it only applies to ONE street (by the cathedral and castle).
The other is the London one which started on 17th February 2003 and is currently Ł5 a day.
Ken Livingstone is currently trying to get the London toll increased to Ł8 a day and have the Zone enlarged. Might this happen in Edinburgh?

The Toll proposed for Edinburgh is unusual, in that it consists of 2 zones.
The inner zone is the central area of Edinburgh.
The outer zone is most of the rest of Edinburgh:- Zone Maps

Initially the Toll will be set at Ł2 a day. It will be the same rate for all vehicles though some types of vehicle or user will be exempt.

The Edinburgh Toll would apply Monday to Friday, the Inner zone for most of the day (from 7 in the morning to 6.30 in the evening), the Outer zone for 3 hours (from 7 in the morning to 10 in the morning).

The toll is due if you enter Edinburgh (the outer boundary does not coincide with the Edinburgh boundary, but it is proposed that people who live outside the outer Toll boundary but within the Edinburgh city boundary would be exempt) or cross the boundary from the outer to the inner zone. This gives some strange results:- A resident of Edinburgh who has been away would have to pay to come home if their return was between 7 and 10 in the morning (or up to 6.30 PM if their journey home meant that they crossed the inner cordon).

Someone not resident in Edinburgh will have to pay what is in effect a border tax to enter their capital city before 10 AM.

You could drive round all day, and you would not pay a toll, providing that you either stayed within the inner zone or stayed within the outer zone. All vehicles pay the same toll - a small petrol driven efficient car will pay the same as a large car or a heavy goods vehicle.

Someone driving round all day will pay no more than someone making a short journey that goes across a toll boundary.

It is proposed to exempt buses, taxis, private hire cars and "approved car club vehicles" (a form of car hire).
So the vehicles that are on the road the most will not pay any toll!.

Toll would be administered in the same way as the London Toll:-.
There would be cameras along the Zone boundaries. The cameras would be linked to "automatic" identification of number plates. You would pay the toll using credit/debit cards over the Internet or by phone or text message. There would also be payment terminals in shops. They say you could also pay by post. You can pay in advance or up to midnight the following night.
In London about 40% of the income comes from massive penalties against those who have not paid in time.

Back to top

What about the "Yes" claims?

Even those who say they will vote "No" in the Toll Poll seem to accept some of the claims of those who want to force cars off the road:- Congestion will be reduced.
Big profit to spend on public transport.
Less pollution.
Businesses won't be affected.

This is what we think of the

"YES" CLAIMS

Is congestion of roads a problem and what should be done about it?

Is Car Congestion in cities a Con trick? Congestion?

The late Dr Alan Werninck on behalf of the Association of British Drivers submitted evidence to the Summer 2004 Inquiry. In summary he said:-
"We do not see congestion as a severe problem in Edinburgh but such congestion as there is could be alleviated by:-
1. Reopening roads previously closed off;
2. Removing obstructive "traffic calming";
3. Limiting bus lanes to routes where there is adequate road space;
4. Widening roads and putting in new roads as needed;
5. Building a sufficient number of easily accessible, low-cost multi-storey car parks near the city centre, streaming traffic towards and away from them and servicing them with shuttle buses between them crossing the city centre." There are other views on congestion and what might be done about it. Some of the possibilities include encouraging people to walk, cycle or get the bus. People can also be encouraged to car share. None of these are easy to do, but for instance the councils could set up and administer a car share service, where they matched people who wanted to share (Fife Council have started a trial scheme, which is not yet open to all).
Diesel engined buses and lorries can of course cause more air pollution than petrol driven cars, but this is an area where the government at Westminster could encourage and enforce better controls such as particulate traps.

Tolls do little to reduce congestion as for most drivers the car is the most convenient "vehicle" for the journey they wish to make at the time that they wish to make it. Drivers will try and avoid the toll while still using the car, this may mean that they actually make longer distance journeys to detour around the toll zone boundaries.
Where the driver can't bypass the toll, they will consider making a different journey, i.e. they will go to shops and other facilities that are away from the tolled area.

Back to top

Can Tolls be used to finance improvements to public transport?

1. Some forms of public transport i.e. trains and trams, are already massively subsidised in comparison with the numbers that they do and can carry.

2. Road users already contribute to the government at Westminster over Ł40 billion a year, of which only about Ł7 billion is spent on roads. So the road user is already massively overtaxed.

3. Tolls are a very inefficient way of gathering income.
In London, even with a Ł5 daily charge, nearly all the toll vanishes in costs including the fee paid to the private company that administers it. The profit mainly comes from the penalties where drivers have not paid the charge on time.

4.If the Edinburgh charge remains at Ł2 a day, it is quite possible that the scheme will not only have little effect on traffic (other than diverting it from one street to another) but may also incur a large loss.

Back to top

What about London?

Supporters of the Edinburgh Tolls quote the "success" of the London "Congestion Charge". So how do the 2 compare?
There is a great difficulty in answering this question. Facts like the operating hours etc are fairly easy to find. More important things are difficult to impossible to find. Some of the things we would like to know are:-

What are the vehicle flows within and without the Toll Zones? This needs to be broken down between exempt / partly exempt / paying vehicles. It also needs to show the effect on different areas, i.e. for London within the zone and without it, and for Edinburgh within the inner cordon, and between the 2 cordons.
What is the effect on air quality both within the zones and outside?
What is the effect on jobs and business inside the zones?
How many people are avoiding payment?
What is the cost of the schemes and how is it made up?
What is the income from the schemes and how is it made up?

This is what we have found or deduced so far:-

London isn't Edinburgh!
London has a massive railway system both under and above ground.
Nowhere in Britain could ever build a comparable system, even after allowing for lower population.
London zone is only 1.4% of the total London area, (zone is 22 square kilometres, London is 1,579 square kilometres). The zone is in the central part of London but does not cover the whole of the centre.
The Edinburgh scheme consists of 2 zones. The inner zone is smaller than the London one, but the outer zone includes most of Edinburgh.
London traffic can drive round the Toll Zone using the Inner Ring Road, which is a complete loop and forms the boundary.
In Edinburgh, cars would have to zig zag or make major detours to drive round the inner zone boundary.
Car traffic in the London zone has fallen by about 30%. Other traffic has increased. There are no comprehensive figures for what has happened outside the London Zone, and opinions differ as to whether it is better or worse. But it appears that over London as a whole the Toll Zone has had little effect on traffic or air quality:- BBC 27 October 2004 - Road toll 'fails to cut traffic'
The London scheme applies to vehicles driving within the Zone. The Edinburgh scheme applies to vehicles crossing a Zone boundary in an inward direction. In practice there will not be much difference between driving within the London zone and crossing the boundary of the inner Edinburgh zone. This is because in London, drivers living within the Zone get a 90% discount, so almost all the tolls comes from those entering the zone each day.
The main similarity is that both schemes only operate Monday to Friday during the working day. Though the hours differ. London Toll operates from 7 in the morning to 6.30 in the evening. Edinburgh Toll is proposed to be the same hours as London for the Inner zone, but in the Outer zone would be for 3 hours (7 in the morning to 10 in the morning).
With the current charge there are about 100,000 vehicles a day that pay to drive within the London Zone together with a considerable number that are exempt or partly exempt from the charge.
We had thought that the Edinburgh scheme would effect about twice as many vehicles as the London one, because the Edinburgh scheme has 2 boundaries with the outer one covering most of the city. But it appears that Edinburgh City Council is only expecting about 80,000 vehicles a day to pay the Toll.
Large numbers of people in London avoid payment by various means.
Is this another Holyrood building?
The London scheme charges Ł5 a day (with a proposed rise to Ł8 a day). The Edinburgh scheme will charge Ł2 a day. So the Edinburgh scheme is less expensive for drivers. We don't know how drivers will react, but the difference in price would suggest that the Edinburgh scheme will run at a big loss.
The London scheme in the last financial year cost about Ł142 million to run and generated Ł187 million income. Transport for London - 2003/04 Accounts (note 24 page 40)
We had estimated a loss of about Ł80 million a year for the Edinburgh scheme. But the City Council seem to be assuming that income will be about Ł57 million and expenditure about Ł19 million.
Based on the London figures and the lower rate of charge and penalties in Edinburgh this seems impossible.
The nature of the schemes is slightly different, but they will deal with about the same number of vehicles, and the Edinburgh scheme covers a far bigger area than the London zone.
Edinburgh say that they will be able to use less cameras. But will this bring the cost down from Ł142 million to Ł19 million?
Reduction in business within the London zone. You can see some of the recent reports in the next but one section.

How about the Toll Poll?

Edinburgh City Council decided (by one vote)on the 9th December 2004 that:-

Voters will be asked to vote 'Yes' in favour or 'No' against to the question:-
"The leaflet enclosed with this ballot paper gives information on the Council's transport proposals for Edinburgh. The Council's 'preferred' strategy includes congestion charging and increased transport investment funded by it. Do you support the Council's 'preferred' strategy?"

This is a "pig in a poke" with Tolls as the only thing you can be sure off.

Ballot papers from Electoral Reform Services were delivered by Royal Mail over Saturday 5th to Tuesday 8th.

The closing date for receipt of completed postal ballots is Monday 21 February 2005 at 9pm. Edinburgh City Council have arranged that papers posted for last collection on Monday will be delivered to them by the 9pm deadline.

The outcome of the referendum will be declared on Tuesday 22 February 2005. The result will be reported to the full Council meeting on Thursday 24 February 2005.

Edinburgh having a poll on the issue is at least one up on London! They didn't have to have a Poll when Ken Livingstone introduced Tolls there. There is a different law in Scotland (the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and umpteen Regulations made under it), but it is similar i.e. there has to be consultation, but the council does not have to pay any attention to it.
According to Edinburgh about 90% of the comments from their public consultation were opposed to either the whole scheme or part of it. So it is just as well it was only "consultation"!

As Edinburgh doesn't have to have a Poll it apparently does not come under the rules for Referenda enforced by the Electoral Commission. In particular if it came under the rules, then the Commission would have said whether the ballot Question was fair.
Edinburgh have arranged for the independent Electoral Reform Services to send out ballot papers and do the count. It is a pity that they didn't also get the Electoral Reform people to vet the ballot question.

The Toll Poll question is loaded. You are offered a nice shiny apple - public transport improvements, but can only take it if you also accept a dose of poison - tolls. The leaflet (which hasn't yet been published) may sell the transport benefits with glossy "artist's impressions", and of course 35,000 people won't get to vote because they are not on the full electoral register and didn't complete a "referendum form" on time:-
Edinburgh City Council is using the "edited" register and not the full electoral register. If you opted to have your name not passed on to third parties but wanted to be able to vote in the Toll Poll, you had to complete and return a "Referendum form" by January 14.
You can check if you are eligible to vote by ringing 0131 529 4877, Monday to Friday or e-mailing:- Edinburgh Elections
Some neighbouring Lothian councils are also having a poll. Edinburgh City Council can ignore those results, but you should vote if you can. Those who don't receive a ballot paper will think that they are in the Ukraine or even Florida!

Back to top

A Community Perspective - Why You Should Vote No

Various Community Associations are campaigning for a No vote. Tina Woolnough (who is now the main spokesperson for those opposing the Toll scheme), Lorna Hudson and Fiona Gilbert on behalf of: Blackhall Community Association, Murrayfield Community Council and Wester Coates Amenity Association produced these comments:-

Here are some reasons why we believe everyone should vote "No":- 1. Nearly 1,500 objections were lodged at the Public Inquiry last May. Despite this the City of Edinburgh Council is pressing ahead with what we believe is a flawed scheme.
Over a dozen community councils and local organisations took part in the public inquiry. Many of us were extremely concerned about the severe impact on our communities.

2. Contrary to the Council's spin, their proposal is not "green". To generate funds, the scheme needs cars to keep coming into the city.

3. Traffic is projected to increase on over 80 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, Inverleith and the Botanic Gardens, Dalry-Blackhall, Corstorphine, Marchmont, Morningside, Queen's Drive, Duddingston and the B701 orbital route.

4. 64% of car journeys will be unaffected, as they will not cross a cordon. This is a congestion-building scheme, not a congestion-busting scheme.

5. "Little total reduction in car travel" is what the Reporters at the Public Inquiry confirmed due to "the nature of the two-cordon scheme".

6. There are no mitigation details and there is no timetable for measures to reduce the impact of the congestion charge on streets which will experience more traffic.

7. No guarantee exists that the transport "goodies" promised by the Council will ever materialise.

8. Alternative public transport improvements are not yet in place. Promised improvements to bus services have not been specified.

9. 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.

10. The computer modelling used by the Council has a margin of error of 30%.

11. Cost to retailers and restaurateurs is predicted by the Council's consultants to be Ł70m. Shoppers are already staying away, preferring out-of-town shopping centres such as the Fort.

12. Evidence at the Inquiry forecast that accidents would increase.

13. Most of our city's schools are between the outer and inner 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.

14. The Edinburgh residential exemptions are not specified in the draft Charging Order - only a general mention is made. The Council looks set to act against the advice of the Inquiry Reporters, their agents "tie" and their own officers, who all recommended against the residential exemptions. This affects the people of South Queensferry, Kirkliston, Currie and Balerno. Neighbouring local authorities have made a legal challenge to this exemption. When the Charging Order goes before the Scottish Executive, the exemption may have to be dropped.
Residents will be voting in the Poll without knowing what will be included in the final approved Order.

15. Poll question is biased and confusing. Ballot papers will probably be sent out with a heavily-weighted, promotional leaflet. 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. No mention of negative impacts was made.

16. Low-paid out-of-town shift workers will be amongst the worst affected.

17. Unison trade union said that it would be "a tax on the sick" and that it would cost NHS Lothian Ł1m per annum as staff and services pay the charge.

18. Ken Livingstone said "Don't do it for the money" as London's scheme has failed to realise the predicted income. Having promised not to increase the charge for 10 years, they are planning a 60% increase.

19. There is already a recruitment problem in many city businesses and in parts of the public sector. People who work in the city and live outside Edinburgh are already reviewing their positions.

20. THERE ARE BETTER SOLUTIONS. Grass-roots, community-based strategies are very successful in encouraging people to review their car use. Projects such as Safer 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 go a long way to reduce traffic. Better pedestrian and cycling facilities, along with health-promoting campaigns, could encourage people to walk some of their journey. Back to top

Some other Views

Join in the debate on the Scotsman website at:- The Scotsman online debate: congestion charging
Some of the views from the debate at the Scotsman are on these links (you may have to scroll down to "your views"):- Fri 28th January Sat 29th Jan Mon 31st Jan - 1 Mon 31st Jan - 2 Tue 1st Feb Wed 2nd Feb - 1 Wed 2nd Feb - 2 Thu 3rd Feb Fri 4th Feb - 1 Fri 4th Feb - 2

Other recent views on "Congestion Charges" are below.
Most don't refer to Edinburgh, but the same points apply as in London and elsewhere. We haven't included any pro Toll views!
We add to this from time to time, the more recent views are on the top

By promoting "congestion" charging, councils try to make drivers pay more for solving the problems they created themselves.
Much of the congestion is engineered: traffic calming , poor traffic light phasing, road closures/priority changes, and planning decisions that flood an area with traffic without the road network being improved.
As for pollution, a diesel bus produces 30 times the quantity of nitrogen oxides and 20 times the quantity of particulates that a diesel driven car does. A petrol driven car is even better. Buses can carry more passengers, but not enough to offset the difference in engines. That's why the air in London has got worse (though they have kept that quiet).
As a mother with three young children, my two year olds have to go to nursery, my six-year-old to school and myself to work. Taking public transport is not an option and I feel this is an unfair charge.
I care for patients within our community - I'm now going to be penalised for going out to see them due to congestion charges. If I can't get out to visit my patients they have to come to hospital and they then have to incur the tolls.
I require to work in the city centre, and need to carry large bundles of paper for my work. I cannot do that by public transport.
How can't public transport improve on it's own instead of relying on massive investment from the cash cow motorist. It's about time these hare brained schemes were scrapped. The odd thing is the congestion charge doesn't make a lot of people switch to public transport, if they really wanted people out of cars they would charge Ł100 a visit but they don't so they are extorting more from the motorist and they know it.
As someone who already suffers from the London Congestion Charge, I would advise you not to do it. The London charge was supposed to cross subsidise public transport, but in fact barely makes a profit. All it subsidises is call centres which may eventually be overseas. As a result Ken is proposing to up the charge to Ł8 a day which is more than many people can afford, even when use of a car is essential to them. Also it has not improved air pollution as was claimed it would, central London still has traffic jams, and the average bus loading is down to 15 passengers which mean they lose a billion pounds per year! Altogether it is financial lunacy and only the non-driving Ken Livingstone and his anti-car pals would ever consider such a scheme as being a success. It's also a nightmare for users who waste more time paying the charge (and arguing with the operators over erroneous penalties) than they save in reduced journey times.
Only the businesses can make a difference, if they don't want to lose revenue like the London ones have they should protest, strongly, loudly and NOW!
I run a business making frequent deliveries into the city centre. Congestion charging will only push up my overheads further leading to either higher prices for customers or ultimately job losses. The congestion charge may work in London where public transport is at least acceptable (well OK it's bad but at least it's there), in other cities it is not even nearly good enough and introducing a congestion charge without improving public transport links (and not at the motorists expense) will do nothing other than drive shoppers, tourists and business out of the city.
Congestion Charging? Mobility Tax more like! Congestion is being engineered into every part of our road network as an excuse to fleece us even further and reduce our freedom to move about as we wish. I see a very sinister agenda behind this!
London stores are reporting lower sales since the introduction of congestion charging. Other city centre stores are already loosing customers to out of town shopping. Cities should consider embracing all forms of transport and make provision for more peripheral car parks and bus stops to preserve the environment for all to enjoy. If a city chooses to antagonise motorists further, then commercial decline is assured.
Another hair-brained scheme from a government obsessed with forcing motorists to subsidise unreliable and overcrowded public transport. I suppose it's part of an 'integrated' transport plan that focuses entirely on public transport and expects the taxpayer to foot the bill. My advice to businesses in the city centre is to get out now if experience of the London congestion charge is anything to go by.
No no no no BAD bad idea.
Yes an excellent idea, but do it differently to London. Just ban all cars that are old enough to need a MOT. That would cut traffic by about two-thirds and that way it would deemed "to be a success". Just like London, the city is not to be enjoyed by all people but just those rich enough. Thousands of people would receive 'false' prosecution notices as in London so it would create employment for bailiffs, for all those people that had the audacity to complain about their innocence and not pay up immediately. Why do the not so well-off think they have as much right to travel as rich people? No good spending millions of pounds to traffic calm cities into gridlock, if you do not follow the 'master plan' of congestion charges and toll roads!
It's always the motorist who has to pay, isn't it? Let's see the bus companies stumping up for their polluting diesel buses!
Congestion charging? No thanks. Remove all the deliberate congestion causing measures and improve roads. London businesses are suffering due to the C-Charge - the smaller ones are particularly vulnerable.
Why should motorists pay even more for using roads? The amount paid each year by motorists is already nearly three times the amount spent on roads, rail and other public transport put together. This statistic is courtesy of the House of Commons library researchers - due thanks to my MP.
Congestion will increase outside the tolled area.
Yet more stealth taxation, if you really want no cars, close the roads instead. A lot of the so called congestion arises from bus lanes. Roads were designed at one time to allow free flowing traffic, but no more. It appears that anything that could inconvenience road users has been thought of. Charging for this is a good way of generating income, but does little else.
Most of the 'fumes' in city centres come from diesel-engined buses and taxis, and banning cars would make little difference.
Congestion charging is just another money grabbing schemes. Before embarking on congestion charging authorities should first identify what is causing the congestion in the first instance - is it too many badly coordinated road works, poorly designed roads, lack of the right public transport etc. Then they should look at other alternatives such as park and ride schemes, appropriately located car parks and so on. Motorists should not be made to pay to travel roads that they have already paid for in road tax - if this funding is not getting to the local authorities then this is an issue for them to take up with the government and they should not introduce congestion charging.
Avoid following Ken's bad example. This isn't about traffic jams or air quality, if so there'd be no buses allowed on the roads. It's about car hatred and forcing people into lifestyle changes. Tolls mean ever more people and businesses will go elsewhere.
Public consultations are a sham. The council only allows people who live in the city to vote on the issue. Those who live outside and drive in are not allowed to vote. The whole exercise is weighted so as to deny drivers their democratic rights.
You just despair don't you. Who has created this congestion? Nobody but our wonderful "transport planners" who have closed and narrowed key roads, introduced barely used bus and cycle lanes, set up traffic lights every few yards, closed car parks and introduced other wonderful measures to make life more difficult for the road user. Can't Councils understand that the car is here to stay and they could improve road access, parking and public transport for far less than they plan to spend on the white elephant of the new tram system.
Here we go again - time to whack the cars. Most of the congestion in cities is due to the introduction of road-narrowing and similar schemes. Now it's time for the second part of the plan - blame the motorist for the congestion and raid his wallet. This is exactly the same as they did in London. I would be very willing to join some kind of protest group to make sure this does not happen.
I suspect their minds are already made up, and that the 'consultation' will be a sham, just like it was in London. Why should motorists pay any more to use the roads they already pay for? Why should the car owner be forced to the back of the queue, especially as we contribute around Ł40 Billion per year in extra taxes? Get off our backs!

You can also go to:- BBC - Have Your Say But be warned! It has views from both sides.

Back to top

Toll & Air Pollution

There have been claims that voting "Yes" for Tolls will mean an improvement in Air Quality in Edinburgh.
But the Toll will mainly divert traffic on to more residential streets, and most of the Air Pollution in city centre streets does not come from cars!

Health and Air Pollution is an important issue, but there are many other things that individuals, businesses, and governments can do that would make a REAL improvement. You can see some of those that individuals can do at Edinburgh's own web site:- Air Pollution - Do Your Bit

More of our views on Edinburgh Tolls & Air Pollution:-

EDINBURGH TOLL & AIR POLLUTION

You can see the Association of British Drivers views on the issue of Cars and Air Pollution at:-
Vehicle Emissions Cars - Scapegoats Environment & Health Issues Car exhausts Asthma Particulates "Ecobabble"

You can also see this article that was published in carnet. The author is Lance Green, who is pro car, though he hasn't driven since 1977!
Cars and Air Pollution

Back to top

What other web sites are there?

Sites campaigning for a No vote in the February Toll Poll: NO-CONGESTION-CHARGE. (The "Edinburgh Congestion Charge" and "Transport Edinburgh Info" sites have closed down.)

There were two Official sites set up by Edinburgh City Council. They included the Toll Inquiry evidence and report. Unfortunately they are gone, but some of the documents can be still be found by this Google search

There were two other pro Toll sites:- "Get Edinburgh Moving" and "Say Yes to Edinburgh Toll". They are both closed down.

Back to top

HOME England Figures London M6 Toll NEWS Road Pricing Scotland Wales & Severn