The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter 12: Measures to Manage Demand

12.1 The consultation stated:

At a local authority level, demand management in all areas comes through parking restrictions and charges. SPP17 - Planning for Transport sets out maximum parking standards for new developments, with national ceilings for key development types over prescribed size thresholds.

We have invested considerable funds over the last few years in supporting local authorities to take forward park and ride facilities in their areas to encourage more travellers to leave their cars behind and use public transport. An example of where this is working is Ferrytoll Park and Ride, which has recently doubled its capacity through an award from the Executive, in recognition of the continued demand by Fife commuters for such a measure.

As a means of tackling congestion, small town/rural to urban park and ride can be an effective measure. Under existing Integrated Transport Fund/Public Transport Fund projects the Executive continues to support such developments - such as schemes in Aberdeenshire, Harthill, Croy and Todhills - and in the future such cross-local authority projects will probably be most effectively led by regional transport partnerships.

At the moment there is no one clear position on park and ride at railway stations - some stations charge, while others do not.

The consultation asked:

Q43: What needs to be done to ensure that parking policy - on-street parking, bus and rail park and ride and so on - is more effective in managing demand and promoting modal shift?

Overall, 107 respondents (34%) addressed this question.

It was commented that much had already been done in this regard and that the Scottish Executive should " be congratulated on the part it has played" ( LA). Many respondents remarked on what they saw as the tricky balance to be struck between people's access needs and the requirements of managing demand and promoting modal shift. One consultee summed up this view:

" parking is a complex issue …requiring a balanced approach between managing demand and allowing access to services" ( LA)

Others highlighted that parking policy was just one of a number of solutions to manage demand and should not be viewed in isolation. One consultee urged that parking interventions should be evaluated in order to assess their effectiveness (Oth PB).

A few key themes emerged. These are described below.

12.1.1 Views on Setting Parking Policies

Although there was some agreement that parking policies should be consistent across authorities ( LA, Rep Org, RTP), it was envisaged by several respondents that the Scottish Executive would set overarching guidance for regional and/or local parking strategies to develop their own policies taking into account local needs ( LA, LA, LA, LA, Rep Org, RTP, RTP).

Consultees provided mixed views on whether parking standards should be set at national (Rep Org, LA, EB/ ST) or regional level ( LA, LA, LA, RTP, Oth PB). One respondent remarked that parking standards should retain the flexibility to serve as an effective demand management tool ( LA).

12.1.2 Views on Enforcing Existing Parking Regulations

A common theme raised by many respondents, with an over-representation of transport operators, was that existing parking regulations should be better enforced by local authorities. One note of caution was raised by a local authority that it was difficult for smaller authorities to commit the resources required to enforce parking regulations effectively. It was suggested that penalties for illegal parking should be graded so that the worst offences received a more severe penalty ( LA, Rep Org).

According to some consultees, certain parking restrictions should be prioritised for enforcement. These included inappropriate parking in a disabled space (Rep Org), parking on footpaths or double parking ( LA, LA, LA), parking in cycle lanes ( EB/ ST) or parking so as to impede bus movement (Tr Op). Others argued generally for robust dealing with infringements which impeded traffic flow (Tr Op, Tr Op, Tr Op, Rep Org).

It was argued that local authorities should explain to residents the reasons for their parking policies (Rep Org) and that there should be a campaign to stop what was perceived to be a " park anywhere" mentality with parking attendants seen as " the enemy" ( RTP).

12.1.3 Views on Charging for Parking

It was acknowledged by one respondent that parking charges needed to be geared to attract a certain user but at the same time dissuade other potential users ( LA). According to others, pricing policy needed to address what was seen as an imbalance between in-town and out-of-town parking circumstances with out-of-town retailers currently enjoying an unfair advantage (Rep Org, Bus, Oth PB, Pub). Not surprisingly, due to the complex issues involved, views were split on whether charges should be levied for parking. A few calls were made for "appropriate" ( LA) or "affordable" (Rep Org) charges. Some demanded all parking at shops, educational facilities and other services should be charged for ( LA, Rep Org). Another view was that no charges should be invoked at rail station car parks (Rep Org). One consultee questioned why parking should be charged for (for example at rail stations) as this usually saved a car journey (Rep Org).

12.1.4 Views on Availability of Parking Spaces

A recurring comment was that there was a need for more parking spaces particularly at stations. Calls were made for an expansion in Park and Ride parking facilities. Other locations seen as needing more available parking space were modal interchanges (Rep Org, LA). One respondent considered that providing more short stay parking spaces enabled greater access to city centres and services (Rep Org).

12.1.5 Views on Restrictions on Parking

A few consultees commented that tighter restrictions should be imposed on on-road parking ( LA, LA, EB/ ST), perhaps by denying vehicular access to city and town centres and increasing parking on the outskirts ( CTG). One idea was for controlled parking zones ( LA). Other perspectives were reflected in comments. For example, it was stressed that disabled people should not be disadvantaged by parking restriction regimes (Eq Bod, Eq Bod, Rep Org, Oth Bod) and that parking policy should be assessed under the Disability Equality Duty (Eq Bod). Another view was that small businesses should not suffer on account of tougher parking restrictions and perhaps commuter parking near shops could be dissuaded by restricting parking to after 9.30 am (Bus).

It was suggested that residential parking permits be limited to accommodate only one car per household ( EB/ ST) with households given the choice of a parking permit, a free car club membership, a free bike and so on ( EB/ ST). One consultee urged that parking restrictions should apply to any new developments ( EB/ ST).

12.1.6 Views on Workplace Parking

Several respondents urged that workplace parking be charged for or taxed (Tr Op, LA, LA, Oth PB, EB/ ST). It was argued that free workplace parking constituted a subsidy to car drivers which was not provided to those who walked to work or used public transport (Rep Org, Rep Org). Others called for a tax on non-domestic car parking (Pub) or a local authority levy on the provision of private parking spaces ( EB/ ST).

12.2 The consultation asked:

Q44: How might park and ride schemes best be developed to further encourage modal shift and reduce congestion? How should enhancements be funded and what should pricing policies be?

In total, 84 respondents (27%) addressed this question.

12.2.1 Views on How Park and Ride Schemes Might Best Be Developed

Arguments were made largely by transport operators for a national Park and Ride strategy. A different perspective was provided largely by local authorities who urged that local areas had different needs and local or regional policies would be more appropriate. Many consultees stressed that Park and Ride policies should be viewed within wider transport strategy and should run alongside schemes such as tighter parking restrictions and increased parking charges in city centres.

Several respondents stated that they saw the need for increasing Park and Ride capacity (Pub, LA, LA, Misc, Rep Org, Rep Org). Some stressed the importance of convenient locations such as those at transport interchange nodes ( LA, LA) those in high car-using residential areas (Oth PB) or on key approaches to city and town centres (Oth PB). It was recommended that the schemes serve a wide range of destinations (Acad).

A common theme was that Park and Ride schemes needed to be competitively priced with competitive journey times. One consultee recommended that the service be frequent ( LA). The importance of safety at Park and Ride facilities was stressed largely by members of the public. It was suggested that the schemes be located where parked vehicles could be overlooked (Pub), and should be manned with regular security patrols (Pub, Pub, LA). One consultee called for facilities to be well lit (Pub), with others calling for the use of CCTV at Park and Ride car parks ( EC, LA).

It was suggested, largely by local authority consultees, that Park and Ride facilities should be expanded to include toilets, shops, ticket machines, a crèche and cycle hire. The potential use of RTI at Park and Ride schemes was raised ( LA). It was recommended that Park and Ride facilities should be well signed ( LA) and open all day ( LA).

A recurring theme was that bus priority lanes should be part and parcel of a Park and Ride scheme.

12.2.2 Views on How Park and Ride Schemes should be Funded

Many respondents provided their views on how Park and Ride schemes should be funded. A common response was that the Scottish Executive should fund such schemes ( LA, LA, LA, Bus, EC), perhaps by giving revenue support (Acad, CTG) or offering a grant for development ( LA). A few consultees argued for strategic schemes to be funded through the Regional Transport Partnerships ( LA, LA, LA, Rep Org, Rep Org) using funds such as the Integrated Transport Fund or the Bus Operator Development Grant for local schemes ( LA, LA). Two respondents suggested that monies raised from parking charges elsewhere be directed to supporting Park and Ride schemes ( LA, LA). Others suggested that secure developer contributions come from operators and their partners (Rep Org). One view was that large schemes may become financially self sufficient ( EC). It was argued that Park and Ride schemes should be exempt from rates ( LA, Rep Org).

12.2.3 Views on Pricing Policy for Park and Ride Schemes

Ten respondents (largely local authorities and members of the public) stated expressly that Park and Ride schemes should be free. Many of the others argued that the fares should be competitively priced compared to taking a car and paying parking charges, but higher than public transport fares so that these are not undercut.

One consultee suggested that the fare incorporate the ticket price for the end journey ( LA), with others recommending that the price of the Park and Ride service should be offset against the purchase price of any subsequent public sector transport ticket ( LA, LA, Acad). One respondent considered that the development of commercial activities on the Park and Ride site may help to reduce Park and Ride ticket prices (Pub). Another suggested that different prices may be applied depending on whether travel was on a weekday or weekend (Rep Org). One view was the pricing policy should be determined locally to suit local needs ( LA).

12.2.4 Concerns Regarding the Development of Park and Ride Schemes

Several respondents raised their concerns about developing Park and Ride schemes further. These included:

• May create congestion around the Park and Ride sites
• May serve to displace congestion to rural roads
• Park and Ride sites are space hungry
• Park and Ride car parks can become full
• They are expensive to run
• They have the potential to undermine public transport services
• They introduce yet another change of transport along a journey
• Park and Ride schemes may not be commercially viable

It was argued that the need for Park and Ride schemes should gradually diminish as public transport is improved (Rep Org). A few consultees called for increased cycle storage and carriage provision in order to encourage cycling to the Park and Ride facilities ( LA, EB/ ST, EB/ ST, Rep Org).

12.3 The consultation stated:

We could look at innovative ways of improving demand management on the trunk road network. These might include, for example, bus priority measures; multiple occupancy vehicle and heavy goods vehicle preference schemes; metering the access to motorways; or increasing the numbers of park and ride facilities to reduce the number of vehicles on critical parts of the road network.

The consultation asked:

Q45: Should we pilot new approaches to improving demand management on the trunk road network? If so, which approaches should we pilot (for example, bus priority measures, multiple occupancy vehicle and heavy goods vehicle preference, metering, more park and ride) and do you have any views about where and when they should be piloted?

Overall, 90 respondents (29%) addressed this question.

Of these, 11 consultees from a range of sectors stated simply that these measures should be piloted. A further 6 respondents expressed surprise that pilots were being considered as in their view there was enough evidence from elsewhere of the success of these measures to go straight ahead with their implementation ( LA, LA, EB/ ST, EB/St, Rep Org, Oth PB). Seven more consultees (largely members of the public) appeared to clearly oppose the introduction of demand management measures. One argued that this constituted simply " fiddling with the symptoms" of too much car use (Pub). Others remarked that these measures could cost more than they would save (Pub) or could cause frustration (Pub) or congestion on parallel roads (Pub). One view was that a carrot approach to demand management was better than the stick of these measures ( EC). The 2 remaining respondents (both members of the public) did not specify reasons for their opposition. Two consultees argued that they were against such measures being introduced in the Highlands (Bus) or in remote areas (Oth PB).

A few other consultees expressed caution that in developing demand management measures, the needs of rural areas and/or local circumstances should be taken into account ( LA, LA, Rep Org, Rep Org, RTP, RTP).

12.3.1 Views on Which Measures Should be Piloted

Many consultees highlighted specific measures which they wanted to see prioritised in any pilot scheme. These measures are listed below in order of frequency of mentions:

• Bus priority measures
• Multiple occupancy vehicle preference schemes
• Park and Ride schemes
• HGV preference schemes
• Metering schemes
• Hard shoulder running for priority vehicles

12.3.2 Views on Where the Measures Should be Piloted

Suggestions for piloting focused on the major conurbations of Edinburgh and Glasgow and the corridor between them. Apart from this, one suggestion was for piloting on " busier networks" (Acad), or leaving this decision to Regional Transport Authorities and local economic forums to decide (Bus).

12.4 The consultation stated:

Road pricing may be the demand management policy that offers most choice to road users, in that it allows them the choice to pay and drive, or to choose an alternative time, route or mode. However, the provision of attractive alternatives that motorists would want to use is also an important part of the package, which is where policies to promote modal shift become very important.

The consultation asked:

Q46: Given the difficulties in managing demand for road space by other means, do consultees agree that, in principle, national and/or local road pricing in Scotland could be an effective way to manage demand?

This question attracted a relatively high rate of response with 141 respondents (45%) addressing it.

Of these respondents 123 provided a clear view on whether or not they supported road pricing (the remaining 18 consultees provided relevant commentary but no clear view). Out of these 123 respondents, 78% were in favour of some form of national and/or local road pricing; 17% were against, and 5% considered that there may be merit in road pricing but this required further investigation.

Those in favour of road pricing represented a range of sectors. Those against were over-represented by consultees from the business sector.

A few general comments were made in favour of road pricing. One consultee expressed their view that:

" road pricing is the only effective tool that can have a major influence on managing demand on the inter-urban road network" ( LA)

However, another respondent summed up a common perception:

" Road pricing is a very difficult and unpopular topic" (Rep Org)

12.4.1 Views on Whether a Scheme should be National or Local

It was difficult to distinguish responses which favoured national schemes from those preferring local action. Overall, it appeared that there were arguments for and against each. Those in favour of a local approach argued that this would enable more focused targeting of schemes in areas of greatest need. One typical comment was:

" We see road pricing as an effective local response to local problems, whereas a national pricing scheme by the very bluntness of the instrument is more likely to weigh heavily on disadvantaged groups" (Oth PB)

One consultee considered that the administration of a national scheme could get out of hand:

" A national scheme would, inevitably, become a ridiculously expensive, grossly over complicated, mad "Big Brother" IT project" (Pub)

On the other hand, those favouring a national scheme suggested that local commitment might not be enough, and inconsistencies in local application could result in rat runs forming around local schemes and draining of local economies. In addition, one respondent pointed out that as many journeys cross local boundaries, local road pricing would not be practical ( LA).

12.4.2 Qualifications on Support for Road Pricing

Many of those supporting the notion of road pricing did so on condition that certain requirements were met. A recurring comment was that prior to the introduction of road pricing, there should be high quality alternative public transport options in place. Another common sentiment was that the revenue raised by road pricing should be re-invested in public transport. Other qualifications included:

• There should be corresponding reductions in vehicle excise duty and fuel costs
• So long as any scheme was fair to rural areas
• So long as any scheme was part of a wider package of improvements to public transport
• So long as Park and Ride facilities were improved in tandem
• There should be transparency in pricing

12.4.3 Views on Exemptions from Road Pricing

Despite proffering support to the notion of road pricing, several respondents also identified cases which they recommended should be exempt from paying the charges. The exemptions identified are shown in Table 8 overleaf.

Table 8: Views on Exemptions from Road Pricing

One contrasting view was that freight hauliers should be made to pay charges in order to encourage them to shift their loads to rail transport (Pub).

12.4.4 Views Against Road Pricing

Many consultees provided their views on the drawbacks of road pricing. The most common disadvantage to emerge from those both in favour and those against road pricing was that such a scheme could disadvantage rural drivers who had restricted choice of alternative modes of travel and already had to face higher fuel bills. It was argued that congestion was not an issue for many rural areas and that road pricing could deter tourists and affect rural economies.

Other drawbacks envisaged included concerns that road pricing could exacerbate social exclusion by isolating people who could not afford to pay. It was pointed out that car owners already pay car tax and this would be yet another cost to meet. Another concern was that road pricing did not distinguish between cars which had been converted to be more emission efficient and those which were more polluting. Concerns were raised that road pricing might result in increased traffic on unsuitable local roads.

12.5 The consultation asked:

Q47: Does the Executive need to do more to build support for road pricing? Should there be funding made available to Local Authorities and Regional Transport Partnerships which wish to promote local/regional road pricing schemes? If so, what model should be used to provide such funding?

Relatively few respondents addressed this question with a total of 65 respondents (21%) providing commentary.

It was commonly agreed that road pricing did have a poor image and that much work would be needed to address this. One view was that promoting a better image was important:

" or it will be portrayed by road lobbyists as yet another tax on the downtrodden motorist/haulier" (Pub)

It was recommended that the Scottish Executive needed to give explicit and very strong support to a future road pricing scheme:

" heavily sold to a sceptical public" ( LA)

" the strongest possible lead on this at all levels" ( EB/ ST)

Others argued that where local or regional authorities took forward schemes, the Scottish Executive should be clear that it supported these approaches and should not remain neutral. Several respondents commented that any future scheme would need to be at national level as it was unlikely that local or regional bodies would wish to promote a scheme without national support.

12.5.1 Views on Ways to "Sell" Road Pricing

A recurring theme was that the Scottish Executive should devote time to clarifying the purpose of road pricing and educating on its benefits. For example, a few consultees recommended that the Government publicise the true costs of motoring (Rep Org, Rep Org, Tr Op), or set out the major gains to be had (Rep Org, EC). One respondent commented:

" The Edinburgh experience has taught us to sell the benefits of change and not focus on the "penalty" which will be brought about by road pricing" ( EC)

Another remarked that people should be made aware that revenue raised would be put back into public transport (Bus).

A few respondents called for wider public debate on road pricing prior to its introduction (Pub, LA, Rep Org). One suggestion was that road pricing might be accepted more readily if introduced incrementally ( LA).

Four consultees provided another perspective by urging that public support should not be a criterion for implementation and that this would be likely to follow once a scheme was up and running (Pub, Pub, EB/ ST, EB/ ST). One remarked:

" This is a hard political choice which has to be faced and the sooner the better" ( EB/ ST).

12.5.2 Views on Funding of Road Pricing

Very few comments were made on the funding of road pricing. Responses were expressed in broad terms with several recommending that funding should be made available to local and regional authorities to bring forward schemes where appropriate ( LA, LA, LA, Oth PB). Others suggested funding Regional Transport Authorities ( LA, Oth PB), or providing monies to councils that wished to pursue road pricing (Rep Org). One suggestion was for the Scottish Executive to pump prime grants for road pricing (Rep Org); another was for match funding schemes ( LA). A member of the public called for funding for packages of measures which included road pricing.

12.6 The consultation asked:

Q48: What should be the objectives of any future national road pricing scheme? For example:

• should it primarily be concerned with cutting congestion levels?
• or should it also reflect environmental concerns about CO2 and other emissions?
• should it be a means by which, in Scotland, we try to achieve our aspiration of stabilising road traffic volumes at 2001 levels by 2021?
• should it aim to reflect better the true cost of motoring (including the costs to other people, the economy and the environment), or should it cost about the same to drive overall as at the moment?

In total, 84 respondents (27%) addressed this question. Of the 4 objectives set out in the question, the objectives aimed at reflecting environmental concerns and cutting congestion were identified more frequently than the others as aims of any future national road pricing scheme. A summary of views is below:

A few further objectives were suggested:

• Promote modal shift
• Spread demand in space and time
• Cut journey times/make times more reliable
• Improve the health of the nation
• The overall objectives set out for the future of transport as set out in the NTS

One consultee commented that the objectives set out in the question overlapped with each other (Rep Org).

12.7 The consultation asked:

Q49: If there were no UK-wide national road pricing scheme, should a Scotland-only scheme be considered?

In total, 99 respondents (32%) addressed this question.

Of these, 92 provided a clear view on whether or not they supported the consideration of a Scotland-only scheme if there was no UK-wide national road pricing scheme. Those favouring and those against this notion were almost evenly matched, with a slight majority (52%) in favour of a Scotland-only scheme and 48% against.

12.7.1 Views in Favour of a Scotland-Only Scheme

Several reasons for a Scotland-only scheme were put forward by supporters. It was considered that this would reflect true leadership with a Scottish solution to Scottish problems. Comments included:

" I believe that there is a significant public recognition that the purpose of devolution is to provide Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. I consider that the Scottish context in this regard (road pricing) is distinct from that in England" (Pub)

" There is no reason why Scotland could not show international leadership in transport policy" (Acad)

One commentator remarked that Scotland had already led the way on smoking, and now could lead on road pricing (Pub). Other views were that waiting for a UK scheme could take too long ( RTP, Oth PB); and that going our own way was appropriate in view of the different nature of our transport problems (Oth PB).

A few respondents who expressed support in theory stated that this was on condition that the scheme was cost neutral to businesses ( LA), or that any of the reasons for not pursuing a UK scheme were not applicable here ( LA).

12.7.2 Views Against a Scotland-Only Scheme

The key reason provided by those opposing a Scotland-only road pricing scheme was that this might penalise Scotland's economy, making business less competitive and deterring tourists. Others commented that the related issues of vehicle excise duty and fuel duty were reserved matters which made a UK scheme more appropriate. Finally, it was pointed out that many cross border trips along the Scottish Borders and Dumfries and Galloway were made and a Scotland-only road pricing scheme would not be best placed to deal with these.

A few consultees argued that more study needed to be undertaken regarding the possible effects of a UK-wide scheme against a Scotland-only scheme.

12.8 The consultation stated:

The UK Government has been examining the scope for including surface transport in CO2 emissions trading mechanisms. The objective of this is to bring about a reduction in CO2 emissions, directly or indirectly. It is looking at the desirability of introducing surface transport CO2 emissions trading at a UK level, either as preparation for EU-wide adoption or as a self-standing measure.

The UK Government, in consultation with the Scottish Executive, is currently considering proposals alongside other policy options as part of the Climate Change Programme Review. The Executive supports the proposal for a new mandatory UKETS, which is expected to be a devolved matter, but this will of course depend on the detail.

The consultation asked:

Q50: Do consultees support the inclusion of surface transport in any future CO2 emissions trading mechanisms? What impact could this have on transport's emissions of CO2?

In total, 85 respondents (27%) addressed this question. Of these, 42 stated clearly that they supported in principle the inclusion of surface transport in any future CO2 emissions trading mechanisms. Thirteen consultees clearly opposed this proposal. The remaining 30 respondents provided relevant commentary.

Arguments in favour of the proposal to include surface transport in any future CO2 emissions focused on transport as a significant energy user and producer of CO2. One respondent stated that it was only " right and proper" to go down this route ( EB/ ST). It was considered that this would make transport users more aware of the financial benefits of techniques to reduce carbon emissions ( LA).

Arguments against the proposal were varied and included:

• Lack of clarity on how the scheme will be policed and enforced
• Concern over its application and impact on rural/island communities
• Lack of clarity on how the scheme will apply to private car transport
• Perception that it will make little impact
• Uncertainty about how quotas will be set
• Concern that it currently lacks credibility

One respondent urged that Scotland should not enter into any agreement prior to other EU countries ( LA).

Many consultees reported that their support would depend on certain conditions being met. A recurring theme was that transport by air should also be included in any trading scheme in order to prevent air travel gaining an unfair advantage over surface transport. Other conditions were that a stringent "cap" be set on emissions; that the benefits of the scheme should outweigh the costs; that the Scottish Executive should make funding available to tackle emission problems; and that account should be taken of the circumstances of Scotland's peripheral areas.

A few respondents argued for more investigation into the costs and benefits of a future scheme (Acad, LA, Bus, Bus, Oth PB, Oth PB, EB/ ST). Others highlighted the need to explain the trading mechanism to the public ( LA, LA, Rep Org, Rep Org).

« Previous | Contents | Next »