Should motorists pay for cheap promise of no jams tomorrow? No

Like most Edinburgh citizens I have found the case for a congestion charge confused and unconvincing. I agree with the 65% of residents polled by the Evening News last week who are against the scheme as presently conceived. I see it as an added tax on motorists rather than a genuine attempt to solve the capital’s traffic problems. It lacks clarity of purpose and certainty of outcome. It will penalise the small retailers who make Edinburgh work as a city. It is neither radical enough to solve the city’s traffic problems, nor small enough to slide in unnoticed. Above all, it demands that Edinburgh’s long-suffering motorists stump up the money for public transport improvements which the city itself has so far failed to provide. So I will vote No.

All of this of course brands me as selfish, hypocritical, and anti-social - the kind of motorist who is prepared to ignore the safety of his fellow citizens and the purity of the environment in the interest of his own comfort and convenience. I am an enemy of progress and a mean-spirited curmudgeon. To make things even more damning, I applauded Ken Livingstone’s congestion plans for London, and think they have made a major difference to the quality of life in that city. I just don’t want them here.

Indefensible? I don’t think so. On the contrary, I believe that the city council has failed to make the case for its proposed charge, and has not demonstrated the good faith it needs to win sceptical car-owners round to its point of view.

Its arguments amount to this: for the last 40 years the city has been grappling with mounting congestion. Economic trends suggest that over the next 10 years 50,000 more people will move into the area, with a projected 25,000 additional jobs being created, and a growth in traffic of some 25%. This will put ever greater pressure on the city centre’s streets. Because Edinburgh (by the grace of God) never sacrificed its unique balance of residential and retail properties to the hungry demands of through roads or motorways, that pressure has been steadily growing. The withdrawal of its tram system, the closure of its south suburban rail services, and the failure to invest in any major alternative transport schemes have created a vacuum into which cars have increasingly been drawn. The time has come, therefore, to discourage them.

Andrew Burns, Edinburgh’s transport chief, is quite clear about this. "This is all really about dissuading unnecessary or non-essential journeys," he says. Although he says he is not anti-motorist, that can only be achieved by making things more expensive for the private driver. "There is no city with a population of 500,000 that has decreased congestion just by improving public transport," he adds. In this, he is supported by one of his predecessors, Professor David Begg, who says that improving public transport will not, on its own, solve the traffic problem. It is the motorist who must be made to pay.

I find this argument astounding. How can they possibly know that better public transport is not the answer - when they have never even attempted to invest properly in it? Ever since I have lived in Edinburgh, I have listened to a succession of windy proposals about Edinburgh’s transport future. Visions of a metro system, light railways, reopened suburban lines and new tram links have been held out in front of us. High-speed links to the airport or the new Royal Infirmary have been discussed.

There have been endless debates about the need for a new Forth Road Bridge. None of these projects has materialised. I checked on the council’s own website for a tally of the improvements it has so far introduced.

They amount to what can only be described as tinkering. A new bus station, more modern buses, better cycle routes, park and ride systems, Greenways, speed limits, pedestrian crossings, and so on - nothing that any self-respecting medium-sized town would not have introduced.

What the list does not include is the most draconian parking control system in Britain, a punitive and privatised method of extracting fines from car owners which has alienated motorists and done nothing to win their support for new initiatives.

It is an unimpressive record for a city with pretensions. Edinburgh claims to be a major European capital, a leading financial centre, a world heritage site, the fastest growing city in the United Kingdom.

Yet it has failed to match its claims to greatness with the size of investment it is prepared to make in its transport infrastructure. Professor Begg admits as much. "The city has suffered from a lack of investment," he says. "Edinburgh is the biggest conurbation in Britain that does not have passenger executive transport status, and this has affected the city’s inability to get more revenue."

It is for this reason that the city has once again fallen back on an easy option - to tax the motorist in order to raise the revenue.

The 2 charge will produce 760m over the next 20 years - not a massive amount - and this, we are assured, will go towards the new tram and rail links we have heard so much about.

For me this is the wrong way round. Instead of hammering the motorist first, then holding out the carrot of better transport later, the city would have been far better to demonstrate its own commitment by making the serious investment that is clearly needed - then, if necessary, to invite car owners to contribute via a congestion or road-pricing charge.

We are asked to take it on trust that the new charges will produce benefits for the future. But we have nothing to go on. London, with its fearsome gridlocks, offers no comparison. Birmingham and Glasgow, with far worse problems than Edinburgh, have gone for different solutions. All we do know is that those who will suffer are the small shops and businesses which give Edinburgh its unique character.

A better course would be to wait until we see clear evidence of what proper investment in public transport might yield. Then, and only then, should we consider the contribution that the motorists can make.

That, I trust, will be the clear result of this week’s referendum.