Issues in the implementation of road user charging in UK National Parks

Issues in the implementation of road user charging in UK National Parks: the case of Upper Derwent valley in the Peak District National Park

Nikolas Thomopoulos Marie Curie EST Research Fellow / PhD student Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds [email protected]

Dr Takeshi Takama Research Fellow Stockholm Environment Institute – SEI Oxford [email protected]

Issues in the implementation of road user charging in UK National Parks: the case of Upper Derwent valley in the Peak District National Park

Abstract Road user charging is considered as a transport management tool for various urban areas worldwide. However, rural or protected areas might also be affected by such policies. This paper focuses on the implications of the proposed road user charging scheme in an area of the Peak District National Park in the UK. By applying both qualitative and quantitative methods it highlights the importance of issues such as scheme acceptability, funding and timing of implementation of the scheme, as well as the obvious differences compared with similar schemes for urban areas.

1. Introduction 1.1 Introducing road user charging Undoubtedly, road use is a matter concerning a large proportion of the population in Great Britain, whether they are drivers, passengers, public transport users, cyclists or pedestrians, and it has various social, economic and environmental implications. Tackling such issues is not an easy task either for policy makers or researchers, and although theory, methodology and practice are intimately and tightly bound (Kitchin, 2000), each individual has his own beliefs, values and experiences, which influence his approach towards any given project. 1

Road user charging has been a hot topic in the transport sector both in the UK and worldwide recently, though charging road users for the costs imposing on the transport network is not new (Hensher and Puckett, 2005). Ever increasing congestion and limited road capacity have forced the UK government to consider the enforcement of a nationwide

1

The terms UK, Great Britain, and England will be used interchangeably, as they encompass similar geographical territory and governing bodies, broadly speaking. However, it should be stressed that the focus here is England and the Peak District National Park.

2

scheme, which has been put high in the transport agenda by the new Secretary of Transport, too: “The development of a ‘radical approach’ with a national road pricing scheme is essential to beat congestion in the longer term. One of the two key aspects of the updated transport agenda is to promote and fund pilot schemes by local authorities through the Transport Innovation Fund”, stated the recently appointed Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander. (Local Transport Today, 2006) This statement reinforces the interest about road charging by stressing the significance of pilot schemes for transport policy in the UK. Therefore, this paper discusses policy implications of a proposed scheme in a protected area of natural beauty and argues that site selection and scheme design should both be based on a multidisciplinary approach, integrating socio-economic factors in the appraisal.

2

However, it is not yet clear what the specific implications of a road user charging

scheme would be for particular areas of the country with distinct features, as for example UK National Parks. Is this the best alternative of transport management for such areas and which appraisal method would be more appropriate to assess the implications of implementing such a scheme?

2

Road user charging here is mentioned as a principle, not distinguishing between local road user charging schemes or a nationwide scheme.

3

Figure 1: Upper Derwent valley in the Peak District National Park and the surrounding area

National Parks in the UK are not managed in the same way as are other National Parks in continental Europe or overseas, as there are fewer restrictions in accessing them which leads to a greater need for transport management. Therefore, it is essential to consider not only the need for schemes to reduce congestion in attractive areas of National Parks, but also the wider impacts of such schemes to ensure sustainable development of those areas minimising negative influence to the environment. This paper is based on a study which aimed to contribute to the current debate about road user charging in the UK, by putting it in a more multidisciplinary context. Thus, it attempts to move away from monolithic transport approaches, following what Preston (2001) suggested about transport modelling and integration of socio-economic activity in transport research. The need, acceptability, welfare distribution effects, funding and hypothecation of the proposed scheme are discussed in the context of Upper Derwent valley in the Peak District National Park.

4

1.2 Scope This paper aims at analysing the implications of the introduction of road user charging in UK National Parks. A case study at the Peak District National Park is used as an example to illustrate the argument. The objective is researched by investigating alterations in users’ travel behaviour assuming that a road user charging scheme will be implemented in Derwent Lane, off the A57, in Upper Derwent Valley of the Peak District National Park. Issues like frequency of travel to the area and mode of transport are looked upon, along with other alternatives instead of visiting the valley, like going in other rural areas or in urban areas for recreational activities. As the latest proposal is based on the creation of a park and ride scheme, hints about such schemes are included. This is relevant too, as public transportation is a topic interrelated with road user charging schemes in congested areas. However, it should be kept in mind at all times that this paper draws conclusions only by the case of Upper Derwent valley and as such it does not seek to make any general conclusions about the UK national transport policy. Of course it will be linked to current debates, about road user charging, use of public transport and travel patterns, but it would be inappropriate to claim any significant similarities between the case of Upper Derwent valley and other urban transport management schemes or schemes addressing congestion in highways. A secondary objective of this study is to highlight differences with appraisal of urban road user charging schemes and the need to use adapted appraisal methods which forward more participatory approaches. In addition, a normative approach is applied here, suggesting that protection and improvement of the environment should be intrinsic in the assessment of such schemes if not the major driving force. However, a comparative analysis of various appraisal methods for the proposed scheme in Upper Derwent valley of the Peak District is beyond the scope of this paper. In addition, this scheme will be also significant for it will contribute in the national debate about road user charging, which has initiated recently according to latest

5

3

governmental reports and the press , by constructing the notion of paying in money terms for something that until recently one could enjoy without any extra monetary costs. This notion should not be left out from relevant research, since it links this particular case with ideas long discussed by scholars, about commodification and production of nature, which in this particular case materialises through charging users of a road in the Peak District 4

National Park . Regarding policy making, this study is an introductory one attempting to forecast changes in either current or potential visitors’ behaviour to a UK National Park. The alterations of travel behaviour have been researched in both origin and destination points, which offer an interesting comparison. The point of origin is where decision making usually takes place, whereas the point of destination – Upper Derwent valley in this case – is obviously the place in the core of the discussion regarding the proposed road user charging scheme. In such, this study may be of aid to planners, traffic managers, and other local and regional authorities, and it may assist in redefining the objectives and priorities of such schemes. This is achieved by showing that a modal switch from car use to public transport – which is mainly bus in this case – is a complex and longitudinal process, that should be carefully planned and include participation of local stakeholders in all stages of the process.

1.3 The case study: Upper Derwent valley When discussing transport management schemes for UK National Parks one has to put things in a multidisciplinary context, looking also upon the history and geography of the place, as well as any social implications. National Parks in Great Britain were created in 1949 by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and the Peak District National Park was designated as the first UK National Park in 1951. The English nation was to have its Parks, and their purposes were to preserve and enhance natural beauty and to provide recreational opportunities for the public. In Britain, National Parks are not owned by

3 4

DfT (2004), Daily Telegraph (21/7/2004), Independent (12/7/2004), the Times (12/7/2004) For further discussion on this topic see for example Castree (2003) or Thomopoulos (2004).

6

the Nation or managed only for their wildlife. British National Parks have landscapes with mountains, moorland and woodland. They are however mostly farmed landscapes in which many people live and work. They also contain traditional industries including forestry, quarrying and water catchment (Council for National Parks, 2004). It is those two intertwined objectives of British National Parks that make this topic so complex and interesting. The fact that land in National Parks is owned by various authorities (e.g. National Park Authorities, National Trust, County Councils), companies (e.g. water companies) and private owners, and at the same time the fact that the purpose of their designation was to provide recreational opportunities for the public. A turnpike existed at today’s A57 at Upper Derwent valley since 1819. However, it was the first half of the 20th century that the valley became popular to the public for two main reasons. The first was the construction of large dams in the valley, which brought workers and their families in the area, but also produced a beautiful landscape where moorland and water interacted (Smith, 1984). The other was the continuously increasing 5

population of nearby urban centres , which resulted in increased demand for water, but also in increased demand for recreational activities and green areas. The current situation in Upper Derwent Valley is that due to the attractiveness of the landscape, the proximity to Sheffield – and other large conurbations of central England, e.g. Manchester – and recent provision improvements, Derwent Lane is congested during sunny 6

summer weekends or bank holidays, especially near the car parks . The latter results in a deterioration of visitors’ experience to the countryside (e.g. by wasting part of their leisure time), noise and pollution become negative factors at those times, and emergency vehicles cannot access the place easily.

“On August Bank Holiday Monday 2001, 3,044 vehicles travelled along the Upper Derwent Valley - almost three times more than a normal summer day” Derbyshire County Council (2002)

5 6

th

See Appendix for population overview since 19 century. For a detailed map look at Map 1 in the Appendix.

7

But this is not a unique situation for drivers in England and Wales. So why is action being taken in Derwent Lane? What is the driving force which motivated local authorities to secure funding from the Government to manage traffic there? Is this an isolated scheme or is it part of an integrated sustainable approach? These are some of the questions which arise in mind when one studies this or other similar cases. Those are the questions which will be explored in the remaining sections, contrasting the implementation of road user charging schemes in areas like UK National Parks with similar schemes in urban areas facing congestion problems.

Figure 2: Upper Derwent valley in the Peak District National Park.

stand for local car parks

7

Road user charging schemes have already been implemented in London and Durham and there was a referendum about a similar scheme to be implemented in Edinburgh last year (Allen, 2006). Nonetheless, the scheme in Upper Derwent valley is the first road charging scheme proposed to be implemented outside an urban area in the UK. The discussion has been ongoing for a few years, but the complexity of the issue, the number of authorities involved in decision making, as well as uncontrolled external factors – as for example the foot and mouth disease – have halted its progress in the case of Upper Derwent valley.

7

Strictly speaking, road user charging is not identical to congestion charging, but both are road pricing transport policies with very similar objectives, so it is assumed in this report that they are comparable.

8

Moreover, the proposal for this road user charging scheme refers to the first ever National Park of Great Britain, which happens to be one of the most visited not only in the country, but also worldwide. It is the second most visited National Park worldwide, after Mount Fuji in Japan, according to Derbyshire County Council (2004). It is the interaction of land and water in this region which attracts about 2 million visitors or 500,000 vehicles annually, when all of the Peak District National Park attracts just less than 30 million people (Peak District National Park Authority - PDNPA). Therefore, it is crucial to discuss and highlight some of the aspects that should be taken into account before such a scheme is implemented, as long as it will be an important factor for this region of the National Park and also for the surrounding urban areas, by affecting travel behaviour of their inhabitants. According to the same source (PDNPA), 17 million people live within 60 miles from the Peak District, and 60% of the population of England and Wales needs two hours or less to drive there. Due to the reasons mentioned already and provided that pilot road user charging schemes may be supported financially by the government, local authorities have been considering to implement such a scheme in Upper Derwent valley since 2001. Nonetheless, there are still various issues to be decided, which are raised in this introductory study (i.e. acceptability of the scheme, equity implications, hypothecation of funds, implementation of park and ride). The proposed scheme will charge drivers in Derwent lane – off the A57 – though the technology to be used has not yet been decided, as it will have to follow the general guidelines of the Peak District National Park and not to be visually intrusive. The scheme is supposed to be supplemented by a park and ride scheme which will operate in the area. However, it is not yet clear where exactly the car park could be located and what – if any – the bus fare will be. Those issues are analysed in more detail in sections 4 and 5 where the results of the study are presented and then discussed.

9

2. Review of relevant issues about implementing road user charging schemes Road pricing has been suggested as a corrective policy measure to improve market failure regarding resource allocation and access to public roads at the beginning of the previous century (Pigou, 1920; Knight, 1924). Hensher and Puckett (2005) argue that after the introduction of road pricing schemes in London and Durham the question will no longer be if road pricing should be introduced, but when and where it will be introduced. Nevertheless, there is a wide range of issues to be taken into account when designing a road user charging scheme. Apart from the geography of the area which inevitably affects the transport network, there are also other constraints and barriers (Rouwendal and Verhoef, 2006). Hypothecation of revenues raised by the road use charges is certainly one of the major concerns of such schemes (Farrell and Saleh, 2005; Rouwendal and Verhoef, 2006). The actual level of the revenues is hard to predict, as the London example proved. Often the use of the revenues is linked with improvements in public transport, as is the case in Upper Derwent valley where a park and ride (P&R) scheme is planned to supplement the road user charging scheme. In the case study researched in this paper it is not yet clear what the road user charge will be or what the park and ride fare will be. So, certain assumptions have been made for the case study in the Peak District National Park, which affect acceptability and will be discussed in section 5. Acceptability is often believed to be regressive, as richest drivers may end up better off (Rouwendal and Verhoef, 2006). In addition, it has to be clearly defined who will be the managing authority of the scheme, as it has to have the capacity and be experienced enough to control such a scheme for a considerable time period. It is not uncommon nowadays to form Public Private Partnerships (PPP) to manage road user charging schemes, despite the fact that it is still the public sector that usually underwrites the risk. Therefore, the government will have to

10

8

refine the appraisal and prioritisation methods to be able to manage both the road user charging scheme and the PPP (Hensher and Puckett, 2005). Furthermore, the level of the road user charging fee or the public transport fare price will impact on the travel behaviour of visitors. This impact will be different depending on the income level of various groups visiting the area. It is generally believed that lower income visitors will be affected more severely depending on the specification of the charge (Bonsall and Kelly, 2005). Travel behaviour of disabled users will also be affected, as they are usually more depended on private vehicles. In the proposed scheme for Upper Derwent valley a scenario has been tested incorporating discounts for elderly visitors (Takama, 2005). It is obvious then that distribution of welfare effects is a significant factor when assessing road user charging schemes. This issue is intertwined with the use of revenues as the effect by the road user charge itself will be negative for the majority of drivers (Rouwendal and Verhoef, 2006). There is a trade-off between equity and efficiency when designing and implementing such schemes. Sumalee et al (2005) have demonstrated that when policy makers aim at preserving a minimum level of (horizontal) equity among users – i.e. visitors – of an area, the net benefits of the road user charging scheme may be much lower than without the equity constraint. Rouwendal and Verhoef (2006) suggest varying the weights between efficiency and equity to balance this trade-off. Privacy of road users is another issue mentioned in the literature as relevant with the introduction of a road user charging scheme. However, in the case of Upper Derwent valley it does not appear to raise any significant concerns, as it most probably will not demand any personal information by users and also a lot of drivers will already be acquainted with the London congestion charging scheme. Nonetheless, it is an issue that has to be taken into account when assessing the wider implications of such policy measures.

8

A Social Cost Benefit Analysis may be a useful supplement to conventional Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to account for all effects of the introduction of a road user charging scheme (Rouwendal and Verhoef, 2006).

11

At this point it is essential to highlight the difference among road user charging schemes implemented in urban areas and others implemented in rural or protected areas of natural beauty. Congestion may be the driving force in both cases, but there are distinct characteristics which have to be considered. Trips to rural areas or protected areas of natural beauty – such as UK National Parks – are usually leisure trips, whereas trips to central London are usually business trips, commuters’ trips or trips by residents of the area. This is a major difference which has to be incorporated in the appraisal of the scheme. One could easily claim that a road charging scheme in a UK National Park would simply alter visitors’ travel behaviour by forcing them to visit other areas in the National Park or just spend their leisure time in a city instead of visiting the countryside. However, this is a simplified assumption which has to be further researched. The fact that there are no previous examples of a road user charging scheme in a UK National Park means that no revealed preference data could be obtained, so a stated preference experiment has been designed for this study in Upper Derwent valley. A study conducted by Steiner and Bristow (2000) at Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP) has used a stated preference questionnaire in the past, providing some useful remarks and conclusions. An obvious difference between Upper Derwent valley and YDNP though is the 9

geography of the place . The next section refers to the methodology used in this study.

3. Methodology 3.1 Aims and data collection As stated in the introduction, one of the objectives of this paper is to point out multidisciplinarity, so a combination of established methods is used, trying to intertwine quantitative and qualitative analysis. Two different levels may be distinguished within the approach: A.

Quantitative - Qualitative analysis

B.

Key stakeholders and policy makers - Public / Visitors (users)

9

Upper Derwent valley is a cul-de-sac in a picturesque place, whereas YDNP includes a larger area and the scheme suggested was cordon based.

12

Furthermore, both primary and secondary data are used. Primary data have been collected in the form of interviews and responses through two questionnaire surveys, whereas secondary through governmental reports, general and technical reports, meetings’ minutes from local authorities and newspaper articles. A stated preference experiment was designed and constituted the main part of the questionnaire survey at the points of origin and destination. It aimed at estimating the alterations in visitors travel behaviour after the implementation of the proposed road user charging scheme in Upper Derwent valley. It provided information about the scheme and then the respondents had to choose among two alternatives: Park and ride, which offered a bus service to the area, or Pay toll and drive, which included a road user charging fee plus a parking fee. A third alternative: None of them – Don’t visit the valley, was also offered as a reply option to respondents, as the aim of the research was also to explore whether – potential – visitors would consider visiting other areas of the National Park or even go on other leisure activities (e.g. shopping). Combining road user charging and park and ride in a rural area, and especially in a National Park, is innovative and as such there are no previous examples of implementation of a similar scheme from where revealed preference data could be obtained. Nevertheless, there have been a few studies exploring the potential of implementing combined road user charging and park and ride schemes in Yorkshire Dales National Park (Steiner, 2000) and in Lake District National Park (Eckton, 2003). Stated Preference analysis was based on Ortuzar (1999, 2001), Kocur et al. (1982), Widlert (1998) and Adamowicz et al. (1999). The steps followed in designing the survey are shown below: STEPS Identification of the set of attributes Selecting the measurement unit for each attribute

Specification of the number and magnitude of attribute levels

Experimental design

13

Survey instrument design

Model estimation and use of parameters to simulate choice

Respondents were provided with a detailed description of the road user charging scenario to be introduced in Upper Derwent valley and a map of the area showing the existing car parks. An example question of the survey questionnaire follows:

This is an example Conditions to visit the Information Centre:

Park & Ride service Fare

50p

per person

A bus every

60

minutes

Under these circumstances I would:

Toll & Drive Toll

£2.00

per car

Searching a parking space and

[ ] A: Park & Ride [ 3 ] B: Pay toll and drive

“Most

preferred”

walking takes Parking fee

40p

per car

Parking fee

30

minutes

50p

per car

[

] C: None of them (don’t visit the valley)

This questionnaire was distributed in Upper Derwent valley of the Peak District National Park, and also in Sheffield and Manchester, as those are the largest conurbations close to Upper Derwent valley and most – potential – visitors are located there. Additionally, the Park and Ride scheme would be mainly linked to visitors from those areas, according to the initial proposals. The results of this survey have been contrasted afterwards with the results of the survey conducted at the destination point, which in this case was Upper 10

Derwent valley . The two questionnaires used at the points of origin and destination were not identical, but the stated preference experiment was designed in the same way to produce comparable results. The model used for the quantitative analysis is the mixed logit model.

10

For a detailed analysis about the survey conducted at the destination point and the agent based model used, see Takama (2005).

14

3.2 Survey The survey at the point of destination (i.e. Upper Derwent valley) took place in summer 2003, where 700 questionnaires have been distributed. At the points of origin (i.e. Sheffield and Manchester) the survey took place in summer 2004, where 648 questionnaires have been distributed. The response rates were 46.1% and 10.65% respectively. The questionnaires were handed out in person at car parks in Upper Derwent valley, while in Sheffield and Manchester they have been distributed in shopping centre car parks and various neighbourhoods close to the valley. Those neighbourhoods have been selected according to their proximity to Upper Derwent valley and general socio-economic characteristics. Apart form the stated preference experiment, the questionnaires included open ended questions and questions about socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. Furthermore, in-depth interviews with key stakeholders were conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire, to provide a better understanding of the underlying issues and a sound background for the analysis of the results. The group of stakeholders included people from local authorities, park authorities, academics based in adjacent universities, 11

environmental organisations and NGOs , as well as driving, cycling and ramblers associations. The methodology used for the qualitative analysis was based on content analysis (Kripendorff, 1980).

11

Non-Governmental Organisations

15

Figure 3: National Parks in England and Wales, followed by year of establishment

4. Results This section presents and summarises the results of the two stated preference surveys at the points of origin and destination. 4.1 Quantitative Quantitative results provide a useful basis for comparing responses and values at points of origin and destination. People once in Upper Derwent valley seem more willing to drive their car, since their utility is almost 50% higher (2.374 compared to 1.554 at origin), which might have occurred due to lack of alternatives, inefficient and unreliable bus service in the area or lack of sufficient and suitable parking places. It is also notable that people surveyed at Upper Derwent valley valued almost three times more the valley (-0.921) compared to those in an urban environment (-0.344). This might have occurred because the ones in the city do not have a current image of the Upper Derwent valley, and on the other hand those in the city consider a trip to Upper Derwent valley as a mere option among a wide variety of other recreational activities.

16

Analysing the data from the point of origin, it is notable that the parking fee is the crucial factor for visitors’ travel behaviour, as long as time spent to search for parking and walking is kept to ‘acceptable’ levels for a trip to a National Park. In this case study, the fee was set at £2.50, so most visitors were willing to pay up to this fee to use the toll and drive option – assuming that time for parking search and walking would be kept to acceptable levels.

Figure 4: Data from point of origin

17

At the point of destination, which is actually Upper Derwent valley, even more respondents replied that would prefer to use the toll and drive option, compared to the respondents at the point of origin. However, even less – 20% at the point of destination, compared to 30% at the point of origin – would choose not to visit the valley, which proves the significance of informing – potential – visitors in advance.

Figure 5: Data from point of destination

In Upper Derwent valley (Figures 4A and 4B) it is obvious that - assuming that the level of the toll fee is £1.50 – when there is no price difference depending on where one will

18

park one’s car, most of the respondents would prefer the T&D option, than the P&R and very few would not come because of this charge. However, it is notable that about 70% would choose the T&D option, compared to 55-60% of the respondents at the point of origin. This pattern is shown also in Figure 4B, where the P&R option is the most preferable when there is a £2.50 price difference in the car park charge. However, at the destination point about 30% would still choose the T&D option (it was about 20% at the point of origin) and only 20% would not come (about 30% at the point of origin). Most of those alterations in travel behaviour may be attributed to better information of people being at UDV, since they are aware of the range of options, but also of the attractiveness of the landscape. The latter highlights the significance of informing (potential) visitors, which is discussed in the next chapter. When there is no time spent to search and walk away from the car park (Figure 4C), almost 80% of the respondents at the destination point would choose to T&D (60% at the point of origin), and similar are the cases for those who would choose either P&R or not to come (20% at destination and 20% at origin, 10% at destination and 15% at origin, respectively). However, comparing Figure 4D, one is able to see that more respondents at destination would still choose to T&D even when there is a £2.50 surcharge, and less not to come, whereas more respondents at the point of origin would rather prefer not to come (15% at destination, 30% at origin) than T&D. At the point of destination a simulation was also applied through a minority game which used three different scenarios: without seasonality, with seasonality and with discounts for elderly visitors. The optimal decision making in the minority game situation is dependent on the other agents’ decision making, which cannot be predicted perfectly since 12

their decisions are also dependent on other agents and so on (Takama, 2005) . Overall, the survey at Upper Derwent valley showed that the level of the road user charging fee is a crucial factor which will largely affect travel behaviour in the area. Additionally, it was found that it would be most beneficial – if the scheme would be 12

For a detailed analysis of the minority game and the analysis used in Upper Derwent valley see Takama (2005).

19

introduced – to start implementing the scheme in an intermediate season to provide enough time to visitors to be informed about the scheme and adjust their travel behaviour. This would minimise negative experiences of congestion in the valley which would put off potential visitors. This approach would also be along the lines suggested by Rouwendal and Verhoef (2006) for a phased implementation of road user charging schemes, allowing the policy maker to react to implications of the scheme and increase acceptability. Finally, the analysis at the point of destination showed that a discount for elderly visitors

13

would

certainly increase their visits to the site, without a large negative effect on other groups visiting the valley. Whichever the case, what should be kept from this comparison is that there appear to exist not only similarities, but also differentiations among surveys conducted on site and off site. For this particular case it makes sense to take into account both approaches, as UDV appeals to a wide range of people accommodating their various needs, such as hiking, running, cycling, walking their pets, enjoying tranquillity and the landscape to name some. Since those people are dispersed among the wider neighbouring regions and those are the ones who create the congestion problem but also the ones who will carry on visiting the valley, it may be wise to enhance on researching at both origin and destination before implementing any such scheme. Summarising the results from the stated preference (SP) experiment one could admit that SP is indeed a useful tool, not only for valuing transport management schemes, but also for valuing the environment. Being such, it may not be forgotten that it has limitations, which have to be acknowledged and attempted to overcome. This will be attempted here by providing a qualitative analysis of the results of interviewing key stakeholders, in the next section.

13

A discount for elderly visitors has been used as an example, and discounts may be applied to other groups too. However, policy makers should keep in mind that discounts will affect the revenues of the scheme, which might have a large impact for schemes like the one suggested to be introduced in Upper Derwent valley.

20

4.2 Qualitative According to the stakeholders interviewed, it has not yet been clear which are the objectives of the proposed scheme and the level of information has been relatively low (if one takes into account that this would be the first road user charging scheme outside an urban area). Sustainable development of Upper Derwent valley and the Peak District National Park in general has been mentioned as an objective, however further discussion proved that it still remains unclear how this will materialise. However, it appeared that local authorities prioritised a reduction in congestion levels as a higher priority than sustainability of the region, which might result in contrast with the overall aims of the National Park. According to the Environment Act (1995), National Park and other managing authorities should fulfil two purposes: I.

to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Parks

II.

to promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Parks

Furthermore, there appeared to be confusion and disagreement with the level and use of the revenues of such a scheme, which once more proved that there has been insufficient dissemination of information about the proposed road user charging scheme. Most interviewees agreed that any revenues should be used for public transport and some pointed out the need for some other improvements in the area, such as cycle lanes and improved facilities. However, it is questionable how much need is for new facilities in an area of a National Park as Upper Derwent valley and how intrusive this might be for the environment. Additionally, there was no accurate information about the level of the revenue, as no definite information exists about the level of the fees (for toll and drive and also for park and ride). Finally, two other important issues came up: dispersion of traffic in other areas of the park and accessibility issues for disabled and deprived visitors. The problem of dispersed traffic had not been taken into account in the initial appraisal, which proves the complexity of the issue for a UK National Park and the difficulties in assessing those

21

secondary effects. Of course it is acknowledged that the latter is difficult both to estimate and also to measure, but it will be a wider impact of the implementation of a road user charging scheme in a particular area of a National Park. This issue is linked with the operation of the proposed park and ride scheme (Parkhurst, 1995; 2001). As it is not an easy task to establish a new car park in a National Park to accommodate the parking needs of Upper Derwent valley for a busy summer weekend, it becomes complicated to estimate the effects on traffic flow in A57 and the surrounding road network. However, stakeholders raised that issue and admitted that the fact that the area is managed by a number of different authorities does not facilitate the situation. Finally, accessibility issues have been raised for groups such as disabled visitors, deprived visitors, families with children or cyclists. Accessibility is a sensitive issue, which has to be considered, especially when designing park and ride schemes, as it might be a considerably difficult and time consuming for certain groups of people to visit the valley. This might put off several visitors from going to Upper Derwent valley. Those matters have been taken into account by local authorities, though no differentiation is planned to be included in the toll and drive fee for such groups so far. The minority game for Upper Derwent valley attempted to simulate the effects of such a policy, although the lack of data lead to the conclusion that one should be cautious when drawing conclusions from the simulation.

5. Discussion This section discusses the implications from the results of the study about Upper Derwent valley and highlights the advantages and disadvantages of a road user charging scheme in an area of a UK National Park. This discussion is linked with the differentiation between the terms barriers and constraints in Rouwendal and Verhoef (2006). The point out that a certain barriers may result in a wide range of constraints, while a certain constraint may be a result of various barriers. This study has discussed various constraints (e.g. toll and drive fee level, P&R car park location, bus fare level, timing of introduction of the

22

scheme, exemptions from the scheme etc) for the case of Upper Derwent valley, but it focused more on certain barriers (technical, economic and acceptability barriers).

Acceptability Nowadays, Upper Derwent valley still attracts a lot of visitors, particularly from surrounding areas and Sheffield. Therefore, one would expect both the public and – even more – the local stakeholders to be informed about any proposed scheme for the area, which did not appear to be the case according to the qualitative analysis. Especially about a scheme that would affect the sustainability of the valley in economic, social and environmental terms. The argument here is that the decision making process should not only be transparent, but also bottom-up, utilising the abundant local expertise and experience. The latter would also contribute in setting more precise and achievable objectives which would contribute towards the aim of reducing congestion, but would also take into account the general aims of the National Park. Moreover, when proposing a road user charging scheme it is essential to provide as much information in advance in a comprehensive way, as was proven by the referendum in Edinburgh, too (Allen, 2006). The proposed scheme for Upper Derwent valley left various factors undetermined, which did not assist in the scheme being acceptable. It remained unclear whether there would be a fee for those choosing the park and ride scheme, what would the level of the toll and drive fee be, and also where would the car park be located. The location of the car park is vital due to ambiguity about its proximity to the valley and its capacity, which unavoidably could not be large, as it would be intrusive.

Funding Such pilot schemes as the one proposed for Upper Derwent valley at the Peak District National Park are currently supported financially by the UK government through the Local Transport Plans and the Transport Innovation Funds. As a result, it is easier for local authorities to implement road user charging schemes to manage transport within their jurisdiction. However, available funding does not mean that those schemes should not be

23

financially viable without external aid (e.g. from the government). Of course this creates a need for accurate forecasts to be included in the appraisal of any such scheme. Nonetheless, the situation in rural areas or areas of UK National Parks differs from the situation in urban areas, as trip purposes differ in most cases too. One of the potential outcomes of the scheme (which appeared to be at moderate levels according to the survey conducted) is dispersion of traffic in other areas of the park or even a reduction of the number of visitors to the National Park, as Upper Derwent valley is considered to be a ‘honey pot’ area.

In addition, the use of any revenues of the proposed scheme is crucial, as pointed out by the qualitative analysis. According to the funding obligations, any revenues from the scheme are to be used for maintenance and improvements of the surrounding area. Nevertheless, the area is managed by a number of diverse authorities with objectives which do not always coincide. This might result in difficulties in deciding which way to use any revenues. An example of this difficulty in decision making appeared during the discussion about the location of the car park. Despite this, it is also questionable how many improvements would be needed in an area of natural beauty at a National Park, which is managed (and funded) also by the Park Authority and a water company. The assumption in the latter case is that there will be enough visitors choosing the toll and drive option, paying the respective fee. However, data from the London scheme have proved that the effect of introducing the congestion charge resulted in a larger decrease than expected, which in turn resulted in lower revenues from the scheme (Prud’homme and Bocarejo, 2005). Additionally, implementation costs will also influence the total cost of the proposed scheme, as they depend on the technology to be used, although in the case of Upper Derwent valley 14

it is not expected to be significantly high .

14

It is not yet decided which technology will be used in Upper Derwent valley. The most probable is to have a toll point, though pay and display at the car parks has also been considered as an option. The fact is that due to the nature of the area, it is difficult – if not totally unacceptable – to establish a very sophisticated system e.g. with cameras.

24

Appraisal method The appraisal method used to assess the potential implications of the proposed scheme is another crucial point. Conventional Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) might leave out part of the implications of the effects of an additional driver attempting to park his vehicle at one of the car parks in Upper Derwent valley. Therefore, Rouwendal and Verhoef (2006) suggest the use of a Social CBA as a supplement. It is argued in this paper that the use of Multi-Criteria Analysis might offer even more benefits in the appraisal of the proposed scheme, as it might contribute also in larger participation of local stakeholders in the decision making process. After all, it cannot yet be denied that even the most advanced models currently used for road user charging schemes are not in a position to cover all relevant aspects of the implementation of such a scheme.

Timing of implementation As shown by the results of the minority game, the timing of the introduction of the proposed road user charging scheme might influence alterations in travel behaviour. In the simulation there were some differentiations when seasonality was introduced. This is very relevant for UK National Parks, as the number of visitors does not remain constant around the year. In particular, there was a severe decrease of visitors to the Peak District National Park during the foot and mouth disease a few years ago. The latter resulted in a postponement of the introduction of the scheme. To sum up, one has to bare in mind that the introduction of a road user charging scheme is only one part of a transport policy package, thus has to be treated as such and not as a panacea (Prud’homme and Bocarejo, 2005). As a general comment about transport management in Upper Derwent valley and the introduction of the proposed road user charging scheme, one has to admit that as in all similar schemes, there will be benefits and costs, winners and losers. Benefits may be found in a reduction in congestion of Derwent lane during busy days and familiarisation of visitors with road user charging as a principle. Disadvantages may be found in distributional effects for particular groups (equity considerations) and in commodification of an area. However,

25

the argument here is that those implications may be incorporated and analysed better if a multidisciplinary approach is used to assess such schemes.

6. Conclusion As illustrated in this paper, the scope to apply a road user charging scheme in the Upper Derwent valley of the Peak District National Park is led by the incentive of the local authorities to manage and reduce congestion in the area. Additional goals are to promote the use of public transport, preserve the environment and sustainable development of the Park, and create a self-funded scheme. However, it was argued, by using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, that there still exist underlying factors which have to be taken into account by stakeholders when assessing this or other similar road user charging schemes. However, a number of paradoxes in the case of Upper Derwent valley render it a unique case, resulting in not being case-study easy to replicate elsewhere: ƒ

Although the geography of the place

15

encourages the implementation of a road user

charging scheme, its small size, the number of authorities involved in the management of the area, with their diverse aims and interests, and the history of the place, do not contribute in becoming a pioneer model for road user charging schemes in rural areas in the UK, as promoted for the Commission for Integrated Transport (CFIT, 2006). ƒ

Attempting to achieve a modal switch from car usage to public transport in such a restricted location has to be well organised and supported by a large number of surrounding local authorities and bus companies. Therefore, surveys should be conducted at both, origin and destination points to achieve higher accuracy in travel behaviour alterations.

15

In contrast with most road user charging schemes or even the studies about Yorkshire Dales or Lake District National Parks, where cordon based schemes are considered, Upper Derwent valley is a cul-de-sac of unique natural beauty.

26

ƒ

Applying a top to bottom approach during the designing and implementation process, may result in low acceptance and participation levels of the road user charging and park and ride schemes by the public, as shown from the survey conducted in Upper Derwent valley, but also in other cases, as for example from the referendum about congestion charging in Edinburgh (Allen, 2006).

Thus, returning to the initial scope of this paper, it was argued that current and potential visitors of Upper Derwent valley would alter their travel behaviour if a road user charging scheme was introduced in the area, but their behaviour alteration would depend on various parameters (e.g. toll and drive fee, car park capacity and location, bus service). Most would still use the toll and drive option – assuming that the fee is not more than £2.50 – some would prefer to use the Park and Ride service, but others would rather prefer to go somewhere else. However, it was also found that the majority of them would not replace a visit to the countryside with another recreational activity in an urban environment. As a result, it was argued that by applying a critical approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods, and applying a more participatory approach from the inception until the implementation of such a road user charging scheme, would lead to better understanding of the underlying factors, higher acceptance levels from the public and local stakeholders and in the end to increased chances of a successful and sustainable scheme, which would benefit both the environment and the visitors’ experience to the area. Furthermore, this report contributes in the attempt to use more holistic approaches in transport research, incorporating a qualitative dimension, as well as social aspects in conventional transport approaches. There are plenty more that could be written about the Upper Derwent Valley or the proposed road user charging scheme, since this area means many different things to different people: “an economic return, a livelihood, places of beauty and tranquillity, part of the thrill of a cycle ride, a threat to the countryside or an opportunity for wildlife

27

conservation. But no one is in place to predict accurately what the future will bring, as it all depends on how its’ defining qualities are perceived and how these are put into practice through its management. So, today’s point is not so much a starting or an ending point, as a small point somewhere in the middle of Upper Derwent Valley’s history” (Bevan, 2004) So, one can remain to see the developments in the discussion about road user charging within UK transport policy and the deriving implications about UK National Parks. Until then, pilot schemes will only offer positive experience to transport planners and decision makers, assuming that any negative effects to the environment are kept to a minimum.

28

7. References Adamowicz, W.L. et al. (1999) Stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. In Bateman, I.J. and Willis, K.G. (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Allen, S.,Gaunt, M. and Rye, T. (2006) An investigation into the reasons for the rejection of congestion charging by the citizens of Edinburgh, European Transport/Trasporti Europei n.32 (2006): 95-113. Bevan, B. (2004) The Upper Derwent: 10,000 years in a Peak District valley. Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd. Bonsall, P. and Kelly, C. (2005) road user charging and Social Exclusion: The impact of congestion charges on at-risk groups, Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Special issue of Transport Policy. Castree, N. (2003) Commodifying what nature?, Progress in Human Geography, 27( 3): 273-297. CFIT

(2006)

Road

user

charging.

Commission

for

Integrated

Transport,

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/ruc/factsheets/rural/index.htm, accessed on 21/10/2006. Council

for

National

Parks

(http://www.cnp.org.uk/national_park_authority_web_sites.htm,

(2004) [accessed

on

29/7/2004] Daily Telegraph, Paul Marston, 21/7/2004, Ten years of road chaos, then it’s pay as you crawl. Department for Transport (2004) Feasibility study of road pricing in the UK. London. Derbyshire County Council (2002) Consultation on charging scheme delayed [Derbyshire County

Council,

Matlock].

Available

from

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/news/2002/jul/020716a.htm [Accessed on 30/7/2004] Eckton, G. (2003) Road user charging and the Lake District National Park, Journal of Transport Geography, 11: 307-317. Farrell, S. and W. Saleh (2005) Road user charging and the modelling of revenue allocation, Special issue of Transport Policy. Hensher, D.A. and Puckett, S.M. (2005) Road user charging: The global relevance of recent developments in the United Kingdom, Transport Policy, 12: 377-383. HMSO

(1995)

Environment

Act

(c.25)

[HMSO,

London].

Available

from

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950025_en_1.htm, [accessed on 26/8/2004] HMSO (1949) National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. London HMSO DETR (2000) Transport 2010: The 10 year plan London

29

Independent, Andrew Woodcock, 12/7/2004, Variable tolls plan to ease road congestion Knight, F. (1924) Some fallacies in the interpretation of social cost. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 38: 582-606. Kocur et al - United States Department of Transportation Administration (1982) Guide to forecasting travel demand with direct utility assessment. Washington D.C.: United States Department of Transportation Administration, reproduced (UMTA-NH-11-000182-1) Kitchin, R. and Tate, N.J. (2000) Conducting Research into Human Geography: theory, methodology and practice. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. Krippendorff, K. (1980) Content Analysis Vol. 5. London: SAGE Publications. Local Transport Today (2006) LTT443, 18 May 2006 Ortuzar, J.D. and Willumsen, L.G. (2001) Modelling Transport, 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Parkhurst, G. (1995) Park and ride: could it lead to an increase in car traffic?, Transport Policy, 2(1): 15-23. Parkhurst, G. (2001) Dedicated bus-based Park and Ride services and the demand for public transport, ESRC Transport Studies Unit Research Paper 2001/5, London: University College London. Peak District National Park Authority (1982) A guide to policies affecting the Peak District National Park. Derbyshire: Peak National Park Planning Publication. Peak Park Planning Board (1955) Peak District National Park Development Plan: Report and Analysis of survey. Peak Park Planning Board. Pigou, A.C. (1920) Wealth and Welfare, MacMillan, London. Preston, J. (2001) Integrating transport with socio-economic activity - a research: agenda for the new millennium, Journal of Transport Geography, 9: 13-24. Prud’homme, R. and J.P. Bocarejo (2005) The London congestion charge: a tentative economic appraisal, Transport Policy, 12: 279-287 Rees, W. (1989) Defining sustainable development, UBC Centre for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia Rouwendal, J. and E.T. Verhoef (2006) Basic economic principles of road pricing: From theory to applications, Transport Policy, 13: 106-114. Smith, N. (1984) Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space Oxford: Blackwell. Steiner, T.J. and Bristow, A.L. (2000) Road pricing in National Parks: a case study in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, Transport Policy, 7: 93-103. Sumalee, A., T. May and S. Shepard (2005) Comparison of judgemental and optimal road pricing cordons, Special issue of Transport Policy.

30

Takama, T. (2005) Stochastic agent-based modelling for reality: dynamic discrete choice analysis with interaction. The road user charging scheme at the Upper Derwent valley, Peak District National Park. DPhil thesis, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford The Times, Ben Webster, 12/7/2004, Drivers facing nationwide congestion toll Thomopoulos, N. (2004) Road user charging in Upper Derwent valley: Commodification in a UK National Park? MSc thesis, School of Geography & the Environment, University of Oxford Widlert, S. (1998) Stated preference studies: The design affects the result. In Ortuzar et al (eds) Travel behaviour research: Updating the state of play. Oxford: Elsevier. Pp. 105-121, World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Brundtland Report

31

8. Appendix

Map of Upper Derwent valley in the Peak District National Park

32