Reducing travel !? A case study of Edinburgh, Scotland Daniel Mittler Bartlett School of Planning University College London Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London, WC1H 0QB Submission to Built Environment, special edition on travel reduction Daniel Mittler is a PhD student at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, UK. Abstract Edinburgh escaped the blight of excessive road building in the 1960s and 1970s. Current travel trends are, nonetheless, gravely unsustainable. With one of the highest rises in car ownership in recent years and a booming regional airport, traffic emissions present the most important challenge on the path to a sustainable Edinburgh. Fortunately, Edinburgh City Council acknowledges this challenge. A number of policies and projects have thus been developed in recent years to achieve traffic reduction, especially in car travel. This article reviews these initiatives. It shows that travel reduction policies have been a qualified success and promise further improvements in the future. The article, however, also questions whether current policies can ever achieve sustainability as alongside travel reduction strategies - a number of traffic-generating developments have recently been completed or are currently planned. In conclusion potential lessons for other cities that may be drawn from Edinburgh’s experience are outlined.

Edinburgh is not built for the car. Unlike most other cities of its size (450 000 inhabitants) Edinburgh is not connected to the motorway network and has no inner city ring road. Plans to build a ring road did exist in the 1960s. However, they never got beyond the drawing board. A desire to preserve the medieval and Georgian architecture of the centre (largely for the benefit of the tourist industry) prevented such destruction of the historic urban fabric. Until recently, land was kept vacant for a large roundabout at Tollcross. Now, however, Housing Association properties as well as a new office block are finally reclaiming this gap space from the fantasies of the past. Edinburgh is also blessed with dense housing stock. Much of the city centre is made up of mixed-use neighbourhoods. While an uncharacteristically high number of people live in the centre, 40% of Edinburgh’s 250 000 jobs are also located there. This ensures excellent accessibility by public transport, allowing 49.1% of journeys to work to be made by train or bus. Edinburgh, therefore, mirrors the "mixed land-use cities described in many polemics about urban sustainable development" (Rydin, 1997:168). It should be ideally placed to take the lead in achieving sustainable mobility patterns. Negative trends However, in Edinburgh as everywhere in the European Union (Marshall et al, 1997), current transport trends are far removed from any vision of sustainability. Edinburgh’s booming service and finance sector based economy has led to a rapid growth in car ownership. Between 1981 and 1991 the number of cars per 1,000 inhabitants rose by 47%. The UK average growth was a comparatively mild 29% (Hazel, 1997). Though Edinburgh started from a lower base - and some 40% of Edinburgh’s inhabitants remain without regular access to a car - the city is clearly catching up fast. Already 13% of households own at least two cars! Bus use, meanwhile, is declining. While buses remain popular for journeys to work into the city centre (see above), overall bus use in the city has declined by almost 25% from 177m bus passengers in 1980 to 135m in 1992. This is particularly worrying as the bus is the dominant mode of public transport in Edinburgh. Other public transport modes used to exist, but were abandoned in recent decades. An efficient 48 mile tram network was discontinued in 1956, for example. A South Suburban Railway link was mothballed in 1962. The train network in its present form thus fails to service local journey demand. In consequence, only 1% of commuter journeys into Edinburgh are currently by train (Lord Provost Commission, 1998).

The number of workers living outside the city has also increased dramatically. In 1971 only 13% of people working in the city lived elsewhere. By 1991, the proportion had increased to 29% (Saunders, 1997). Many of these suburbanites commute by car to new employment nodes on the fringe of the city. They are aided in doing so by the city bypass, the one big road development that was built in Edinburgh (if only as late as 1988). The bypass has focused development pressure on the west and south side of the city (Greig and Rydin, 1994). It facilitated the construction of the South Gyle - one of the biggest retail centres in Scotland (floor space 28 000 m2) complete with over 2000 parking spaces. The South Gyle was opened in 1994 - only days after the then Environment Minister John Gummer had called for an end to car-based out-of-town developments due to their negative transport impact. Its effect proved the wisdom of Gummer´s policy shift. The development, which is linked to a new office and industrial development known as Edinburgh Park, has been a disaster in terms of its retail and traffic impact. Small shops in the nearby affluent area of Corstorphine have lost 80% of their trade (Lord Provost Commission, 1998); 200 000 extra car-kilometres are being travelled in Edinburgh every day since the Gyle opened; 5% of the CO2 emissions caused by the transport sector in Edinburgh are attributable to the Gyle alone; and research focused on two major employers showed that the number of car commuters rose from 34% to 83% when they relocated their offices from the centre to the Gyle (Hazel, 1998). Given that 90% of all air pollution in urban Scotland comes from road traffic (Friends of the Earth Scotland, 1996a), these developments have caused the overall air quality in Edinburgh to decline. At present traffic emissions combine to produce a lethal cocktail which causes 240 premature deaths in Edinburgh each year (Begg, 1998). Tackling air pollution has thus repeatedly come top of the priority list in public opinion surveys (City of Edinburgh, 1996; Touche Ross, 1994). Bad air quality has caused considerable public demand to tackle traffic growth. A final negative trend in terms of traffic reduction and sustainability is the rapid expansion of Edinburgh Airport. Built for 1.5m users in 1976, the airport currently handles some 3.5m customers annually. A massive extension, worth £ 54m pounds, is currently being constructed. It will equip the airport to service 6 million customers. Given recent growth figures of over 10% annually, however, plans are already underway for further expansion aiming to extend capacity to 8-10 million (McLean, 1998). Air travel being the most environmentally damaging form of transport such trends are incompatible with the Edinburgh’s aim to "promote a healthy and sustainable environment" (City of Edinburgh Council, 1996).

The City’s response "The City of Edinburgh Council is committed - on paper - to the concept of sustainable development" (Councillor Child, 1997:31). The City of Edinburgh Council, created in April 1996 after a major reorganisation of local government in Scotland (Midwinter, 1995), inherited a radical transport policy from the previous transport authority, Lothian Regional Council. It decided to continue this strategy, which aims at a 30% overall travel reduction over the next twelve years (Air Quality Management, 1998). Travel reduction is understood as "the attempt to minimise vehicle kilometres where possible, especially car kilometres" (Marshall and Banister, 1997:5; also see DANTE, 1998). Edinburgh pursues this overall goal by promoting a modal shift away from the car (see Table 1). By the year 2000, the number of car journeys is to be reduced from 48% to 46%, with a further reduction to 34% envisioned by 2010. The share of sustainable transport modes, meanwhile, is to be increased. Cycling is to account for 10% of all journeys by 2010 and public transport is to account for 39%. Edinburgh also decided to use the opportunity of government reorganisation to institutionally integrate transport and planning functions within the authority. The new City Development Department in the Council, therefore, has joint responsibility for transport, planning as well as economic development (City of Edinburgh, 1996). The head of this Department, Dr. George Hazel, is very committed to making the MOVING FORWARD strategy work. He himself travels to work by bus. However, as we shall see below, problems with integration of transport and planning remain acute.

Table 1 MOVING FORWARD targets. (Saunders, 1997) Aside from radical targets for travel reduction, MOVING FORWARD has spurned a number of concrete projects that aim to turn these targets into reality: Greenways

30 km of Edinburgh’s 850 km road network are to be turned into bus priority routes similar to London’s Red Routes. In Edinburgh, however, they are painted green and are thus known as Greenways. Greenways support travel reduction in two ways. They take road space away from cars as well as improving the efficiency and speed of the bus service. So far 10 km of this system have been completed and the results have been very encouraging. Bus times have been cut by between 10 and 25 %. During the first 6 months of the scheme buses have already attracted 250,000 extra passengers on Greenways routes alone (Begg, 1998). Princes Street Scotland’s premier shopping street has long been the site of a fierce battle over road space. Several proposals for part or full pedestrianisation have been put forward over the years. Yet, not until 1997 were any travel alterations put into place. Then, cars (but not buses) were banned from travelling eastwards; the pedestrian walkway was widened and cycle lanes were put into place. In an attempt to not simply shift cars to the parallel street, George Street, it, too, was closed to through-traffic. Only customers of George Street´s shops are now allowed to drive and park there. The jury on these changes is still out. Whilst road accident rates on Princes Street have fallen by an impressive 14%, no real travel reduction seems to have taken place. Instead, traffic has simply been diverted elsewhere, with an extra 1 million cars travelling through Stockbridge annually (Lord Provost Commission, 1998). Royal Mile Road space in Edinburgh’s second world-famous street was decreased in 1996/1997. What was effectively a four-lane thoroughfare has been reduced to two lanes. Pavements have been widened producing an increase in pedestrian traffic. From 1997, the Royal Mile has also been closed completely to traffic for a short period each year during the Edinburgh Festival. The public’s response to this measure has been overwhelmingly positive. Outside Festival times, however, no significant traffic reduction has so far been achieved. And as traffic speeds have decreased, the slightly reduced number of vehicles using the street, still generate unhealthy air pollution levels. Therefore, the Council is aiming to turn at least part of the Royal Mile into a ´bus only´ zone. The street is to be narrowed and gates are to be installed to enforce this new policy measure (Morrison, 1998).

Central Edinburgh Rapid Transit (CERT) While Edinburgh’s airport is expanding fast, it still lacks a rail link. Most journeys to the airport are thus by car. The current bus service is considered too slow to convince motorists to switch to public transport. The Council’s response has been the promotion of a guided busway between the city centre and the airport. The busway aims to cut travel times for the 6-mile journey to below 20 minutes. It also aims to increase the public transport accessibility of the Edinburgh Park development (see above). An extra stop is thus planned there. CERT will start operating in the year 2000 and promises to improve the image and overall performance of the public transport system. It therefore should further the cause of travel reduction by encouraging a modal shift away from the car. Some doubts have recently been raised about the project, however. First of all, CERT will increase the accessibility of the airport. It may therefore further encourage air travel. Secondly, the project requires an expansion of overall road space and will require new road building on greenfield land. The guided busway will also obliterate a number of allotments. Such an expansion of road space, even for buses, sits uneasily with the objectives of travel reduction (RCEP, 1996). Finally, with the recent success of the Greenways scheme, even the current service to the airport has improved its performance. Journey times have come down to just over 20 minutes already. It is questionable, therefore, whether the £ 50 million price tag attached to CERT is really good value for money. Car Free Housing Edinburgh is the first city in the United Kingdom to have given planning permission to a truly car free housing development. The permission was obtained by the Canmore Housing Association in 1995. Building works were started in the summer of 1998 and completion is scheduled for the year 2000. The development is in the Gorgie area of Edinburgh, close to the city centre, and will provide 120 flats for sale and rent. Residents will have to sign a pledge not to own cars - but may be given access to cars through a car-sharing scheme. The space saved by not providing for cars will be used for communal spaces as well as gardens and allotments for individual householders. Other services such as shops may also be provided within the development itself (Canmore Housing Association, 1997). The scheme is already oversubscribed. It has shown that there is a substantial suppressed demand for car-free housing in Edinburgh. Obviously, by its very nature, this development will contribute to travel reduction. Given its size, however, its impact on Edinburgh as a whole is likely to be minimal.

Car Club In November 1998 Edinburgh will launch its first pay-as-you-drive car sharing scheme in the high density middle-class area of Marchmont. The development of this project was funded by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) as well as the Scottish Office. The running of the scheme will be granted to a private car hire company in August 1998 which will agree to bear all the financial risks involved. The three companies bidding for the contract have been attracted to Edinburgh by the offer of a sophisticated software package. This package will allow operators to administer the scheme in Edinburgh and, indeed, in any other UK city that they may want to expand into, through one call centre. The scheme targets mainly drivers doing 7,000 miles a year or less. It will provide 24-hour car access at short notice and offer access to a range of well-maintained cars (Haydon, 1998). Though starting in Marchmont, the scheme will be extended city-wide in due course - provided enough on-street parking space for such an expansion can be secured. Research on car sharing schemes elsewhere shows that the average former car owner who joins a Car Club reduces her mileage by 50%. The scheme is thus likely to contribute to travel reduction. However, the scheme will also provide car access to people who are not currently car users. Some of the travel reduction potential will thus be undermined. The fact that car hire companies have been put in charge of this development, while sensible from an administrative point of view as they are experienced in operating car fleets, may also be problematic. It is highly unlikely that car hire companies will be interested in reducing traffic. Indeed, in Edinburgh they are planning to give special long term hire rates to members of the car club. This suggests that they view car clubs as a convenient way to expand their market rather than as their contribution to travel reduction. Road pricing Edinburgh’s transport convenor, Professor David Begg, is perhaps the best known advocate of road pricing in the UK. He played a decisive role in drafting the 1998 White Paper on integrated transport (Allardyce and Murray, 1998) which gives councils the right to impose charges on motorists entering cities (Scottish Office, 1998). It is estimated that a £1 charge on motorists who enter Edinburgh’s city centre could generate £50 million a year - as much as Edinburgh City Council currently collects in council taxes. This money could significantly boost investment in public transport and

thus encourage modal switching. However, road pricing has been on Edinburgh’s agenda for years without any action ever having been taken. So far, his advocacy of road pricing has only gained David Begg the ´privilege´ of appearing on stickers claiming that he plans to kill Edinburgh and its business community; such stickers ´decorate´ many lamp posts and signs in Edinburgh’s car-dependent suburbs. A recent local opinion poll also showed that three out of four motorists would keep driving if any charges were imposed. And only 18% were convinced that road pricing would indeed lead to a better public transport system (Reid, 1998). Perhaps giving in to such pressure, Mr. Begg announced in July 1998 that charges were unlikely to be imposed before at least 2005 (Scott, 1998). Thus, the extent to which road pricing will, if ever imposed, help achieve the objectives of MOVING FORWARD remains unclear. Park and Ride At present Edinburgh has no Park and Ride schemes. Two are planned for the west of the city but won’t become operational until the year 2000 (though they were originally scheduled for completion in October 1998). As most of the population in and around Edinburgh is located on the western side of the city, the two new sites have been chosen well. They will service a large catchment population and will thus provide a speedy alternative to the car for a maximum number of people. However, this may also be a problem in terms of their travel reduction impact. Recent research suggests that Park and Ride schemes may actually increase traffic as they a) allow easy access to town centres to people living in a wider catchment area and b) encourage people to make more frequent trips (CPRE, 1998; Marshall and Banister, 1997). Edinburgh’s Park and Ride schemes are thus not only late, they may also have less travel reduction potential than was assumed when they were planned. Rail improvements Currently, Edinburgh lacks a locally articulated rail service (see above). Plans to reopen both the tram and the suburban railway line linking up the southern suburbs of the city have been mooted for over 20 years. So far, however, they have always been abandoned due to the huge expense involved. Reactivating the South Suburban Railway, for example, has been estimated to cost some £20 million - even though most of the tracks already exist (Mazza and Rydin, 1997). The advent of the Scottish parliament has, however, refocused attention on possible rail-based solutions to Edinburgh’s transport dilemmas. A new station has been proposed at Holyrood and the

reopening of the Waverley line into the Scottish Borders, starting with an inner-city Cross-Rail service, has been suggested (Lord Provost Commission, 1998). However, once again the price tag may sound the death knell for these projects. Edinburgh City Council has already declared that it cannot afford the £6.5 million needed for a station at the Holyrood parliament. And while the £12 million Cross-Rail project linking the centre with the south east of the city does have some powerful backers (including Railtrack and ScotRail), its implementation is unlikely to be on the cards any time soon (McGhee, 1998a). Even though the launch of the 1998 White Paper generated general commitment and widespread enthusiasm for improving the rail network of South East Scotland as a whole, it was acknowledged even then that implementation was neither certain nor imminent (Davidson, 1998). Rail improvements will thus play at best a minor role in travel reduction for the foreseeable future. Cycle paths Currently only 2% of journeys in Edinburgh are made by bike. This is somewhat surprising as Edinburgh’s compact form is ideal for cycling and the Council started building dedicated cycle ways in 1978. Initially, an off-road cycling network, intended mainly for recreational use, was developed on a disused railway line. More recently, however, the Council has also invested in on-road cycle facilities, consequently further reducing road space available to cars. In 1996/1997 alone the Council invested £300,000 on network improvements, for example extending the number of advanced cycle stop lines from 40 to 55. These improvements are focused on the southern central area of the city and have been praised by the Lothian cycle pressure group SPOKES. Anecdotal evidence suggests that cycle use is indeed rising, albeit slowly. But whether the ambitious MOVING FORWARD target of quintupling cycle use by 2010 can be achieved at present remains questionable. It is thus clear that Edinburgh City Council is responding to the negative transport trends in the city and is committed to travel reduction. The Council has implemented and planned a number of travel reduction initiatives, some of which, like the Greenways, have already delivered considerable improvements. It has also become obvious, however, that much of Edinburgh’s response still remains in the planning stage and that many of the proposed actions may ultimately be less beneficial than was originally supposed (e.g. CERT, Park and Ride, even Road Pricing). Many projects are also rather small in scale (e.g. Car Free Housing) or seem to deliver only local improvements (Princes Street, Royal Mile).

MOVING FORWARD? But the pictures is even bleaker than this would suggest. For, despite attempts at integrating planning and transport function in the Council (see above), current planning policy in Edinburgh still encourages further traffic growth. A senior government advisor described Edinburgh´s retail policy as characterized by a state of “almost total anarchy" (McGhee, 1997). And while George Hazel talks of travel reduction, some of the employees of his own City Development Department are busy encouraging the expansion of out-of-town shopping centres. At least seven worrying projects and trends are currently taking place. Kinnaird Park Kinnaird Park, opened in 1988, is a major out-of-town shopping centre south east of the city centre. Planning consent has already been granted for an extra 100,000 sq.ft of floor space and an application for a further 150,000 sq.ft has recently been lodged. If granted, this further expansion would make Kinnaird Park four times as large as the disastrous South Gyle development. Nonetheless, the City of Edinburgh Council has refused to rule out giving planning permission. While acknowledging that "we have gone just about as far as we should with edge-of-town consent", the threat of a decline in the Park’s trade if major design improvements linked to the expansion plans do not take place, seems to weigh more heavily than travel impact considerations (Houston, 1998a). Granton Seashore Large parts of North Edinburgh are currently derelict and economically deprived. A huge former Gas Works site at Granton cuts off the rest of the City from the Firth of Forth and the North Sea. This site, the largest brownfield site in the city, is now at last being redeveloped (Hannan, 1998). The £60 million project to reclaim 80 acres of derelict land is, however, ill thought out in terms of its travel impact. It will involve the construction of a major new road leading north from the Crewe Toll roundabout. The Council’s own impact assessments show that traffic will, as a result, increase by at least 50% (Dixon, 1998). Though the Council calls this development sustainable and advised local residents that there will be "no increase in traffic", the facts suggest otherwise. This development, therefore, directly contradicts the Council’s own travel reduction policy.

South East Wedge Another development that the Council advertises as sustainable but that will inevitably increase car traffic is the planned South East Wedge suburban development.. The Council argues that this suburb will be sustainable because it will be of higher density than normal suburban developments; it will be provided with local shops, priority public transport access and a first class cycle network; and will be landscaped to provide for a strong urban shape (Hazel, 1997). Yet, these arguments ignore several awkward facts. First of all densities will nonetheless be too low to support an efficient public transport system. Secondly, the development is situated close to the City Bypass and will thus be most easily accessible by car. Finally, original plans for only 250 carefully planned houses have been thrown out under pressure from the developer. They have been replaced by the current proposal for 5000 houses which are to attract the house (and usually car-) owning middle-classes. Worse still, the development is linked to the resiting of the Royal Infirmary hospital from the city centre to the south eastern fringe. The Royal Infirmary services a wide area in south east Scotland and its current site is extremely accessible by public transport. Once moved to the fringe of the city, the hospital, like the South East Wedge as a whole, will be most easily reached by car. Even if it is ensured that "car travel is significantly less than might traditionally be expected from such a location" (Hazel, 1997, p.51), therefore, the development as a whole will no doubt generate further traffic. Suburbanisation The South East Wedge is at least a planned suburb with some concern for public transport provision. Elsewhere in the Edinburgh region a worse form of suburbanisation is taking place, with even more negative transport impacts. It would be wrong to suggest that this suburbanisation is simply what consumers demand. Instead, there are clear indications that the market is forcing house buyers into the suburbs and even further afield. With city centre prices rising by 18.7% annually due to the impact of the Scottish Parliament, more and more people are buying houses in the wider Lothian region. Sales there have picked up massively in recent years (Denvir, 1998; Houston, 1998b). Most suburban developments are of very low quality and extremely low density. They are entirely car-dependent (Glendinning, 1998) and thus directly contradict travel reduction targets. Unless affordable housing can be supplied within Edinburgh, this trend is likely to continue.

Cadence The bypass has put considerable development pressure on the western side of the city (see above). It has also provided the conditions for attracting some substantial inward investment deals. One such investment is a major new plant by the American computer design firm Cadence. Unfortunately, the chosen site for the development is almost impossible to service by public transport and is a long way from any residential centres. A major car park is included in the project specification and will mean that the development generates extra travel (Dixon, 1998). A8 corridor The western fringe also includes the A8 corridor leading to Edinburgh airport. This corridor may still be upgraded to motorway status. Plans to do so have existed for over 10 years and have still not been buried. Indeed, the commitment to upgrade the A8 has been reconfirmed in the 1998 Transport White Paper, even though such an extension of road space clearly contradicts travel reduction aims set out elsewhere in the White Paper (Scottish Office, 1998). Edinburgh City Council is also under heavy pressure to release more land along the A8 for development. The land directly adjacent to the airport is being particularly strongly targeted. Glasgow has recently started to develop an economic development corridor next to Glasgow Airport. The iron rule of competition has thus made it difficult for Edinburgh to resist following suit (Lord Provost Commission, 1998). No action on airport Furthermore, the current expansion taking place at Edinburgh Airport is clearly unsustainable (see above). However, nothing has been done by the Council to control the airport’s growth. It has granted planning permission for the current capacity increase and has allowed the airport to purchase enough land for another six potential expansion phases (McLean, 1998). Edinburgh aims to attract more visitors from abroad all year round and has been keen to host international events such as the EU Summit (1992) and the Commonwealth Head of States Meeting (1997) in order to boost its image abroad. The travel impact of any further expansion of the international tourist trade in the city has been ignored.

Learning from Edinburgh? Edinburgh faces the same challenge of rapidly increasing travel demand, particularly by car and plane, as other cities in Europe. The Council has shown leadership in attacking these trends with its radical MOVING FORWARD policy. There is no reason why this clear, target-based approach could not be used effectively in other cities. However, Edinburgh’s actual projects aiming at the implementation of the MOVING FORWARD targets are still too piecemeal. Projects are too small in their impact and/or too slow in their implementation to reverse current negative trends. This suggests that "to maximise the effectiveness of travel reduction measures they need to be assembled in strategy packages" (Marshall and Banister, 1997:22). Furthermore, the different elements of such a strategy should ideally be implemented simultaneously. Otherwise negative trends may simply be displaced spatially (e.g. Princes Street). In addition, implementation time frames need to be short. Longer time frames, while sometimes necessary for strategic planning, tend to allow political will to slip. The delays of Edinburgh’s Park and Ride and rail improvements schemes are a sobering reminder of this fact. The case study of Edinburgh also gives weight to the fear that at times travel reduction projects have suprising and counter-acting outcomes (Marshall and Banister, 1997). The Princes Street project was carefully planned but nonetheless diverted traffic elsewhere. The impact of the CERT and Park and Ride schemes in particular should therefore be analysed carefully in years to come. If these projects also fail to meet their anticipated travel reduction potential, as has been suggested is likely, many similar schemes around the world will need to go back to the drawing board. Edinburgh City Council has institutionally integrated its planning and transport functions. This is desirable in principle (Carley and Christie, 1992) and thus worthy of imitation. However, in practice this integration is still limited. That many projects planned and supported by the Council are causing (or threatening to cause) further travel in Edinburgh shows the need for further integration of planning and transport decision making. The fact that negative developments such as the extension of Kinnaird Park; the planning of the South East Wedge; and the transport blindness of the Granton regeneration proposals could not be prevented by an integrated Department is a clear lesson. It shows that institutional structures, though they can be helpful, do not in and of themselves ensure linked-up and holistic thinking. Travel reduction still requires new attidues and considerable political will by all Council employees.

The Edinburgh case study also underlines the importance of including air travel in any travel reduction strategy. Air travel is growing even faster than road travel and is particularly polluting. Even if the MOVING FORWARD strategy is successfully implemented, therefore, Edinburgh will not succeed in reducing its environmental impact unless air traffic growth is also curtailed. Projects such as DANTE (see Marshall this issue?) thus need in future to address themselves to the issue of unsustainable trends in the aviation sector. Edinburgh is not built for the car and could be ideally placed to show the way forward to sustainable mobility. Edinburgh City Council, furthermore, is one of the few councils in Britain that proactively addresses the issue of travel reduction. The fact that negative trends persist nonetheless and that many of the Council´s own policies and projects further fuel the rise of road traffic thus is a warning to other cities. It shows in all seriousness that as long as the current car-dependent economic development model persists, travel reduction will remain an impossibility.

Bibliography Air Quality Management (1998). Edinburgh, testbed for traffic innovation. Air Quality Management, 1998. Allardyce, J. and Murray, G. (1998). End of the Open Road, Scotland on Sunday, 19 July 1998, 11. Begg, D. (1998). Plan for a transport of delight, Edinburgh Evening News, 17 June 1998. Canmore Housing Association (1997). Announcement of Winner in Car Free Millennium Housing Competition, Edinburgh: Canmore Housing Association. Carley, M. and Christie I. (1992). Managing sustainable development, London: Earthscan. Child, M. (1997). Case Study Edinburgh, in N. A. Brown, Steps to Sustainability, Developing an Environmental Agenda in Scotland, Elgin: The Moray Council. City of Edinburgh Council (1996). Edinburgh City Strategy, Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh Council. CPRE (1998). Park and Ride -its role in local transport policy. London: CPRE DANTE (1998). Designs to Avoid the Need to Travel in Europe, A Good Practice Guide. London: Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. Davidson, G. (1998) Rail plans steam ahead, Edinburgh Evening News, 20 July 1998, 1. Denvir, P. (1998). House prices go through ceiling, Edinburgh Evening News, 10 July 1998, 28. Dixon, R. (1998). Stop car madness, Edinburgh Evening News, 1 July 1998. Friends of the Earth Scotland (1996a). Towards a Sustainable Scotland, Edinburgh: Friends of the Earth Scotland. Friends of the Earth Scotland (1996b). The State of Scotland’s Air, Edinburgh: Friends of the Earth Scotland. Glendinning, M (1998). Clone City. Paper presented at The City after Patrick Geddes Conference, The Patrick Geddes Centre for Planning Studies. June Greig, A. and Rydin, Y. (1994). Interviews with 30 Edinburgh decision makers.London: London School of Economics, Department of Geography.

Hannan, M. (1998). Taking Spanish lessons, The Scotsman, 12 May 1998. Haydon, R. (1998). Car Share Scheme. TXpress, Issue 10, July. Hazel, G. (1997). Transport for the twenty-first century: the lessons of Edinburgh, in Design Council, Transport and the Environment, London: Design Council, p. 44-51. Hazel, G. (1998). Shaping Transport to Meet Scotland’s Needs, Proceedings, Vol. 7, No. 1, p.50-56. Houston, K. (1998a). The view is stunning but so is the price, The Scotsman, 3 March 1998. Houston, K. (1998b). When will the brake be put on retail parking?, The Scotsman, 14 April 1998. Lord Provost Commission on Sustainable Development for the City of Edinburgh (1998) Report to the Lord Provost. Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh Council. Marshall, S. and Banister, D. (1997). Travel Reduction Strategies: Intentions and Outcomes, Paper presented at the International Association for Travel Behaviour Research, 8th Meeting, Austin, Texas, September. Marshall, S., Banister, D. and McLellan, A. (1997). A Strategic Assessment of Travel Trends and Travel Reduction Strategies. Innovation, Vol.10, No.3, p. 289-304. Mazza, L. and Rydin, Y. (1997). Urban Sustainability, Discourses, networks and policy tools, Progress in Planning, Vol. 47, Part 1. McGhee, J. (1997). Begg angry at criticism of city plans, Edinburgh Evening News, 11 December 1997, 19. McGhee, J. (1998). Holyrood’s off track in £12m city rail moves, Edinburgh Evening News, 25 June 1998, 7. McLean, A. (1998). Runway success still soaring, The Scotsman, 24 June 1998. Midwinter, A. (1995). Local Government in Scotland, Reform or Decline, London: Macmillan. Morrison, N. (1998). Royal Mile’s drivers and go and gate lost, Edinburgh Evening News, 30 June 1998, 3. Reid, S. (1998). Motorists willing to pay price of city toll, Edinburgh Evening News, 11 July 1998, 9.

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1996). Transport and the Environment, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rydin, Y. (1997). Policy networks, local discourses and the implementation of sustainable development, in Baker, S. et al, The politics of sustainable development, theory, policy and practice within the European Union, London: Routledge. Saunders, J. (1997). Edinburgh: A Sustainable Transport Strategy. Paper presented at Mobilität und nachhaltige Entwicklung Conference, Bremen, 24-25 November 1997. Scott, D. (1998). City road pricing scheme ´unlikely before 2005´, The Scotsman, 18 July 1998, 8. Scottish Office (1998). Scotland´s Transport Choices. Edinburgh: Stationary Office. Touche Ross & Co. (1994). An Environmental Review of Edinburgh. Edinburgh: Touche Ross & Co..