Road Pricing

What is road pricing

Road pricing is a system of charging drivers to reflect car usage, with frequent drivers paying more than infrequent drivers. Normally, schemes are skewed to encourage drivers to use less congested routes or drive at less busy times. In this way supporters of road pricing claim it can reduce congestion and is a fairer way of charging drivers than an indiscriminate road tax.

Background

Congestion is a growing problem across the UK and on current trends is set to get 25 per cent worse over the next decade. This is despite a planned £140 billion investment over the ten years to 2015.

Sir Rod Eddington reported to the government that road pricing could help tackle congestion and in 2005 launched a 'national debate' on road pricing, in order that it could be considered as one possible remedy.

A government feasibility study in 2004 set recommendations for a sliding scale of charges. Drivers would pay a maximum of £1.34 a mile for the most congested roads, falling to two pence a mile. The government insisted these figures were highly speculative until further research was completed.

The Department for Transport worked with local authorities across England on road pricing pilot schemes, the intention being to use evidence from these as the basis of any national decision.

The government said it would not adopt a road pricing scheme unless the evidence warranted it and the public could be persuaded of its value.

Initially more than £14 million was awarded to ten areas for initial pilot schemes; Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Manchester, Shrewsbury, Tyne and Wear and the West Midlands. In 2006 further support was announced for Reading, Norwich and Nottingham, Leicester and Derby. The projects were set to begin in late 2007 and last for two years.

A survey published by the Department for Transport on 'Public attitudes towards road congestion', which was carried out between November 2009 and February 2010, found that over half of adults agreed that the current system of paying for road use should change so that the amount people paid was based on how often, when and where they used the roads. However, under a quarter thought that people driving on busy roads should pay more and a similar proportion said that people driving at busy times should pay more.

Controversies

Road pricing has proved to be hugely controversial. Some 1.7 million people signed a Downing Street petition in 2007 protesting against road pricing, despite no firm proposals being put forward.

The petition noted: "The idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong. Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay. It will be an unfair tax on those who live apart from families and poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs."

The government maintained that road charging would be purely designed to tackle congestion, not act as a 'stealth tax' to raise revenue or track drivers via in-car technology. Nevertheless, the public remained sceptical on both these counts.

Supporters claimed road pricing could potentially be a fairer alternative to car tax because it reflected actual road usage. However, critics claimed people in rural areas or other people who have trouble accessing public transport have no choice but to drive. In turn supporters claimed the roads most commonly used by these groups would be subject to reduced rates.

The government further insisted that any road pricing scheme would be accompanied by improved public transport to reduce congestion.

Concerns were also raised about the potential for a 'big brother' state and invasion of privacy. Road pricing would require drivers to install a tracking device in their car, prompting claims of an invasion of privacy. The government maintained it would not be used to track drivers, nor would data from tracking boxes be used to prosecute speeding drivers.

Some motoring groups questioned why the Department for Transport could not build new roads or widen existing routes, as happens on sections of the M1. The department maintained increasing the road network's capacity was not enough, and instead motorists needed incentives to drive less. It also pointed out that road building was highly expensive, with one mile of motorway costing £30 million.

In July 2010 a report by RAC Foundation director Professor Stephen Glaister warned that a radical change in the way roads in England are managed and funded was vital if traffic gridlock was to be avoided in future years. The report, 'Governing and Paying for England's Roads', concluded that some form of 'pay as you go' system was "inevitable".

The report coincided with an Ipsos MORI survey carried out for the RAC Foundation which found that the majority of those asked were opposed to a 'pay as you go' scheme. However, when it was explained that a charging system would be accompanied by a range of benefits, such as the abolition of VED and a cut in fuel duty, opposition to the scheme fell away markedly.

Statistics

Statistical report on 'Public attitudes towards road congestion' - Effectiveness and fairness of alternative road charging schemes.

Over half of adults agreed that the current system of paying for road use should change so that the amount people pay is based on how often, when and where they use the roads.

However, under a quarter thought that people driving on busy roads should pay more and a similar proportion said that people driving at busy times should pay more.

Three in ten adults thought that a new charging scheme based on times of travel and specific route taken would work in reducing congestion while over half said it would not.

Almost three in five of those who felt such a scheme wouldn't work gave people not being able to change their behaviour as a reason for this while a third said people wouldn't want to change.

Twenty six per cent of adults said that a new charging scheme based on these principles would be fair to road users, down from 2 years ago, while 55 per cent thought it would be unfair.

Again, the majority of those judging such a scheme to be unfair cited that people wouldn't be able to change their behaviour as a reason while over a third said the costs would be too much for some.

When asked whether they would be prepared to accept road pricing as long as there was no overall increase in the amount paid by motorists as a whole, 38 per cent agreed while 34 per cent disagreed. 2 years ago, 41 per cent agreed and 35 per cent disagreed.

Almost half of adults said that money raised from such a scheme should be spent solely on roads and transport while over one in ten maintained that they didn't agree with it under any circumstances.

Source: Department for Transport - August 2010

Quotes

"In terms of keeping the country moving we are almost at the end of the road. The population is rising and traffic is forecast to grow too. Something needs to be done. At the moment, nothing is."

Professor Stephen Glaister, director RAC Foundation - July 2010.