Road user charging

Social inclusion

Summary

There is genuine concern that congestion charging could increase social exclusion for the poorer members of society, as it could raise further the barrier to jobs, leisure and education. Certainly, lower income drivers are likely to pay a higher proportion of their income in charges than their better off counterparts.

We know that poorer people rely more on public transport and use cars less, and that congestion charging becomes more unfair in the absence of available and affordable public transport alternatives. One of the benefits of the planned urban congestion charging schemes and the nationwide scheme proposed by CfIT is that groups should benefit from significant public transport improvements.

• The CfIT national scheme does not create an additional level of charges for the road user, but replaces the way we pay for road use with a new, fairer charging system. Motorists on low incomes will still have to pay congestion charges if they drive in congested conditions but they will benefit by receiving a reduction in road tax and/or lower fuel duty
• Poorer drivers will be charged only for the amount of travel they do on congested roads, rather than subsidising higher income motorists who use their cars more (nearly twice as much on average)
• Low income drivers also make the fewest car trips and they travel 40% fewer miles (6500) than those car owners in the highest income bracket (11,400) (DTLR Personal Travel Survey 2001)
• It can be argued that congestion charging is not the key issue in this debate. Accessibility is vitally important in terms of the costs of using public transport which, with walking, is the most frequent mode of travel for those on low incomes. 64% of the poorest households in Britain do not own a car and are likely to depend mainly on buses
• Congestion charging will benefit those who frequently use buses by improving journey times and reliability - and, with higher bus usage, comes the prospect of lower fares
• Older people too are heavily dependent on public transport - 91% of single pensioners and 53% of pensioner couples do not own a car. This implies greater dependency on public transport, taxis, families and friends (Family Expenditure Survey 1996/7). Nearly half of all households without a car are 'pensioner' households (Transport Trends 1999)
• Pensioners with a car tend to have more discretion over when they travel. Therefore they would benefit not only from easier journeys and lower levels of charges but also from reduced fuel costs and/or road tax. Under a fiscally neutral congestion-charging scheme, these households are more likely to enjoy lower overall costs
• In the short term there are no plans to introduce congestion charging in rural areas, where there is little congestion. However, under the CfIT proposals, where congestion occurs on country roads, some charge would be incurred
• Research in the USA (valued-priced lanes on Route 91 in San Diego) shows that less wealthy people still value their time and are willing to pay extra for faster more reliable journeys. Opinion research on congestion pricing on the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York State revealed virtually no difference in opinion about the charges between low, middle and high income level drivers

Transport and social exclusion

In the wider transport field the government's Social Exclusion Unit is currently addressing the real barriers faced by low income groups for whom lack of suitable transport is a barrier to social inclusion.

Certainly, access to journeys by car is an important factor (Two-thirds of the poorest fifth of the population have no car and depend on public transport) along with, the cost, availability and security issue associated with public transport.

Social Exclusion Unit: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/social_exclusion/