Road user charging

Other views on road user charging

What the public thinks

A Department for Transport Survey in 2006 found that:

• 87% of respondents considered road congestion to be a serious problem in the country as a whole.
• The majority (76%) of respondents felt it very or fairly important for the Government to tackle congestion relative to its other priorities.
• Just over a half (55%) of respondents agreed that 'The current system of paying for road use (e.g. fuel and road tax) should be changed so that the amount people pay relates more closely to how often, when and where they use the roads'.
• Support among frequent drivers stood at 57% and among infrequent drivers at 64%.
• However, the results also show there is still work to be done in gaining a consensus on the way a scheme should operate. Respondents showed a degree of uncertainty about exactly what such a system would entail and how it would impact on individuals.
• 61% supported a road pricing system 'as long as any extra money raised was spent only on roads and transport'.

CfIT's poll conducted by MORI in 2002 found that:

• Transport features prominently on national and local agendas. Three in 10 people spontaneously cite transport as a main problem facing Britain today - more than four in 10 think it's the most important local issue, with congestion cited as the main problem.
• The public is prepared to accept radical action to have a better transport system. Over half support CfIT's proposal to charge for driving on congested roads at peak times if the revenue generated is returned to transport users through cheaper petrol, lower road tax or public transport improvements (between 54% and 58% support) - stronger support than in 2001. Only a quarter are against.
• At £5 to enter their local city/town centre, two-thirds of drivers (excluding Londoners) would change some journeys by car, with a quarter stating they would change all journeys by car - 20% would change most journeys and 21% would change some.
• Satisfaction with local public transport has improved over the past year. Satisfaction with bus services among users has risen from 56% in 2001 to 64%, while the improvement for rail users is even more marked with 58% of users satisfied with local rail services now compared with 46% last year.
• The public has grown more pessimistic about transport over the past year, with our transport system widely expected to get worse over the next 10 years, especially traffic congestion.
• 43% think that the government has given less priority to transport over the past year than in previous years.
• The public's outlook is more negative than positive on a range of transport issues over the next 10 years. The balance of opinion expects improvements only for the integration of different modes and the safety of rail passengers. However expectation is less optimistic than in 2001.
• For the third year running, expectation is overwhelmingly pessimistic for future road conditions. Almost eight in 10 expect congestion in towns, on major roads and on motorways to get worse and the cost of using a car to rise (c. 77-78% each). More than six in 10 believe vehicle pollution affecting people's health or global warming to get worse (62% and 67% respectively).

The RAC Foundation's 2002 survey for its report, 'Motoring towards 2050' found that:

• 75% of drivers would favour a scheme similar to CfIT's proposals - a package of road charging alongside a reduction in fuel duty.
• 71% of drivers would also find tolling acceptable if introduced as a package of better roads, public transport and traffic management and without other taxes being reduced.
• 43% of drivers would be willing to pay tolls to drive in city centres or on motorways.

Views from other organisations

Confederation of British Industry
Reducing the multi-billion pound of cost of road congestion is a top business priority. making the way we all pay for road use fairer has to be part of the solution but the policy and practical implications are complex, as recent experience in London shows. Government should therefore promote an early and coherent debate on paying for road use to ensure the issues are properly considered.

For the views of the CBI, go to: www.cbi.org.uk.

RAC Foundation
The RAC Foundation believes that in future motorists will accept a road pricing system if they perceive it brings benefits such as extra investment in roads and public transport and a reduction in other motoring taxes and congestion. We need to start planning for the future now as changes in transport policy and planning take so long to come to fruition.

For the views of the RAC Foundation, go to: www.racfoundation.org.

Freight Transport Association
Road Pricing: The Freight Transport Association supports the concept of road user charging provided that there will be no overall increase in taxation on goods vehicle operations. FTA supports the forthcoming distance tax which is scheduled to apply to goods vehicles from 2006. FTA believes that judicious operation of the scheme will provide variable prices dependent on the type of vehicle, the type of road and environment, the time of day, and the demand. These will be a helpful contribution to managing congestion. Within this process, goods vehicles should be recognised for the essential nature of their operation and the relative lack of choice for moving goods and services. Accordingly where road space is very limited it may be necessary to provide priority for goods vehicles.

Urban Congestion Charging: In urban situations goods vehicle operations have become increasingly difficult in the face of ever growing congestion largely caused by cars. FTA says that goods vehicles are essential for the operation of shops, offices and other business and for residents of city centres. As such this status must be recognised and in the event of an urban congestion charging scheme such vehicles should be exempt (unlike the London scheme). Commercial vehicle operations would obviously benefit from substantially reduced car traffic in city centres but FTA recognises that adequate alternative arrangements must be in place for the movement of people before any such scheme could prove effective.

Where congestion charging is introduced local authorities should recognise that a premium price is being paid by operators to deliver economically essential goods and services to residents and businesses and visitors in the charging area. Alleviation of other hindrances, such as lorry bans, parking fines and loading and waiting restrictions should also be considered.

For views of the Freight Transport Association, go to: www.fta.co.uk.

Campaign to Protect Rural England
CPRE believes the cost of travel should reflect the wider costs on society and the environment and, therefore, supports in principle the use of road user charging mechanisms. We have been concerned by recent trends which risk promoting greater car dependency. We note that the report by ITS Leeds which has been used by a number of commentators on charging, including CfIT, said that currently road users are not paying enough charges to cover the costs of their existing impacts. We believe, therefore, that a fiscally neutral scheme, in which any charges are offset by reductions in VED or petrol duty, will be insufficient to the task of internalising external costs.

We believe that any charge should:

• be a road user charge which seeks to reduce both traffic levels overall and the experience of congestion, given the significant impact which rising volumes of traffic have on people's quality of life in urban and rural areas;
• that costs should not be based only on those impacts which can be counted or given monetary values, to the detriment of other impacts such as loss of tranquillity or community severance;
• be used to assist the Government in meeting CfIT's recommendation of an aspirational target of zero traffic growth by 2010;
• be developed on an area-wide basis rather than in relation to individual road corridors, in order to avoid the negative impacts associated with traffic diversion;
• be set in a way which does not encourage additional driving on rural roads, the simple dispersal of traffic, or undermine existing public transport services in rural areas by increasing the price differential between motoring and public transport;
• involve the proceeds being invested in walking, cycling and public transport, and measures to promote an urban renaissance, in order to provide greater incentives for more sustainable lifestyles; and
• be tested carefully in advance for possible knock-on land use and distributional impacts, to ensure transport policy supports, rather than undermines, wider land use planning objectives such as urban renewal and protection of the countryside 'for its own sake'.

CPRE will keep its position on road user charging under review as knowledge and understanding of its potential benefits - and possible drawbacks - grows.

For the views of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, go to: www.cpre.org.uk.

IAM Motoring Trust
For the views of the IAM Motoring Trust, go to: www.iam.org.uk/motoringtrust/.

Campaign for Better Transport
For the views of Transport 2000, go to: www.bettertransport.org.uk.

Local Government Association
For the views of the Local Government Association, go to: www.lga.gov.uk.

CTC (Cyclists' Touring Club)
For the views of CTC, go to: www.ctc.org.uk.

The Association of British Drivers
For the views of the Association of British Drivers, go to: www.abd.org.uk.