Road user charging

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why should I pay for something which I have always had for nothing?

A1: When roads were congestion-free, we can understand how road use was perceived as costing nothing. But in fact many drivers were not paying enough to cover the external costs that their road use generated e.g. pollution. Now that our roads are frequently congested, we are all paying a higher price through our loss of time stuck in traffic, poor reliability of journey times and higher stress levels. Roads are almost the only public utility or public transport system that is free at the point of use. We expect to pay for the amount of gas, electricity, telephone we use; why not roads? We also expect to pay for the miles we travel by bus, train, boats and planes; so why should roads be different, especially if the current method of payment makes the problem worse rather than better?

Q2: Can't we just build roads to cope with extra traffic?

A2: To a certain extent. The government is funding new by-passes, as well schemes to widen some trunk roads and motorways to relieve pinch points. But, as we have seen on roads like the M25, without some traffic restraint vehicle numbers quickly rise to fill the extra capacity.

Traffic is expected to grow by 40% by 2025. By 2035, there could be nearly 3 times as much traffic as there was in 1980 - but nothing like 3 times as much road capacity.The RAC Foundation predicts that without congestion charging we will have to build five times the number of roads in the current programme simply to keep congestion constant over the next 30 years. Not only is this not affordable, the environmental consequences of a road-building programme of this size would be unacceptable to most people. Over time, the number of cars would again expand into the available space and we'd be back to square one.

In our towns and cities, where congestion is often worse, there is no room to build sufficient roads to cope. Most roads were in place before the car was invented and today there is no road space for more traffic or extra parking.

Even if the huge expense of building new roads beneath urban areas were to be contemplated, they still may not address how the crowded streets on the surface could accommodate vehicles once they emerge from the tunnels. Look at the congestion problems in Paris, for example.

Q3: If you took away all the bus and cycle lanes and traffic calming, wouldn't traffic start moving freely again?

A3: This is not borne out by the facts. Any space freed up would soon clog up with more cars. Car commuting is a very poor use of road space. What is important is the efficient and safe movement of people within the space available. A full bus can transport up to 20 times more than a full car (even though most cars contain only the driver) while occupying only three times the road space. Where properly managed bus lanes are in place, journeys to work for bus passengers in urban areas are faster and cheaper, and even more people can be carried. Cycle lanes rarely bring about a critical reduction in road width, i.e. they do not reduce roads with two lanes to one or materially narrow single lane roads. Traffic congestion causes pollution, can damage our health and reduce our quality of life. The reverse is true when traffic congestion is reduced. Local authorities have a duty to minimise the downsides of traffic congestion.

Q4: Isn't motoring already far more expensive in the UK than anywhere else in Europe?

A4: No. Although fuel duty is the most expensive, it is not the only motoring tax. Research for both the Scottish Executive and the Commission for Integrated Transport's, European Motoring Tax Comparison, shows that when the cost of owning and operating a car are taken together, we are near the European average, with taxes paid by British drivers of 1600c or 1000cc cars putting them only fifth overall - almost the same as France and Italy.

Q5: Isn't road user charging going to hit poorer people hardest?

A5: This is an important question for which more research is needed. Certainly, lower income drivers will pay a higher proportion of their income in charges. Equally, if the revenue from charging is spent on public transport improvements poorer travellers should benefit. Poorer people rely more on public transport and use cars less. Congestion charging becomes more unfair in the absence of available public transport alternatives. People living in the lowest income quintile households make an average of 97 bus trips a year compared with those from the highest income quintile, who make 29 trips a year. Lowest income householders make an average of 324 car trips a year compared with a general population average of 645 trips.

In towns and cities, lower income groups should at least see transport improved by congestion charging revenue. In rural areas, motorists from all socio-economic groups pay proportionately too much for their motoring, while drivers in or near urban areas, who have better public transport options, pay too little. Road user charging would redress this imbalance.

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 showed that there was virtually no difference in opinion between low, middle and high income level drivers.

Q6: Surely it is only going to work if all people who really need cars - like firemen, policemen, nurses, teachers, delivery companies, tradesmen, shift workers, are exempt from road user charging?

A6: Road user charging schemes would not be practically viable if they have wide-ranging exemptions. Some of the above occupations that involve shift work usually travel off-peak which would result in them paying the lower rates of charges.

Q7: Doesn't photographing cars going through a cordon breach my civil liberties?

A7: When a traffic warden takes down the number of vehicle today the principle is no different, simply the method by which it is performed. The photographs will only be of the car number plate and the pictures will be used only if a fee is evaded. Even then, it will be only available to the vehicle's registered keeper.

We acknowledge that the photographing of number plates generates similar concerns to those about having someone know roughly where and to whom we are talking every time we use a mobile phone, or where and when we make a credit card purchase. Like these two activities, the benefits massively outweigh any downsides.

Q8: Aren't there far easier ways of making traffic flow better in cities?

A8: Technically it would be possible to generate more road and parking space to meet growing demand, but only at the cost of pulling down buildings and concreting over open spaces. Putting roads and parking areas under ground is an option but one that is currently considered prohibitively expensive and disruptive.

It is being tried in other places. In Boston, USA, where the annual cost to motorists from congestion - in terms of elevated accident rates, wasted fuel, and late deliveries - is estimated to be $500 million, the new Central Artery Project (CAP), is building over 50 lane miles of new underground road, including going directly under and replacing the current through route, Interstate 93. The project is estimated to cost $15 billion (www.bigdig.com).

Oslo and Paris have put major roads in tunnels but they do not represent an effective solution to the problem of urban congestion. Both cities are still heavily congested.

Q9: It's all very well saying charging will make people think more about public transport - but isn't it a fact that public transport doesn't serve a lot of journeys?

A9: Congestion tends to be concentrated around our towns and cities, where public transport serves an enormous number of journeys in peak times and is readily available for all sorts of trips. CfIT believes that improved public transport is a vital part of road pricing schemes, to provide travellers with alternatives to regular car journeys.

It's true that public transport is not available or even appropriate for all journeys. No one is going to be forced to use public transport and travellers will continue to make their own choices. More integrated travel patterns are emerging as people start journeys by car and finish them by other means. For example, driving to the outskirts of town and switching to other forms of transport, such as park-and-ride, train or light rail.

CfIT's European best practice illustrates how well public transport can provide for travel in urban areas and how far we have to go in the UK. In Munich, for example, car ownership has increased by 50% in the last 20 years to 530 cars per thousand of the population, yet the proportion of trips by car has remained at around 40% of the total journeys made. Compare these figures with Manchester, which has 372 cars per thousand population but where cars journeys represent almost 60% of the total; and Glasgow, with only 283 cars per thousand population, where 55% of all journeys are by car.

Q10: People living in the countryside have no alternative to cars, why should they be penalised too?

A10: The countryside suffers little from congestion. If CfIT's proposed nationwide system of charging is introduced, rural motorists will pay less since charges will only be imposed on the busiest roads at peak times. Rural motorists should find their overall motoring costs reduced.

Q11: Congestion charging will be based on a Global Positioning System. Doesn't this introduce a 'spy in the sky'?

A11: Any new monitoring or recording system, no matter how beneficial to society, understandably arouses suspicion about civil liberties and personal privacy. It's worth remembering that other equally valuable systems associated with mobile phones and credit cards also allow 'tracking' of a kind. Perhaps the reason that they are widely accepted is that, in the main, they make life easier. Attitudes among drivers may change once the benefits of road user charging are clear. There has already been a significant take up of on-board navigation schemes by drivers - and many mobile phones now operate using GPS systems.

At a practical level, there are means of dealing with concerns over privacy. For example, some road user charging systems around the world, such as in Germany, do not make the data available to anybody including the police without permission of the driver. Charging systems only need to keep people's records for a short period, in case a bill is challenged. Invoices need show only how many miles were travelled at different charging rates rather than where people actually travelled.

This system is no more intrusive than credit card statements that record where you are and what you're buying, and mobile phones that record roughly where you are at a given time and to whom you are talking.

Q12: Don't we simply need to make public transport much better?

A12: We do need to make public transport much better but it can never be the only solution. It is often the case that many people hope improved public transport will encourage other people apart from themselves to switch to using it, leaving the roads clear for them.

Paris has some of the best public transport in Europe and some of the worst traffic congestion. Experience in Munich has shown that spending £billions on an excellent public transport system alone does not prevent passenger usage from falling. Many European cities with world class public transport have introduced traffic constraint that leaves travellers with little real alternative. They don't complain because public transport is such a good substitute. The most effective solution is a combination of immaculate public transport, congestion charging and effective integration of all transport modes to suit people's travel needs.