 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
current system of p
aying
for the road network is based on raising funds from the Vehicle Excise
Duty (VED) disc, taxation and duty levied on fuel and though the community
charge.
Few motorists think that petrol prices are too low, and 48% of people consider the tax charges are too high1. However there are signs of a shift in public opinion; the leader of the 2000 fuel blockades has recently said:
"I'm afraid to say that I'm not very proud of what happened three years ago. We all want turbo-charged motors now… but we must remember that it's some poor sod at the other end of the world who ends up paying for it"2
Interestingly, only a small number of people (11%)1 think that the road pricing system should remain as it is.
Road user charging (RUC) is now being seriously considered as an alternative way of funding road transport in the UK. The main difference with the current system is that it provides a much more transparent way of paying the real cost of using vehicles.
Government plans for comprehensive charging of car users are still at feasibility stage. In July 20041, the DfT outlined that any approach would need to be able to charge by time, place and distance. It is considered that appropriate technology at a reasonable price means that implementation of such a system nationally is probably not realistic before 2014.
However, there is an intention to implement lorry user charging from 2007/08 in the UK. The current proposals are for a variable charging scheme on all roads for trucks above 3.5 tonnes. A scale of rates will be related to truck size and the variable aspects means that charges can be set at different levels in different places at different times as a way of using price to manage traffic. It is designed to be tax neutral, with fuel duty rebates being used as an integral tool. Although more comprehensive than all other European schemes, the plan's critics suggest that the estimated £400-700 million cost of collection will not be offset by an estimated £150 million extra revenue generated (mainly through charging lorries from overseas), and that trucks are not the main cause of congestion at problem times and places.
There are various examples of forms of road user charging already in operation in the UK:
London's congestion
charging scheme is now held up as an
example of how one form of scheme can work in the UK. Since February 2003,
it is based on a flat daily rate (currently £8) for vehicles entering the
charging zone between 7.00 am and 6.30 pm. In the first six months4,
it resulted in a 30% reduction in traffic delays, journey times across the
zone reduced by 14% and reliability increased by 30%. As a consequence,
public transport use has increased and waiting times have reduced by a third.
Durham introduced charging to a single road in the city's central historic area5
The M6 Toll is the first motorway toll in the UK. It links the M6 and M42 to the south of Birmingham and the M6 north of Birmingham, while bypassing the most congested section of the M6. 16 million vehicles used the new road in the first year paying between £2 and £6 depending on the type of vehicle and time of day. However the scheme has been criticised for creating more road capacity and failing to re-direct the profits into public transport investment.
Tolls for various bridges and tunnels e.g The Tyne Tunnel in Newcastle.
Road user charging complements pay-as-you-drive insurance. This is being trialled by Norwich Union6 by installing monitoring boxes in 5000 cars. The results, including evidence on how the scheme has affected car use behaviour, will be reported in late 2005.
Carplus largely welcomes road user charging as it resonates with what has been shown to be a significant effect of car clubs - namely that people think more critically about how to make journeys when the real cost of the journey is put before them. When faced with this, people make more informed and smarter choices about how to make journeys, or whether the journey is necessary at all. We believe that if this is applied more generally to road use, then it provides a new way of allowing people to make better decisions about how they travel:
People may decide to make greater use of public transport in order to reduce the costs of journeys.
Individual journeys may be better planned to take advantage of lower price periods.
Unnecessary journeys would be reduced.
Several planned journeys may be condensed into far fewer trips.
Car sharing, especially when commuting to workplaces, would become far more widespread.
The use of variable cost charging would provide a new set of policy tools to plan and manage traffic. The main benefits would include:
A voluntary increase in patronage of public transport (as has happened with buses in London as a result of the congestion charge and routinely happens when people join a car club). An increase in user income to public transport would provide more potential for investment to improve quality, frequency and reliability of services.
New ways of tackling transport poverty. The cost policy levers could be used to make essential mobility more practicable for those who are currently excluded on the basis of cost. Motoring costs to those people in the lowest income quintile account for 24% of the weekly expenditure compared to a national average of 15%.
New ways of charging for more polluting vehicles
New incentives for
better ways of using cars, such as car clubs and car sharing.
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
