Is it time to introduce road pricing?

[deltic]

Fuel duty has been frozen for nine years and with decarbonisation of fuel will in due course no longer contribute much to the Treasury meaning a new source of funds is required

Driverless cars, if they come about, will lead to far more traffic on the road. If I go shopping it will be cheaper to tell the car to drive round the block a few times rather than paying for parking or if they operate like taxis they will be hanging around city/town centres like Uber drivers now waiting for custom leading to more congestion

Many of our roads are heavily congested for a few hours a day and virtually empty for the rest of the time

Pressure to meet 2020 clean air targets mean many cities are considering charging some vehicles to enter their city centres

London's congestion charge has seen a large decline in the number of private cars in the centre (although at the moment they have been displaced by minicabs but charging for them might reduce the numbers)

The condition of many local roads is poor as they dont generate any revenue to the council they are seen as a low priority.

Isnt it about time we rolled out a nationwide road pricing system. Even the AA and RAC now seem broadly in favour with motorists charged by the amount of congestion, pollution and wear and tear they cause. Money would flow to the relevant highway authority to maintain and improve the road network and where it makes more sense (ie city centres) to pay for improved public transport. Scrap all fuel duties and vehicle excise duty and pay as you drive.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree, although I think that the push will come from reducing fuel duty rather than an overt aim to reduce congestion.

I disagree that there will be more cars on the road, leading to more congestion, in the event of autonomous cars. It is likely that there would be a great reduction in the number of cars owned, but that they would spend more time on the road each. (The average car today spends about 5% of its time not parked). As a result there would be much less need for parking spaces.

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree that there will be more cars on the road, leading to more congestion, in the event of autonomous cars. It is likely that there would be a great reduction in the number of cars owned, but that they would spend more time on the road each. (The average car today spends about 5% of its time not parked). As a result there would be much less need for parking spaces.

If the "taxi" model is adopted then there could be more use of cars, because they would travel more miles when "deadheading" to collect their next rider or travelling out of town to find a cheap parking space at quiet times then back when it gets busier. Also being able to summon a car at a modest price is probably going to lead to more tendency to use them for journeys previously made by public transport, sustainable modes or not at all. Nobody can really say what will happen, but both of these effects are being seen with Uber in cities such as New York even with conventional driving. An "owner-user" model would have some of these disadvantages too, for example people might commute into town and send their car home empty for the day to avoid the cost of parking.

This is a problem particularly for cities. Although there would be no tailpipe emissions and accidents might reduce, there would still be congestion and particulates from tyre wear. So I would hope that road pricing would spread at least to urban areas and be extended to vehicles for hire. It would become a pure congestion charge, with no discount for lower emissions as these would be incentivised by avoiding fuel duty. I also think it should be a relatively simple flat fee, not something that adjusts its amount in real time to address actual congestion. These make sense in theory but they don't have much incentive effect if the fee is only known once the driver is well into their journey and starts using a particular road.

 

[deltic]

I agree, although I think that the push will come from reducing fuel duty rather than an overt aim to reduce congestion.

I disagree that there will be more cars on the road, leading to more congestion, in the event of autonomous cars. It is likely that there would be a great reduction in the number of cars owned, but that they would spend more time on the road each. (The average car today spends about 5% of its time not parked). As a result there would be much less need for parking spaces.

We are back to the peak problem which is why public transport is generally loss making. A large number of vehicles will be needed for the peak which will then be sitting empty for most of the day. So providers will charge premium fares and probably season tickets for block bookings months in advance. People who need flexibility may find no vehicles available for them when they want to travel at peak times. Hence I dont see a massive reduction in car ownership - probably a big reduction in multiple car ownership but many people especially in more rural areas will still want the assurance of a vehicle being available when they want it. Either way need road pricing to reduce the level of congestion so maintain reasonable vehicle flows.

 

[Bald Rick]

We are back to the peak problem which is why public transport is generally loss making. A large number of vehicles will be needed for the peak which will then be sitting empty for most of the day. So providers will charge premium fares and probably season tickets for block bookings months in advance. People who need flexibility may find no vehicles available for them when they want to travel at peak times. Hence I dont see a massive reduction in car ownership - probably a big reduction in multiple car ownership but many people especially in more rural areas will still want the assurance of a vehicle being available when they want it. Either way need road pricing to reduce the level of congestion so maintain reasonable vehicle flows.

I agree to an extent. However if the market is unregulated in price and reacts to the market (like Uber), then you can see that it would be a great mechanism for pushing traffic out of the peak. However, I suspect the road pricing element will be regulated by Government in some way.

I suspect this is all around a decade away though.

 

[Bevan Price]

I would oppose road pricing; instead I would drastically reduce the number of parking spaces in town & city centres, replacing them by (well out of town centre) park & ride sites.

 

[edwin_m]

I would oppose road pricing; instead I would drastically reduce the number of parking spaces in town & city centres, replacing them by (well out of town centre) park & ride sites.

You'd also have to have a levy as in Nottingham on parking spaces provided for employees, and probably one for visitor/customer spaces too.

 

[telstarbox]

I'm broadly in favour of pay as you drive road charging, even more so if it included some sort of basic third party insurance - at the moment insurance is a big part of the sunk costs fallacy which people use to justify driving over alternatives.

However on the 5% vehicle time utilisation point, this would also apply to a domestic kettle or even a TV - the point is that lots of people want to travel at the same time, so would having a large pool of shared vehicles reduce the number of vehicles in rush hour by much?

 

[TheWalrus]

Congestion is very bad in Exeter and would like to see a congestion charge introduced in the busiest roads at peak times. This means people wanting to shop xould do so off-peak, hopefully not damaging the local economy. Any revenue raised could be used to fund transport improvements such as improved rail and bus links and maybe park and ride facilities.

 

[deltic]

I would oppose road pricing; instead I would drastically reduce the number of parking spaces in town & city centres, replacing them by (well out of town centre) park & ride sites.

I would agree that removing parking is very effective at reducing car use but need to reduce private non-residential parking as well. Can be done by workplace parking levy and requiring all parking to be charged for. But would not advocate park and ride, evidence suggests they just lead to people driving further into towns where before they would have used buses/trains from further out of the town/city.

 

[whhistle]

I'm broadly in favour of pay as you drive road charging, even more so if it included some sort of basic third party insurance - at the moment insurance is a big part of the sunk costs fallacy which people use to justify driving over alternatives.

This is a credible answer.

I don't like having to pay road tax and it isn't right that granny down the road pays the same as van driver up the street.
Get rid of road tax (and all associated systems = reduction in costs), load extra fees on petrol/diesel is a simple way to make those who drive more pay more. It might mean extra cost for me personally but it'd be fairly simple to impliment in the short term while looking at some other system to charge cars based on their useage.

If only work places would be a lot more flexible with working hours... taking a long time to get through to those 9-5 workers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree in principle, though loading it on petrol/diesel is circumvented by electric cars, so that's a good reason to do road pricing instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only work places would be a lot more flexible with working hours... taking a long time to get through to those 9-5 workers.

Remote working for jobs where it's feasible (which is most office work) are much more likely to prove the solution there.

 

[dcbwhaley]

I agree, although I think that the push will come from reducing fuel duty rather than an overt aim to reduce congestion.

I disagree that there will be more cars on the road, leading to more congestion, in the event of autonomous cars. It is likely that there would be a great reduction in the number of cars owned, but that they would spend more time on the road each. (The average car today spends about 5% of its time not parked). As a result there would be much less need for parking spaces.

The majority of cars spend nearly 100% of their life on the road either running or parked. Both states add to the congestion. Our village roads are frequently reduced to single alternate way working because of double parked vehicles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The majority of cars spend nearly 100% of their life on the road either running or parked. Both states add to the congestion. Our village roads are frequently reduced to single alternate way working because of double parked vehicles.

VED has no real effect on this. Nobody avoids buying a car because of VED. You either need one or you don't.

Graduated VED has an impact on *what* cars people buy (i.e. encourages low emissions), but so would applying that via road pricing.

FWIW, I wouldn't get too up tight about parking reducing village roads to one way - the effect that has is of natural chicanes which is a very effective form of traffic calming and one that unlike deliberately installed traffic calming doesn't irritate people (and of course costs nowt).

 

[PeterC]

Restricting

SNIP

FWIW, I wouldn't get too up tight about parking reducing village roads to one way - the effect that has is of natural chicanes which is a very effective form of traffic calming and one that unlike deliberately installed traffic calming doesn't irritate people (and of course costs nowt).

Where I used to live people in a nearby village complained about speeding though the village centre. They response was to offer a ban on parking, which was the only thing slowing the through traffic.

 

[PeterC]

There is a whole web of issues here.
Building housing on "brown field" sites is forcing employment out of central areas to locations that need private transport for the commute.
Pushing cars out of town centres will just send more custom to out of town supermarkets unless other measures are taken.
Urban road layouts must take account of the needs of public transport users. Without such "features" as being introduced in London where passengers step out into a life cycle lane rather than onto the footway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pushing cars out of town centres will just send more custom to out of town supermarkets unless other measures are taken.

People are going to do supermarket shopping by car (or if they don't have one, taxi), as doing otherwise is an almighty load of effort. The only way you will stop that is encouraging delivery, which does at least make better use of vehicles, but doesn't benefit from putting the "warehouse" store in the centre.

The future of town centres is as residential and entertainment districts, and as places where small businesses could flourish. The chain store is dying, and I certainly won't mourn its passing - it's really not *that* good. The kind of shop you'll get there is a Tesco Express to supplement your delivery.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Abolish VED and put 20p on petrol and diesel instead. Then the more one drives, the more one pays - so it's proportionate and fair. Plus, unlike with VED it could not be dodged. You can avoid people making off without paying for the fuel by fitting forecourts with one way plates at each end of the fueling bays, which would activate when the pump is lifted and retract only when payment has been made.

Provide concessions for those who live in remote rural areas who don't really have a choice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Abolish VED and put 20p on petrol and diesel instead. Then the more one drives, the more one pays - so it's proportionate and fair. Plus, unlike with VED it could not be dodged.

It can - by using an EV.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It can - by using an EV.

I'm sure that once the tipping point between internal combustion and chargeable electric has been reached that a tax will be applied to electrics as well... the Treasury wouldn't be that asleep...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure that once the tipping point between internal combustion and chargeable electric has been reached that a tax will be applied to electrics as well... the Treasury wouldn't be that asleep...

And the only practicable way of doing that is road pricing.

 

[ainsworth74]

probably a big reduction in multiple car ownership

Yes I was thinking that. Right now my household has two cars because Monday to Friday I need to be at work for 8am and leave at 4pm whilst my mum has to run around doing things during the day (and public transport isn't an attractive option for her as there's a huge time penalty on using the bus versus driving. One things she does would end up being an hour plus round trip versus a ten/fifteen minute round trip by car for example!). But, in a universe where the car can drive itself, nine times out of ten it would be perfectly possible for the car to drop me off at work, go home for her odds and sods and then pick me up again at 4pm. So there probably we probably wouldn't need two cars anymore which reduces our costs and increases the utilisation of the remaining vehicle (my car, for example, spends about twenty-three hours parked and only an hour doing what it's designed for most week days).

In a world where we move to road pricing rather than VED/Fuel Duty I suppose it would also not have a significant impact only having one car as the total mileage would remain roughly the same (if we could car pool we already would!) so in terms of replacing lost tax revenue as electric cars take over then it would still seem to be a sensible option.

Personally, on a wider note, I'd want to see more detail about how such schemes would work. Particularly in relation to how the charging works? Would there be tariffs for travelling at different times? What about different roads? Is motorway travel a premium compared to A or B roads?

 

[Indigo Soup]

The majority of cars spend nearly 100% of their life on the road either running or parked. Both states add to the congestion. Our village roads are frequently reduced to single alternate way working because of double parked vehicles.

This is a major issue IMHO - one solution I've seen proposed is to require permits for on-road parking - but to price permits at a rate proportionate with land values. Of course that would require addressing the horribly illogical and distortionary council tax system too...

For my money, road pricing doesn't need to be complex. Establish a per-mile rate for different vehicles using whatever method you choose. Mileage at this year's MoT exam minus mileage at last year's MoT exam, multiplied by the per-mile rate, and send the cheque to the Treasury by the end of the month. Or something along those lines.

Fiddly bits like different rates based on which roads you use or when you use them have all the hallmarks of a government IT project fiasco to me.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a whole web of issues here.
Building housing on "brown field" sites is forcing employment out of central areas to locations that need private transport for the commute.

However if the housing is built on a different site instead then it may not have public transport access and the occupants need cars anyway. The balance depends on things like the number of employees a site would support compared to the number of residents, which in turn depends on the type of employment. Also most employees will only arrive and depart five times a week, whereas most residents will make several journeys per day.

It's probably best to focus office development in city centres, as this has the greatest ratio of employees to area and those people will also be close to shops and other ameneties they can access on foot. However industrial premises often have fewer employees relative to their size, and may also need good road access for goods in and out, so are better somewhere with reasonable road acess.

Yes I was thinking that. Right now my household has two cars because Monday to Friday I need to be at work for 8am and leave at 4pm whilst my mum has to run around doing things during the day (and public transport isn't an attractive option for her as there's a huge time penalty on using the bus versus driving. One things she does would end up being an hour plus round trip versus a ten/fifteen minute round trip by car for example!). But, in a universe where the car can drive itself, nine times out of ten it would be perfectly possible for the car to drop me off at work, go home for her odds and sods and then pick me up again at 4pm. So there probably we probably wouldn't need two cars anymore which reduces our costs and increases the utilisation of the remaining vehicle (my car, for example, spends about twenty-three hours parked and only an hour doing what it's designed for most week days).

In a world where we move to road pricing rather than VED/Fuel Duty I suppose it would also not have a significant impact only having one car as the total mileage would remain roughly the same (if we could car pool we already would!) so in terms of replacing lost tax revenue as electric cars take over then it would still seem to be a sensible option.

Personally, on a wider note, I'd want to see more detail about how such schemes would work. Particularly in relation to how the charging works? Would there be tariffs for travelling at different times? What about different roads? Is motorway travel a premium compared to A or B roads?

However in the situation you describe, the driverless car is making two extra journeys per day to replace two conventional cars, at shoulder peak times that contribute to congestion. This illustrates the delicate balance between the personal and social downsides of car ownership versus car use.

I think road pricing would have to have at least a lower band for rural areas, where people have fewer alternatives to the car and generally speaking the use of cars has less impact (perhaps an exception for particularly sensitive places, but maybe parking charges could deal with that). Park and ride would be located at the boundary where continuing further into town would be charged at the higher band. In urban areas I'd suggest a higher rate for clearly-defined "peak" hours in an attempt to shift travel to times when the roads are less busy. Charging more for major roads is risky as it tends to push traffic onto lesser roads where it causes more problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think road pricing would have to have at least a lower band for rural areas, where people have fewer alternatives to the car and generally speaking the use of cars has less impact (perhaps an exception for particularly sensitive places, but maybe parking charges could deal with that). Park and ride would be located at the boundary where continuing further into town would be charged at the higher band. In urban areas I'd suggest a higher rate for clearly-defined "peak" hours in an attempt to shift travel to times when the roads are less busy. Charging more for major roads is risky as it tends to push traffic onto lesser roads where it causes more problems.

TBH, just doing it based on how busy roads are at the time of use on an automated basis would near enough handle that. Rural roads are rarely if ever busy, so would cost next to nothing. City roads are almost always busy, so would be highly expensive. If it was £10 a mile to drive into Manchester for the morning peak, for instance, it would manage traffic down a lot and also make public transport much more viable so it would be improved. And on motorways people would be encouraged to drive at quiet times if they can to save money. And rural dwellers would pay near nothing to drive to their local station and take the train, but the same as everyone else to go into the city.

The possible advantages seem immense.

 

[edwin_m]

TBH, just doing it based on how busy roads are at the time of use on an automated basis would near enough handle that. Rural roads are rarely if ever busy, so would cost next to nothing. City roads are almost always busy, so would be highly expensive. If it was £10 a mile to drive into Manchester for the morning peak, for instance, it would manage traffic down a lot and also make public transport much more viable so it would be improved. And on motorways people would be encouraged to drive at quiet times if they can to save money. And rural dwellers would pay near nothing to drive to their local station and take the train, but the same as everyone else to go into the city.

The possible advantages seem immense.

However if the driver doesn't know what the charge will be until they get to the road in question, the disincentive to drive will be much less than if they know what they are going to pay before setting out and can weigh it up against the alternatives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However if the driver doesn't know what the charge will be until they get to the road in question, the disincentive to drive will be much less than if they know what they are going to pay before setting out and can weigh it up against the alternatives.

They'll have a pretty good idea, and could perhaps use something like Google Maps to work it out beforehand if they want, just as that will presently tell you journey times based on predicted traffic.

The fixed price would also be a selling point for public transport.

 

[PeterC]

One problem with the little bits of road pricing that we have at the moment is the need to use a separate payment mechanism for each one. Why should you need sepparate accounts for DartCharge, London Congestion Charge and a bundle of mobile phone apps for different car parks?

 

[Clip]

One problem with the little bits of road pricing that we have at the moment is the need to use a separate payment mechanism for each one. Why should you need sepparate accounts for DartCharge, London Congestion Charge and a bundle of mobile phone apps for different car parks?

Thats because they are all run by different companies