Transport policy without road-user charging is doomed to fail. Essentially this is because roads are free – and when anything is free we tend to over use them. In the case of roads, this leads to congestion.
However, 40 per cent of people now support road pricing to replace road and fuel duties, according to a survey of 3,000 adults by the Social Market Foundation. The figures reflect a change in attitudes since plans by the last Labour government to introduce road pricing were shelved following a backlash.
Scott Corfe, Research Director at the Social Market Foundation, said: “For too long politicians have thought of reforming motoring taxes as grasping the nettle, fearful that a backlash from drivers will hit them at the polls.
“In reality, the public want to see a better, fairer system of how the UK taxes drivers. Our research shows that road pricing, often perceived as politically poisonous, is seen as a preferential option compared to our existing tax regime.
“Britain needs a system of road taxes fit for the 21st Century and the age of the electric vehicle. It is vital that ministers recognise how far public opinion has shifted on road pricing over the last two decades. Voters will not punish them for seeking an equitable reform of motor taxation.”
Whatever form a new system of road pricing takes, it’s clear that it will need to make up for the current £30bn level of fuel revenues – money that’s set to be lost as drivers switch to electric vehicles.
What is road user charging?
This charge is simply a method of charging the motorist for use of the road. At present use of the road network is free. A motorist driving an electric car pays no tax or charge for using the roads – no fuel tax because no petrol is used and no vehicle excise duty because electric vehicles are zero rated. But electric vehicles still use roads and roads are valuable.
What would the motorist be paying for?
There are any number of aspects that a motorist could be charged for using a road: damage to the road surface (track charges); noise; speed of travel; producing noxious gases; producing climate change gases; and most importantly access or use of roads at busy times.
How would the motorist be charged?
There are many ways in which a motorist could be charged. A simple method would be a carnet or window sticker which gives the motorist access to certain roads. For example, all cars entering Switzerland have to pay for a carnet either before they enter via the internet or at the border. Tolls to cross bridges or use sections of motorways are commonly found across the world. These methods involve payment at toll booths laid across the road and often apply at any given time of day. Lorry drivers in Austria and Germany are tracked by satellite and charged per mile.
A national UK system would involve a satellite tracking process with drivers being sent a monthly statement of all their journeys. This is possible, but not necessary. The charge in Stockholm is levied as a vehicle passes under a beacon in the road which reads the number plate. Drivers are sent a bill which must be paid within fourteen days.
In the UK we could use a system whereby the car, knowing where it was using its own global positioning device deducts an amount from an allocated mobile telephone. This system is the cheapest to introduce and means neither the government nor other members of the household need know where the driver has travelled.
Why is road-user changing so important?
Everyone agrees that Britain needs a safe, reliable and high quality transport system. Where we differ is how that vision can be achieved. Whether we give greater emphasis to cycling or more roads or extra public transport one thing is certain: we cannot do it without road user charging.
I’m worried about my own privacy
As well you might be. If you are worried about the national government knowing the location of your car – if you drive along a strategic route (a motorway or main ‘A’ road) they know already. Most of these roads have automatic number plate recognition.
Who will get the money?
This is a vital issue. At the moment road user charges in Britain are collected by the Highways agency for the tolls on bridges and by the county of London and the city of Durham in the case of congestion charges. In future there could be many different organisations collecting the charge depending on where you are driving. There would be no harm in our paying the national government when on a motorway, the county government when on a main road and the town or city government when on a local road.
What will it be spent on?
In theory the road user charge could be spend on anything. It could go directly into the general taxation pool or onto specific projects. It could depend on the criterion used for the charge. If it were noise then it could go to noise abatement; if it were track charges then it could go on improving the roads.
I don’t trust government to spend it on transport
Nor do we, so that is why the ETA recommended to government many years ago that a statutory regulatory authority, to be known as Oftrans be set up as a watchdog over all aspects of road user charging in the country. Its board members being appointed sequentially for terms longer than a normal government term to avoid party political pressure.
Why another tax?
The need for taxation and setting charges changes over time. The biggest challenge facing the user of transport today is congestion on our roads and poor quality of our public transport. Apart from raising revenue for government, fuel duty and vehicle excise duty do not help solve this problem. The ETA proposes that road user charging should only be introduced on the basis that fuel duty and vehicle excise duty be withdrawn. So it would not be an extra tax, but one less tax.
Ethical cover
Not only are we ethical, we campaign for sustainable transport. Sometimes that means protesting until a school gets the zebra crossing they’ve been refused or running roadshows to encourage people out of their cars, or fixing bicycles for free. We also launched Green Transport Week and helped establish Car Free Day and Twenty’s Plenty to name just a few.
We’ve been campaigning for sustainable transport in this way for over 30 years with the help of people like you. Supporting this work is easy – you simply have to take out cycle insurance breakdown cover or mobility scooter insurance and we take care of the rest. We provide an excellent level of cover while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all we do.
Jon Pennycook
I would be concerned that road pricing might lead to calls for cyclists to be excluded from such roads (on the basis that they supposedly would not be contributing to the upkeep). Roads operated/maintained by local authorities should be exempt, as they are funded from council tax and grants.
However, I do believe that charging based on maintenance, pollution, and noise are good ideas.
Joel Moreland
Yes tax all vehicles for using the road but we need to tax fuel to discourage CO2 emissions and the 2/3rds of pollution from fuel (not tyres and breaking). There also needs to be a tax on new vehicles to cover the embedded emissions, resources used and to cover recycling and disposal. One tax is simplistic and has undesirable effects. The total tax take from vehicles can be capped so people know it is not an ‘extra’ tax.
John Harpur
I correct you. Road usage is not free. The vehicle road tax is, and always has been, used to pay for the upkeep of the road.
The ETA
You are mistaken. Road tax doesn’t exist. It’s car tax, a tax on cars and other vehicles, not a tax on roads or a fee to use them. Motorists do not pay directly for the roads. Roads are paid for via general and local taxation. In 1926, Winston Churchill started the process to abolish road tax. It was finally culled in 1937. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty for further details
CraigSA
I’m curious what this means or how this would work for cyclists? If cyclists would also need to pay how could that even be tracked or managed?
If exempt wait for it… The Cyclists don’t pay road tax argument attack would not only increase but become factual unlike today where it is a misunderstanding on VED on vehicles.
The fact is the roads are not free as this article suggests just like the NHS is not free. It is paid out of taxation and budgets allocated. For which currently cyclists also pay into if they pay tax.
Would shifting to a tax directly for road use per mile used mean that money allocated via general taxation in to road maintenance would be reallocated for other services?
The ETA
It’s not the roads that are free, rather the use of them. It’s not yet clear which criteria would determine the charges. Pollution, track charges (road wear and tear), congestion, noise etc…none of these would apply to cyclists.