Select Committee on Transport First Report


III. LOCAL AUTHORITY CHARGING SCHEMES

28. Through the Transport Act 2000, the Government has given local authorities in England and Wales the power to introduce schemes which may charge the motorist for the use of road space, or may levy a charge on an employer in relation to the number of parking spaces provided for employees who travel by car. Local authorities' use of these powers are subject to approval by the Secretary of State. Similar powers were granted to the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, although the Mayor does not need the Secretary of State's approval before exercising these powers.

The Charging Development Partnership

29. The Transport Act 2000 requires local authorities to prepare five-year Local Transport Plans (LTPs), setting out their integrated transport policies and the means by which they will be delivered.[46] Local authorities submitted their first full LTPs for the period 2001-02 to 2005-06 to the Government during 2000. In drawing up these plans, they were directed to indicate whether they intended to use the new powers to introduce road user charging or workplace parking levy, and, if so, to submit details of the timetable for introducing the charging scheme, the estimated revenues and the objectives they expected to achieve through expenditure of the hypothecated revenue.[47] 25 authorities had expressed interest at the draft LTP stage, and they were invited to take part in a Charging Development Partnership to be established by the Department. The Department describes the Partnership as "a forum for sharing and exchange of knowledge, ideas and experience about how to take forward the new powers."[48] It stressed that participation in the Partnership does not commit an authority to introducing an charging scheme.

30. Twenty-four of the 25 authorities invited participated in the Partnership's inaugural meeting in February 2000, chaired by the then Minister for Transport, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. By February 2001, a further 11 authorities had expressed interest in charging schemes, and these were also invited to join. The Department told us that in 2000 and early 2001 meetings of the Partnership were held "about every two months", chaired either by officials or by the host local authority. Matters considered at the meetings included communications, regulatory requirements, financing, scheme design, operation and impacts, and approval, appraisal and monitoring.[49] In late 2001 and 2002 the frequency of meetings lessened, as the participating authorities began to make informed decisions on whether to proceed with their proposals. The Department believed that "a core of about 15 local authorities have attended most of the meetings": participation by other authorities has fluctuated depending on local interest in congestion charging. The Department admitted that many local authorities "have adopted a cautious approach to congestion charging."[50] It has now indicated that, outside London, it does not expect any major urban charging schemes to be implemented until the end of the 10 Year Plan period.[51]

Table 1

Local authorities participating in the Charging Development Partnership

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Birmingham City MBC (West Midlands)*

Bolton MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Bristol City Council*

Bury MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Cambridgeshire County Council*

Cheshire County Council*

Cumbria County Council

Derby City Council

Derbyshire County Council*

Dudley MBC (West Midlands)*

Durham County Council*

Hampshire County Council*

Isle of Wight Council

Leeds City Council*

Leicester City Council

Manchester MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Milton Keynes Borough Council*


Nottingham City Council*

Oldham MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Reading Borough Council*

Rochdale MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Salford MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Sandwell MBC (West Midlands)*

Staffordshire County Council

South Gloucestershire County Council

Southampton City Council

Stockport MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Surrey County Council

Tameside MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Trafford MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Warwickshire County Council

Wigan MBC (Greater Manchester)*

Wolverhampton MBC (West Midlands)*

York City Council

Source: Department for Transport [UCS 37, Annex A]

* — initial members of the Partnership (February 2000)

NB: All 10 Greater Manchester metropolitan borough councils (MBCs) have expressed interest in urban charging schemes. Four out of seven West Midlands MBCs have expressed interest (Coventry, Solihull and Walsall are not participating)

31. The 24 initial members of the Partnership were allocated £17.7 million in funding and credit approvals in addition to their 2000-01 Local Transport Plan settlements, to assist them in the necessary local transport improvements prior to the introduction of congestion charging. The Department states that, in general, local authorities intended to spend the money on improving transport interchanges, developing integrated ticketing systems, enhancing pedestrian and cyclist access and introducing a range of improvements to bus-related services. Further funds (in the form of ring-fenced credit approvals) have been made available to Derbyshire, Durham and Nottingham for 2001-02, and to Nottingham for 2002-03, to assist with capital expenditure necessary to scheme development.[52] The Department expects authorities to report on the use of the funds in their LTP Annual Progress Reports.

32. Once a firm decision to proceed with an urban charging scheme has been taken and costed proposals have been submitted, an authority will also be able to apply to a 'Charging Schemes Fund' for assistance with the capital costs of implementing the scheme. Any grants from this fund would be additional to that authority's LTP settlement.[53] Separate funds have also been provided to enable authorities to monitor the performance of charging schemes before and after implementation: Durham County Council has been granted £15,300 to assist the monitoring of the Durham City scheme, while Derbyshire County Council has been awarded £25,200 to monitor the rural Derwent Lane charging scheme in the Peak District National Park.

33. Guidance setting out the essential elements of charging schemes, commissioned by the Department, has been made available to authorities participating in the Partnership. Transport and Travel Research Ltd (TTR), in association with Ian Catling Consultancy and Wilbur Smith Associates, issued a preliminary guide to the design principles of an urban road user charging scheme in March 2000, while the Oscar Faber consultancy issued an initial guidance document on workplace parking levy schemes in March 2001.[54] However, the Department itself has not published any guidance to local authorities on the development of charging schemes. The Secretary of State told us that "there is something to be said for the Department producing guidelines for the benefit of local authorities", but that there was little point in publishing them before the implementation of the London scheme.[55]

Table 2

Charging Development Partnership funding to participating authorities

(additional to annual Local Transport Plan settlements)


Supplementary funding allocation (£m)


2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

Total

Bristol City Council

2.25



2.25

Cambridgeshire County Council

0.6



0.6

Cheshire County Council

0.55



0.55

Derbyshire County Council

0.35

0.40


0.75

Durham County Council

0.1

0.24


0.34

Greater Manchester MBCs (10)

4.5



4.5

Hampshire County Council

0.3



0.3

Leeds City Council

2.5



2.5

Milton Keynes Borough Council

0.25



0.25

Nottingham City Council

1.2

1.50

1.95

4.65

Reading Borough Council

0.1



0.1

West Midlands MBCs (4)

5.0



5.0

Total

17.7

2.14

1.95

21.79

Source: Department for Transport (UCS 37a, annex A)

34. We welcome the establishment of the Charging Development Partnership to promote the effective exchange of information between councils which are contemplating the introduction of charging schemes. We believe that there is scope for the Department to develop its role in the Partnership's activities, particularly following the implementation of the London scheme.

Case studies

35. Local authorities wishing to implement a charging scheme in their area, or authorities in partnership wishing to implement charging across contiguous areas, are obliged to submit a Scheme Order to the Secretary of State for confirmation before it can be brought into effect. Local authorities in Wales are also subject to planning frameworks set by the Welsh Assembly Government. The Government set out a number of criteria which a scheme should satisfy before it would receive Ministerial approval:

36. We have examined three of the local authority schemes which are under development: a large-scale road user charging scheme in Bristol, a small-scale traffic management scheme in Durham and a workplace parking levy scheme in Nottingham. The Durham scheme was implemented in October 2002. Nottingham expects to introduce its levy in April 2005, while Bristol presently envisages bringing in its scheme in 2007.

WORKPLACE PARKING LEVY: NOTTINGHAM

37. In its written and oral submissions, Nottingham City Council was candid about the purpose of the workplace parking levy as a means of raising revenue to fill two gaps in the funding of the city's Local Transport Plan: first, a 'pump priming' subsidy to new bus and rail services which might not otherwise be viable, and secondly, a local contribution to funding future tramway development, which it believes the Government requires before further PFI deals can be made.[57]

38. The Council believed that the scheme represented a relatively low risk and required a low initial outlay. In May 2002 it had commissioned a feasibility study into the benefits of road user charging as opposed to workplace parking levy. The study found that a road user charging scheme would be feasible, would be more effective at reducing traffic congestion, and would raise more revenue, but its costs would be far greater (an estimated £70 million, compared to £8.6 million for the workplace parking levy).[58] Ms Sue Flack, Planning and Transport Strategy Manager for Nottingham City Council, also told us that the city's geography "does not particularly suit a road user charging scheme".[59] In September 2002 the Council decided to develop its workplace parking levy policy for the short to medium term, while monitoring the implementation of other road user charging schemes and waiting for the Government to introduce a national standard for road user charging.[60]

A CITY-WIDE ROAD USER CHARGING SCHEME: BRISTOL

39. Bristol City Council has committed itself to road user charging as part of the travel demand measures incorporated in its integrated transport strategy. The charging scheme recommended by the City Council's transport consultants is based on an inner city cordon which operates using an electronic tag and transponder system. The system is presently in the final stages of design and appraisal.[61]

40. The Council told us that the cordon had been drawn to include the main shopping areas within Bristol, but did not include the major residential areas in the inner city. The scheme would operate in morning peak hours. Its key objective was to reduce the level of traffic passing through the city centre at the morning peak.[62] Previous field trials were undertaken in Bristol in 1998 and 2000. Results of the 1998 ELGAR trial suggested that introducing a charge at the level of £5 would encourage a 15 per cent switch from private car use to public transport. The INTERCEPT trial in 2000 indicated that a £3 charge would reduce private car use by 10 per cent.

41. The scheme which the City Council now proposes would set the level of charge at between £1 and £2, rising to between £4 and £5 in later years. Mr Richard Rawlinson, the Council's Director of Traffic and Transportation, told us that computer modelling based on the £1 charge, forecast a 45 per cent reduction in peak period traffic travelling into the central area. The City Council did not, however, give us an estimate of the reduction in congestion which it anticipated would ensue from the reduction in traffic.

42. The Council is concerned that its overall objectives for the scheme, namely protecting and enhancing the city centre, are not shared by the Department, which it argues has given more weight to economic factors in its guidelines for the appraisal of charging schemes.

CITY CENTRE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: DURHAM

43. The road user charging scheme implemented by Durham County Council in October 2002 is on a very much smaller scale. It was designed with a limited aim, namely to "significantly reduce the pedestrian and vehicular conflict" in the Peninsula area, and Saddler Street in particular, "by the removal of a substantial proportion of the existing traffic."[63] The Council had previously considered introducing a permit scheme to reduce the number of non-essential car journeys into the Peninsula area (for example, to visit banks or shops or to try to park as close as possible to the Cathedral), but could not find a means of differentiating between essential and non-essential traffic. The powers made available under the 2000 Act made such differentiation feasible by means of road user charging.[64] The scheme requires vehicles using the Market Place and Saddler Street (the only vehicular access to the Peninsula) to pay £2 on exit. It operates between 10 am and 4 pm, Monday to Saturday: access outside these times is free of charge. Residents on the streets affected, and those with existing parking facilities within the controlled zone, are exempt from the charge, but the Council says it has kept other exemptions to a minimum.[65] Bus services into the Market Place area have been developed and enhanced.

44. The formal consultation exercise on the proposed scheme commenced in November 2000.[66] Mr Roger Elphick, Head of Highway Management Services for the County Council, stressed the amount of consultation that had taken place beforehand: "I would say that we have been drip-feeding the idea for three or four years now."[67]

45. The scheme is to be measured against six criteria, including the reduction of traffic impact on the local environment, reduction of accidents and the perception of accident risk, and the improvement of the economic viability of the Market Place and the Peninsula area. It is expected to raise £120,000 per annum, to subsidise a new bus service into the central area, to support Durham's Shopmobility scheme and to cover administrative costs. However, no targets have been set for revenue generation: the Council was clear that "it will be a measure of success that motorists elect not to meet the charge and that less income is generated". In the event of a shortfall, the Council envisages assigning revenue from on-street parking charges to the support of the services to be funded out of charging revenue.[68]

46. Early indications are that the scheme has been extremely successful, and that traffic volumes in the central Durham area have been reduced by up to 90 per cent, rather than the 50 per cent initially projected.[69] It is of course too early to come to a judgment about the overall impact of the scheme, although the results in terms of demand management appear encouraging. This illustrates the point we have made above. The nature of charging schemes will vary according to cirumstances. A successful charging scheme may not necessarily result in net revenue gain.


46   Transport Act 2000, sections 108 and 109 Back

47   UCS 37, para 11 Back

48   Ibid., para 12 Back

49   UCS 37a, paras 5-8 Back

50   Ibid., para 9 Back

51   See below, para 92 Back

52   UCS 37a, paras 12-15 Back

53   Ibid., para 14 Back

54   Ibid., para 8 Back

55   Q 268 Back

56   UCS 37, para 5 Back

57   UCS 15, para 2  Back

58   Ibid., para 3 Back

59   Q 15 Back

60   UCS 15, para 3; Q 33 Back

61   UCS 28  Back

62   IbidBack

63   UCS 22, para 1.5 Back

64   Ibid., paras 1.7-1.8  Back

65   Ibid., paras 3.2 and 3.7  Back

66   Ibid., para 3.2 Back

67   Q 39 Back

68   UCS 22, para 4.4  Back

69   Qq 35-36; UCS 22, paras 4.2 and 4.6. The Government has also cited this figure: Delivering Better Transport: Progress Report, para 4.52 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 10 February 2003