Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence


Further memorandum by CPRE (RP 06A)

ROAD PRICING

INTRODUCTION

  1.  The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Select Committee's inquiry into road pricing. We have already submitted evidence on the M6 Expressway, which details our opposition to that concept. This evidence focuses on the broader issues which the Committee raises in the terms of reference for its Road Pricing inquiry, but should be read in conjunction with our earlier specific evidence.

  2.  Rising traffic levels create significant problems for the quality of life of both urban and rural communities. Emissions from the transport sector represents a major challenge to the Government's aspirations to tackle climate change. And the congestion which results from the incremental rise in traffic volume is a driver for much road building which threatens to scar the countryside and erode rural tranquillity. CPRE therefore welcomes the renewed emphasis which is now being placed on road pricing.

  3.  We have long advocated the use of demand management measures, such as charging and parking levies, as an important part of an integrated sustainable transport policy. There is growing recognition that we cannot simply build our way out of the problems of traffic growth and congestion. This is based not only on an appreciation of the significant environmental damage which would result to landscapes and wildlife, but also because experience has shown that adding new capacity through widened or new roads frequently induces traffic, and therefore does not work in narrow transport terms either.

      We also recognise that we cannot simply build our way out of the problems we face. It would be environmentally irresponsible—and would not work.

Prime Minister, Tony Blair MP, 2004

  4.  Reducing the need to travel through effective land use policies is important, as is investing in alternatives like public transport. There is considerable unrealised potential in both these areas. But they are unlikely to be enough on their own. Indeed, such measures could very well be undermined by the falling costs (in real terms) of motoring. CPRE believes, therefore, that national road user charging has an important role to play in helping manage the spiralling demand for travel. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the national debate.

POLICY OBJECTIVES OF ROAD PRICING

  5.  Before addressing the specific questions of which roads should be priced, and the details of any scheme, CPRE believes it is important to gain consensus on the policy objectives which are to underpin road pricing. We do not believe that a consensus yet exists and hope that the Committee's inquiry may address this issue. While the Government commissioned Feasibility Study was given a number of objectives, we believe the national debate needs to consider whether these embrace the range of issues which arise. CPRE would highlight the need for road pricing to:

    —  reduce both traffic levels overall and people's experience of congestion;

    —  demonstrate that it will lead to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from transport; and

    —  be undertaken in such a way as to reinforce, rather than undermine spatial planning objectives.

  6.  The Government's Feasibility Study, the CFIT report Paying for road use which predates it, and work by the Independent Transport Commission all rely on work undertaken by the Institute of Leeds (ITS)— Surface Transport Costs and Charges: GB. This is considered to be the most comprehensive work on the subject of evaluating externalities in transport appraisal. CPRE is concerned that some of its conclusions, however, have been overlooked by transport commentators with potentially serious consequences. The ITS Leeds study concluded, for example, that motorists do not currently pay for all the costs they impose on the environment and society. There are also important effects from traffic (for example severance of communities, impact on the character of the countryside and water pollution) which are not counted. If road pricing is restricted only to internalising the costs of what can easily be measured, however spuriously, then the importance of these other issues will be underplayed. We urge the Committee to consider how these less tangible effects of traffic might be accounted for in road pricing.

  7.  The ITS report is now six years old, and we believe it will be important to examine the work to ensure the values used within it remain valid. We are aware, for example, that Defra is undertaking a review of the costs of carbon as part of preparation for the Clime Change Programme review. It is hoped that such work will feed directly into the Department for Transport's thinking on road pricing.

Congestion or road user charging: urban, or urban and rural?

  8.  Behind all the analysis on externalities, the key question remains which is what is road pricing for? CPRE is concerned that the Government is too narrowly focused on congestion reduction in its thinking on road pricing. This has meant that the modelling, analysis, and assessment of desirable outcomes neglect other important issues worthy of consideration. The reluctance of the Government to address rising traffic levels through fuel duty has exacerbated this problem.

  9.  CPRE is concerned that the focus on current and forecast levels of traffic and congestion is leading to short-term solutions being advanced. The strategy seems to be to use a number of means to spread traffic levels temporally and geographically in order to tackle congestion. Thus, measures are proposed for encouraging motorists to travel off-peak and to avoid congested motorways and urban areas. While this seems attractive at a superficial level, CPRE is concerned that the longer-term implications of such an approach are not being properly considered.

      CPRE fears Government policy could transform today's acute problem of congestion into tomorrow's chronic problem of too much traffic on the roads, affecting more people, throughout the day.

  10.  We fear that Government policy could simply turn an acute problem (of too much traffic leading to congestion on specific parts of the network at particular times of day) into a chronic one which afflicts a wider area and more people for more parts of the day. The latter problem would in all likelihood be even harder to address.

  11.  Various studies have suggested that prices on rural roads should fall, on the basis that congestion is largely limited to honeypot tourist sites. CPRE believes that this risks threatening the character and tranquillity of the countryside, further reinforcing car dependency and potentially undermining public transport provision in rural areas. While supporting the principle of charging, therefore, CPRE would be concerned if the design of any specific scheme led to a flood of additional traffic to the countryside. The inadequacy with which this issue is addressed is illustrated by the fact that the Government's Feasibility Study simply examines the effect of pricing on (a) all roads, (b) urban roads, and (c) inter-urban roads. It does not set out the effect for rural roads specifically, or distinguish between motorists travelling in the moors of Northumberland, from those in the suburbs of Surrey. The study explains that " . . . urban roads would be priced at a higher rate than rural ones, because it is in urban areas that congestion is worst" (paragraph 4.26). CPRE does not dispute this statement, or the need to tackle congestion, but believes that rural traffic management issues currently represent a serious blind spot in Government thinking. A failure to embrace them as part of thinking on road pricing could store up considerable problems for the future and seriously damage the character of the countryside.

  12.  In order to avoid this situation it will be necessary to consider (a) the magnitude of a charge relative to existing prices, and (b) the relative difference in charges for urban and rural routes. Careful analysis will need to be undertaken to ensure the charges set do not have perverse environmental effects on the countryside. We have not seen much evidence of these issues being addressed. We hope the Committee will investigate how work on road pricing will be "rural proofed". This should include using the Government's definition of urban/ rural areas in its analysis rather than the very broad definitions for rural roads currently used. To help avoid perverse effects, CPRE believes road pricing should be based on a standard rate per vehicle km to address the effects of traffic and journey length on the environment, with supplements being payable to cover congestion.

  13.  If charges were rigidly set around reducing congestion, and therefore lower or exempt on rural roads, we fear this would create an economic incentive to locate business premises in more rural locations, undermining the urban renaissance. This would conflict with policies in the Urban and Rural White Paper and planning policy (as set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 13: Transport). The Commission for Integrated Transport in Paying for Road Use 2002 identified the effects on land use as an area in need of further work. The Government's Feasibility Study, however, simply concludes, "we have learned that the long-term effects of pricing schemes, for example, on land use, are very difficult to predict". We believe this points to the need for more urgent work to be undertaken, and for safeguards to be put in place to ensure future road pricing does not undermine efforts to deliver an urban renaissance.

      A failure to appreciate the long-term implications of road pricing for land use changes could have a profound effect on the overall success of any scheme. We hope that the Committee will wish to explore this issue during the course of its inquiry.

  14.  A further difficulty is that a focus on alleviating congestion as the primary focus of road pricing also assumes that there is a consensus on how to measure congestion. The recent Transport White Paper indicated that the Government has still not identified a suitable measure for inter-urban congestion. And work undertaken previously by Professor Phil Goodwin for CPRE (in Running to Stand Still, 2001) indicated the discrepancy between technical measures of congestion and the reality of people's experiences on the road network. Achieving consensus on this will be necessary for future progress.

PRICING ALL OR SECTIONS OF THE ROAD NETWORK

  15.  CPRE believes the ultimate objective should be to introduce national road user charging covering all roads. This would overcome issues around boundaries and diversion, assist in delivering compatibility and consistency of approach, and ensure particular authorities were not able to "opt out" of charging schemes. CPRE foresees a number of dangers of focusing too heavily on local road pricing:

    —  central Government may prefer to see the hard political battles fought out locally and so lose its nerve in introducing a national scheme;

    —  numerous debates around local road pricing are likely to be inefficient, consuming energy discussing issues which could more easily be resolved through a national scheme (eg cross-boundary issues, use of IT);

    —  the temptation to undertake monitoring of pilot local schemes could put back further the start date for the introduction of any national scheme;

    —  it could lead to a focus on tackling individual congestion hot spots rather than the systemic problem of rising traffic levels across the country; and

    —  it could generate problems of traffic diversion, damaging rural areas, unless carefully implemented.

  16.  Nevertheless, as the earliest which national road user charging could be introduced is in 2014, action is urgently needed today to address traffic and congestion problems and we welcome the emphasis in the Draft Guidance on Local Transport Plans on traffic authorities promoting demand management measures. Because of the dangers of diversion, CPRE hopes that priority will be given to developing area-wide charges, rather than tolls for individual sections of road. We also believe this should be focused on tackling existing roads, not as an excuse for a large new road building program on the lines of the M6 Expressway.

THE ROLE OF LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES IN INTRODUCING ROAD PRICING

  17.  CPRE believes local highway authorities have an important role to play in helping develop road pricing and hopes authorities will include measures in their second round Local Transport Plans. We are not optimistic, however, that sufficient numbers of authorities will include demand management policies in their LTPs. In part, this is because of the concerns which authorities hold that this will make them less competitive against their neighbours. Despite evidence showing that charging and roadspace reallocation schemes can improve the liveability of areas, this concern remains a serious obstacle. A critical mass of willing authorities is needed to break through this barrier. Yet, many authorities may in fact slow their plans on introducing charges because of the prospect of a national scheme being introduced. CPRE has witnessed a number of authorities who have been reluctant, for example, to introduce Quiet Lanes (despite interest in the measure) because of the lack of national Regulations. This scenario should not be replicated for road pricing.

      It is essential that the introduction of road pricing does not stall as central Government and local highway authorities vie to be the last to introduce it.

  18.  It is inevitable that local charging schemes will encounter some difficulties over the effect in the charged area compared to neighbouring authorities. There is a critical role, therefore, for Regional Planning Bodies to provide the necessary strategic input into such debates. The potential for this is greater through the introduction of spatial planning with its increased emphasis on managing existing land and resources rather than just change of land use.

  19.  We are concerned that to date, however, regional assemblies have tended to focus on identifying wish lists of infrastructure schemes, rather than demand management measures. This is illustrated in the East of England Draft Regional Strategy 2004, where 37 new road building proposals either have already been committed to or supported in accompanying strategies. "Area-wide road charging" is included as "under investigation" (along with approximately 21 other road proposals). Interestingly, the lead body for implementing this mechanism is not the local highway authorities, or the Highways Agency, but the Department for Transport. If road pricing is to take off in the next five to ten years it will be necessary for the DfT to provide a clear timetable towards national implementation, and to send stronger signals to regional assemblies over their role in delivering demand management measures rather than lots of new infrastructure.

  20.  While central Government is encouraging local highway authorities to introduce road pricing for local roads, the same is not true of Highways Agency schemes. The "Orbit" Multi-Modal Study considered, for example, the M25 corridor and recommended widening the existing motorway, accompanied by charging. While the Government has given priority to M25 widening, as part of the Targeted Programme of Improvements, CPRE is disappointed that it has not proposed area-wide charging. This represents an inconsistency of approach, and CPRE urges the Committee to address this issue during the course of its inquiry.

THE TRANSITION TO NATIONAL ROAD USER CHARGING

  21.  The transition from local schemes to a national road user charging scheme is important, and needs careful forward planning. We believe the DfT can assist by:

    —  setting out an indicative timetable, with incremental steps to illustrate when road pricing will be introduced on a national basis;

    —  ensuring that IT systems are compatible or can be easily amended in order to support national charging;

    —  engaging local and regional stakeholders in the development of the national charging scheme so that practical experience can be shared; and

    —  support local authorities who are developing interim cordon charging schemes.

OTHER MEASURES TO REDUCE CONGESTION MORE EFFECTIVELY

  22.  CPRE believes road pricing has an important role to play in future transport policy, but that it can only ever be one part of a wider strategy. Action needs to be taken now to manage existing levels of traffic and congestion. But it is essential that decisions made in the future do not exacerbate the situation.

      Tackling congestion is as much about what not to do, as what to do. Decisions made today on planning and transport infrastructure could have a profound effect in influencing future transport trends which road pricing would need to address.

  23.  We highlight the following important factors in determining future traffic growth:

        Road building: while additional capacity might, in some instances, provide short term benefits, the damage to the countryside is lasting. The Government has also recognised that providing new capacity will not deliver long-term benefits in terms of alleviating congestion. For this reason, it would not be sensible to see road pricing as a measure for "locking in" the benefits of new road building. Such an approach ignores the wider effects of new infrastructure, and the potential traffic problems created elsewhere on the transport network.

            "We will not address the long-term risk of higher congestion just by adding new capacity   even if it is tolled" Transport White Paper, 2004.

        Housing development: as has already been recognised by the ODPM Select Committee in their 8th report, the Government's Communities Plan threatens to generate significant additional traffic. The implications on the trunk and other road network from the house building proposals in the Barker Report on housing supply, have not been quantified. Implemented this level of house building would generate significant additional traffic, much of it in areas already experiencing congestion.

        Fuel duty: decisions over future fuel duty will, in the interim, send important signals to motorists. CPRE has been concerned that short-term rises in the price of oil has led the Government to stall increases in fuel duty, and there seems little motivation to arrest the decline in motoring costs. Indeed, we understand that the Transport White Paper continues to be predicated on a scenario of falling motoring costs.

  24.  There are a variety of ways in which action can be taken to deal with existing congestion problems. The DfT's paper, Smarter Choices: Changing the Way we Travel 2004, highlights the significant potential which "soft factors" can play in reducing congestion. These can be delivered more quickly and at less environmental and financial cost. We believe these should be central to the Government's transport strategy. However, as the report notes, "those experienced in the implementation of soft factors locally usually emphasise that success depends on some or all of such supportive policies as reallocation of road capacity . . . congestion charging or other traffic restraint . . .". It would be dangerous, therefore, to promote the "smarter" choices agenda in absence of specific demand management measures. They should be seen as complementary to road pricing.

  25.  The recent National Audit Office report, Tackling congestion by making better use of England's Motorways and Trunk Roads, includes a number of recommendations for improving the management of the existing road network. While some of these raise important safety issues (eg using hard shoulders) or environmental concerns (eg redirecting vehicles away from congested trunk roads onto other possibly less suitable roads), the report provides a strong case for the Highways Agency to prioritise its management functions over road building.

CPRE

November 2004





 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 2 August 2005