Memorandum by Transportation Planning
International (RP 26)
ROAD PRICING
INTRODUCTION
This submission seeks to answer the specific
questions raised in the Transport Committee's call for evidence.
It is largely based on our interpretation of the Department for
Transport's report entitled "Feasibility Study of Road Pricing
in the UK".
Transportation Planning International is an
established UK based consultancy specialising in transportation
planning work for central and local government, transport authorities
and the private sector.
Should road pricing be introduced for certain
sections of the road network in the short term?
Yes. The Nation's road network is made up of
a complex hierarchy of roads with each level in this hierarchy
exhibiting widely differing characteristics and serving different
functions. In addition, the congestion patterns, the socio-economic
characteristics and needs of different areas, the availability
and costs of alternative travel modes and the likely impacts of
road pricing would make it necessary to apply pricing in different
ways. In the short term it would be extremely difficult to introduce
pricing in other than its simplest forms and outside areas or
networks where congestion is demonstrably critical and where alternative
routes or transport modes exist. For the shorter term we assume
that the pricing would be "revenue raising" rather than
"revenue neutral".
Pricing is already being applied to influence
demand (and to generate funds) with the most obvious examples
including central area parking charge premiums, park and ride
regimes, congestion charging, tolled crossings and the M6 Toll.
More applications like these should be encouraged because they
can be seen to be succeeding in their aims. Any new road pricing
initiative in the short term should seek to avoid the risk of
discouraging or delaying new applications of these tried and tested
examples.
From the pricing application perspective, the
road hierarchy can be considered in the following order:
1. congested urban networks—all road
types;
2. congested inter-urban strategic (motorway
and trunk road) links;
3. congested, environmentally sensitive tourist
attraction areas—local roads;
4. busy inter-urban strategic and other major
routes—motorways, trunk roads and all purpose roads;
This leads to the conclusion that there are
two principal potential applications for pricing in the shorter
term, namely the area-wide applications based on the principles
of the central London congestion charging scheme but with greater
sophistication to ensure improved equity and durability and applications
on congested inter-urban strategic roads. With regard to equity
and durability in urban areas, it may be necessary to introduce
a combination of pricing measures for example both congestion
charging and work place parking levies.
For the first category, which includes both
the congested urban areas and tourist areas, it would be necessary
for Government to work in active partnership with those local
authorities who preside over strong local economies that are being
negatively affected by congestion and environmental degradation.
Each application would need to be "tailor-made" for
the local circumstances prevailing.
For the second category, the favoured application
would be on a busy inter-city motorway which is the subject of
a widening improvement or has an improving rail service within
a shared corridor or at least a second high capacity route available.
The importance of the availability of a second route would be
to accept an amount of traffic diversion without serious environmental
impact and possibly to test the impacts of differing price levels
being applied to each route. A widening improvement might be considered
a "new" element or facility that is entitled to be priced
at a premium. There would be scope to "lock in" the
benefits of the improvement through the pricing mechanism and
possibly to encourage or introduce a new public transport service
on the route length to be charged.
If road pricing is introduced, what factors should
determine which roads are priced and what technology should be
used?
The first part of this question has been largely
addressed above at least for the short term. For the longer term
and for urban applications it would be necessary for all roads
in the local network to be priced in the same way to avoid diversion
problems although strategic, through routes might be priced at
a different level to ensure they function as intended. Ideally,
the overall or "aggregate" level of charge for an urban
area would need to reflect both a national "base" level
and a local adjustment to take into account the special circumstances
arising including any complementary measures and charges. This
points to the need for a flexible technical system which would
also need to be interoperable within the EU to satisfy the relevant
Directive (2004/52/EU). This presents a considerable technical
challenge to systems designers and it also presents problems of
communicating charges to non regular users.
The requirement for interoperability leads us
to conclude that a pricing and technology system needs to be suited
to the conditions maintaining in at least the larger Member States
of the EU where there are already extensive networks of strategic
highways. The system technology must therefore be suited for application
to the currently "free" autobahns in Germany and the
mix of free and tolled strategic routes (often in the same corridors)
in France, Italy and Spain. As the feasibility study shows, extensive
development is underway—particularly in Germany—on
hybrid systems that combine satellite positioning (GPS) and microwave
technologies. These require both in vehicle and roadside infrastructure.
Such systems aim at achieving a comprehensive distance-based pricing
regime with the ability to set variable charge levels according
to location and time of day. Although full interoperability is
the desired goal, realistically, such systems would have to be
highly flexible to permit individual Member States and locally
authorised operators the freedom to determine the charging regimes
and means of payment.
The feasibility study recognises that substantial
development work and international collaboration is needed before
any preferred systems "architecture" can be identified.
We would agree with the conclusions reached in the report that
2014 is a realistic target for the introduction of a comprehensive
distance-based pricing system. This timescale, although long,
should be seen in the context of the extended programmes for introducing
new or improved transport infrastructure (both road and rail-based).
It is vital that the planning and provision
of these latter programmes is maintained rather than be held back
or otherwise compromised by any pre-judgement about the introduction
of a national pricing regime. A presumption of policy in favour
of pricing would require a range of forecasts of the effects of
pricing on every scheme or proposal and an entirely new assessment
procedure would be needed to minimise the uncertainties that would
inevitably arise.
In the shorter and medium terms, extended trials
of microwave and satellite systems need to be made in the UK on
each level of the road hierarchy. The existing toll roads and
in particular the M6 Toll could be used as test beds for new systems
with the agreement of their operators, as could the more intensively
instrumented sections of the non-tolled motorways.
How "high-tech" does road pricing need
to be?
Again, this question has been largely addressed
earlier. There is a need to be aware that both industrial and
academic experts and to a certain extent the EU are pursuing the
ideal, comprehensive, distance-based system and are confident
that this can be achieved. Adherence to this ideal alone puts
at risk the timescale for implementation and could easily give
rise to major uncertainties for future planning and implementation
of transport infrastructure as well as political uncertainties.
The way forward should therefore be to adopt a staged approach
towards the "ideal" and build on proven technologies
and seek to improve these through both trials and real applications
on new and improved roads and in major urban areas planning charging
schemes.
What role should local highway authorities play
in introducing road pricing?
The local highway authorities own their roads
and are responsible for their condition, improvements, costs,
use, safety, revenues (parking) and highways development control.
They are often the local planning authority also with wide ranging
responsibilities including economic development and land use planning
and environmental management. The hierarchy of roads includes
rural lanes, local streets and major all purpose highways. District,
Unitary and County administrative levels are therefore all intimately
concerned with the prospect of road pricing. The metropolitan
areas, the PTEs and the regional assemblies and development agencies
have a wider, sub-regional remit which is well suited to determining
overall transport strategy. We therefore agree with the conclusions
of the feasibility study that recommend a partnership between
central and local government is formed to develop a pricing regime
that meets both national and local objectives.
The range of interests local highway authorities
have in the matter can be summarised as follows:
— meeting local economic and environmental
objectives;
— future traffic levels and patterns
eg diversion effects;
— infrastructure maintenance and investment
programmes;
— delivery of alternative transport
modes;
— application of management measures
eg parking control and pricing;
— revenues from pricing—their
scale and their hypothecation;
— longer term land use impacts;
There is a case for two "layers" of
pricing for road use. The first might be a simple, say revenue-neutral
charge for national application over the whole network that would
become a substitute for some or all of the fuel duty. The second
might be the congestion/environmental premium charge or indeed
the regional economic discount to be applied on specific links,
areas or sub-regions. The second layer would be the responsibility
of the specific authority whether it be the Motorway and Trunk
Road authority or local highway authority.
How easy will it be to move from individual toll
roads and local congestion charging schemes in the short term,
to national road pricing in the longer term, and what needs to
be done to ensure the transition is a success?
With toll roads it would be appropriate to maintain
a price differential in order to reflect the special value of
using the facility. The problem would be the likely reduction
in traffic or traffic growth rate compared to those factored in
to the concession agreements or otherwise to be counted as the
operators' loss alone. There may be operators' cost savings as
well. These would become the subject of negotiation. Similar negotiations
would be needed in the case of shadow toll schemes funded by the
operators. We do not see particular difficulties of a technical
nature arising from the transition. With congestion charging schemes,
the transition would be programmed to coincide with the expiry
of the operating contractors term or otherwise become the subject
of negotiation.
How will the Lorry Road User Charge fit into any
national road pricing and motorway tolling developments?
The proposals should provide a valuable pathfinder
experience and usefully inform and guide the evolving structure
of a national scheme for all vehicles. There are similarities
with Germany with both countries working towards the installation
of on board units and satellite positioning.
Are there other measures which could reduce congestion
more effectively?
We cannot see any other single measure that
would be able to reduce congestion in such a "targeted"
manner in the sense that it impact in specific places or at specific
times. It is possible to envisage multiple local applications
tailored to local conditions. These would include more extensive
congestion charging schemes and or work place parking and public
parking levies for urban congestion spots but expanded to include
the suburban "rings". These measures in combination
would provide a more effective and equitable solution for urban
traffic congestion problems over wider areas and include zones
outside urban centres which already exhibit serious and deteriorating
conditions. Outside urban areas, other measures would include
multi-modal "corridor" charging plans to deal with congested,
strategic inter-urban links on a comprehensive basis to avoid
unwanted diversion effects.
Other, simpler though more radical and hence
more controversial measures might include a fuel-based congestion
tax with local rebates applied in un-congested areas, fuel rationing,
a "progressive" and a distance-based supplement on vehicle
excise duty. In relation to this latter measure, it is of interest
to note the outline proposals by the Norwich Union would charge
for car insurance according to a validated mileage record.
Finally there is the option to offer a choice
and quality of travel mode by providing new multi-modal capacity
for the strategic inter-urban/city/region corridors either by
extending and widening existing routes or by providing parallel
ones. This new capacity would employ tolls and fares to influence
modal choice and to lock in the benefits and raise revenues, they
would concentrate environmental impact and could be largely funded
by the private sector. Within congested urban areas and their
suburban rings, the comparable response would be to combine pricing
measures such as congestion charging and overall parking levies
with new capacity at congestion hot spots. This new capacity might
take the form of limited access flyovers and underpasses for cars
or buses (as pioneered in France), designed to maintain or marginally
enhance capacity for normal traffic but to create significant
benefit for buses, cyclists and pedestrians. The Highways Agency
has commissioned recently completed research into the effects
of such measures on transport and the environment.
November 2004
| 
