Memorandum by RAC plc (RP 36)
ROAD PRICING: SHOULD ALL ROADS BE TOLL ROADS?
1. This response is provided on behalf of
RAC Motoring Services, the motoring organisation which supports
over six million individual and business customers with breakdown
cover and a wide range of other individual motoring solutions.
We are separate from the RAC Foundation for Motoring, an independent
body established to protect and promote the interests of UK motorists.
2. While our response focuses solely on
the provision of breakdown services in a tolled road regime, where
we feel best equipped to respond, we nevertheless hope this will
be of some interest to the Committee in its broader consideration
of toll roads.
INTRODUCTION
3. RAC clearly welcomes improvements to
the road infrastructure which effectively reduce congestion, without
compromising safety. While RAC supports the view that there is
a role for road user charging in seeking to manage congestion,
our support for a road pricing scheme will be dependant upon the
principles behind its introduction and how these are given effect
in practice.
4. The main objective for road pricing should
be to help regulate demand on the most busy stretches of the road
network at the busiest times. Fairness, privacy, accessibility
and promotion of social inclusion should be the principles which
underpin any scheme. Economic growth and productivity for all
regions should at the very least not be damaged by any scheme
and impacts should be thoroughly researched before introduction
to maximise benefits and minimise disbenefits.
5. Clearly the main disbenefits will revolve
around the extent to which social exclusion is managed, the ability
of lower paid essential workers accessing jobs, the fact threat
there will clearly be both winners and losers dependent upon where
people live and if there is any flexibility available to them
in terms of staggering their journeys, satisfactory alternative
modes of transport, or ability to avoid the journey completely.
A road pricing scheme will also impact individual's willingness
to commute longer distances to work, given that the UK records
longer commuting times and distances than other European countries.
6. RAC believes that key congested route
corridors within the network should be prioritised for charging,
and that congestion and the availability of alternative routes
and transport options at the location of a proposed toll road
should be the two driving factors in taking national charging
forward. Such an approach would reduce congestion while also ensuring
public choice.
7. RAC supported M6 Toll in principle on
the grounds that it offered both a means of reducing congestion
on a particularly busy stretch of the motorway network, as well
as offering individuals the choice as to whether they wished to
use a toll road or not. At a more general level, we would like
to see any legislation providing for a cap on the level of charges
that a private toll road operator could impose. The slow and low
level of take-up of the M6 toll by heavy freight vehicles indicates
that toll roads will not be used unless the charges are seen to
be realistic. In light of this we would want to see legislative
proposals include a charging cap to both protect the driver and
to ensure that any new route, such as M6 Expressway would be a
viable option for enough drivers to ensure its purpose of relieving
congestion.
CONSISTENCY OF
APPROACH
8. Consistency of approach across the country
is, we believe, crucial in terms of overall objectives and implementation.
This extends to local congestion charging schemes. The transition
from individual toll roads and urban congestion charging schemes
to national road pricing will not be an easy one, but will clearly
be easier to execute with a common rationale, purpose and fundamentals
of implementation.
CONSISTENCY AND
BREAKDOWN PROVISION
9. RAC Motoring Services' particular interest
in road user charging is to ensure that our role as part of the
solution to congestion management is facilitated and not undermined
in the interests of all road users. To date, all the existing
and proposed congestion charging schemes have exempted accredited
rescue and recovery vehicles from charges, in recognition of the
direct impact we have on both reducing congestion, improving traffic
flow and removing road safety hazards. Our contribution to congestion
management has also been recognised formally by Ministers during
parliamentary debate on the Traffic Management Bill earlier this
year, and at a European level with the concession we have gained
from regulation on Drivers Hours.
10. While we are encouraged by the responsiveness
of the various authorities to work in partnership with us, we
were very disappointed that a similar approach was not embraced
by Midlands Expressway for M6 Toll, despite reassurances up to
the last minute that concessions would be accorded to accredited
rescue and recovery vehicles in the interests of congestion management
and road safety. This decision is at odds with the Government's
statements on our role. The exemptions put in place by London
and Edinburgh should set the precedent to be followed in a national
road user charging scheme and by any independent operator of a
privately operated road.
FAST RESOLUTION
OF BREAKDOWN
INCIDENTS
11. The key contribution of breakdown services
is our ability to resolve roadside incidents as quickly as possible.
As average annual daily traffic rises, so does the frequency of
breakdowns, and the duration of these incidents can range from
a few minutes to over an hour. Speed is therefore of the essence
in getting vehicles and any trailers on the move again and removing
the hazard from the roadside. A memorandum of understanding exists
between the Association of Chief Police Officers, RAC and AA.
This defines a target maximum attendance time for motorway breakdowns
as 30 minutes. Both AA and RAC achieve this in the vast majority
of instances. A parallel protocol is being developed with the
Highways Agency following the Traffic Management Act and the introduction
of Traffic Officers on the motorway and trunk road network. Clearly
we are under pressure from the authorities, and not just our customers,
to attend breakdowns in the fastest possible time.
12. Swift management of each incident minimises
congestion, improves traffic flow for public transport, commercial
vehicles and private cars, and reduces safety hazards for other
road users, including cyclists and pedestrians.
13. Rescue and recovery vehicles are the
only type of service vehicle that directly relieves congestion
rather than contributing to the problem—a point which has
allowed local authorities to distinguish breakdown vehicles from
other service vehicles, in recognition of the emergency service
we provide at the roadside. They acknowledge that congestion and
road safety will be impaired if measures, themselves designed
to improve congestion and road safety, inadvertently inhibit the
provision of roadside breakdown services by constraining deployment.
14. The constraints caused by differential
road tolling on the deployment of the most appropriate roadside
resource in a timely manner would have knock-on effects not just
on the tolled parts of the network but across the whole country,
impeding optimal performance of sophisticated national breakdown
systems.
15. Unlike the majority of drivers, breakdown
vehicles have no discretion over the destination or the timing
of the journey they make. RAC alone invested £10 million
in new deployment technology in order to reduce the time it takes
to resolve breakdowns. It does not make sense for these improvements
to be undermined inadvertently by transport measures designed
to improve traffic flows.
16. Figures from the London congestion charging
scheme indicate that the number of breakdowns is unlikely to drop
in line with the drop in traffic (see Appendix A), rendering the
role of our patrols even more vital in removing barriers to the
smooth flow of traffic. Indeed, empirical evidence from both RAC
and the AA indicates that without an exemption breakdown vehicles
would have faced a 10% increase in attendance times. Research
by Imperial College has also demonstrated that barriers of any
kind to freedom of deployment will result in a 10% increase in
attendance times.
DRIVER EXPECTATIONS
OF A
TOLLED NETWORK
17. Vulnerable motorists are identified
by breakdown call takers and prioritised. Contrary to popular
myth, these are not restricted to lone females, but anyone, male
or female, broken down in unsafe or personally threatening environments,
or who are at risk because of personal circumstances, such as
the disabled or elderly, parents with young babies, individuals
dependent on life saving medication, etc. We stay in touch with
the broken down motorist for reassurance and to keep him updated
on expected time of arrival.
18. As we move to a situation where motorists
are effectively paying on use for their usage of the road network,
there will be higher expectations of service levels. Attending
motorists in distress at the roadside quickly, efficiently and
with courtesy and safety at front of mind, will ensure a better
experience for all road users.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
19. If a road pricing scheme is to achieve
improved traffic flows, pollution levels and road safety—all
proof of a successful scheme—it is essential that breakdown
vehicles are not impeded in the service they provide. RAC is proud
of the role its patrols play in upholding road safety and contributing
to congestion management and we look forward to the continuing
recognition of this role as any road pricing scheme is developed.
We have always seen ourselves as a partner of central and local
authorities at the roadside and on motoring issues in general,
and effective partnership between ourselves and the authorities
grows in importance as congestion increases and more stringent
road safety targets are set.
November 2004
| 
