Memorandum by the Countryside Agency (RP
41)
ROAD PRICING
INTRODUCTION
The Countryside Agency is the statutory body
working to conserve and enhance England's countryside; to spread
social and economic opportunity for the people who live there;
and to help everyone wherever they live to enjoy the countryside.
We aim to ensure that policies and practices take full account
of rural needs and circumstances and that they pay proper regard
to the needs of people living and working in England's countryside
and of those who visit it.
In its Rural White Paper the Government made
a commitment that all policies would be "rural proofed"
as they are developed, to ensure that rural needs and circumstances
are taken into account. The Agency has a role to monitor and report
on progress with rural proofing and it frequently provides departments
with expert advice.
The Agency welcomes the interest of the Transport
Select Committee in road pricing. Our transport policy recognises
the potential benefits of road pricing, as long as it is done
in a way that will not:
— encourage greater traffic growth
in rural areas, which could result from charging in towns alone;
or
— divert inter-urban traffic growth
into rural areas, which could result from motorway charging alone;
or
— adversely affect lower income rural
motorists, who need to travel locally.
This note summarises our key messages on road
pricing before covering each of the issues the Committee wishes
to examine.
OUR KEY
MESSAGES
— We wish to see road pricing introduced
in ways that will not encourage traffic growth in rural areas
or adversely affect rural motorists on lower incomes, who need
to travel to access jobs or essential services.
— The impacts of road pricing on rural
areas could be significant, depending on the way the charging
regime is set up and administered. It is, therefore, vital that
the effects on rural areas are considered before any schemes are
implemented.
— The model that the Department for
Transport (DfT) uses to assess the various options for road pricing
must be able to predict the likely impacts on rural roads as accurately
as possible.
— The DfT should promote the rural
proofing of any proposals for local congestion charging and tolled
roads. This includes ensuring the potential impacts on surrounding
rural areas are considered in the assessment of proposed urban
congestion charging schemes.
1. Should road pricing be introduced for
certain sections of the road network in the short term?
The Agency agrees with the findings of the DfT
supplementary reports on road pricing, which concluded that urban
centre congestion charging alone would have little impact on traffic
levels on motorways, but that urban area charging could deliver
a greater reduction. This points to a clear appreciation of the
problems that need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. However,
the Agency is concerned that this does not lead to a piece-meal
approach.
The Agency believes that an agreed set of national
objectives, principles and protocols that command wide support
should be put in place to support local delivery. In particular,
it should be clear whether the purpose of the charging is to reduce
congestion, to bring about environmental and quality of life improvements
or to generate revenue to effect a change in travel choices. Monies
generated should be assigned to things such as reducing severance
to non-motorised users and enhancing accessibility. Revenue raised
should not simply replace existing Treasury funding.
The Countryside Agency is particularly keen
to ensure that any such introductions are based upon a detailed
modelling of traffic flows, not just on trunk roads, but also
on rural roads that might be used as routes to avoid the charge.
We note that Cambridge and Huntingdon area Multi Modal Study (CHUMMS)
concluded there would be more car travel in the less congested
rural areas. Charging schemes should not be introduced if their
main impact is simply to displace traffic on to surrounding rural
roads.
The Agency also wishes to ensure that rural
populations and businesses are not put at a particular disadvantage.
While economic models may be able to show that particular sectors
are not put at disadvantage at a national or regional level, it
is at the local scale that pricing could have specific impacts.
The Agency would wish to ensure that the distribution of the costs
and benefits of charging are explored in advance of its introduction
and that appropriate safeguards are put in place.
There is the risk that charging for certain
parts of the network is treating the symptom rather than the underlying
causes that national charging could address. Further, a piece-meal
approach could lead to incompatible technologies and divergent
measures to address the disbenefits. Since harmonising local charging
systems may be complicated, one option could be to introduce any
national charging technology to new cars, which would capture
a significant proportion of all vehicle miles driven over a relatively
short period. Opportunities to introduce charging could equally
lead to the private sector providing new private toll roads that
encourage more car use and work against objectives for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
2. If road pricing is introduced, what factors
should determine which roads are priced and what technology is
used?
The extent to which charging can be supported
will be partly determined by decisions about which roads are priced
and the technology to be used. While there may be merits in those
promoting charging to focus upon accident or congestion problem
areas, the Agency wishes to ensure that this does not lead to
negative effects for rural communities and protected landscapes.
The Agency recognises that area-based licensing
may have some value in dealing with urban areas. There is a concern,
however, that this may lead to office and retail development being
attracted to the edge of town or other locations outside the charging
area unless planning restrictions are in place. In general, we
would prefer an area-wide approach, though we recognise that charging
in some environmentally sensitive "honey-pot" areas
could help promote the use of public transport.
The Agency understands that European regulations
on charging will permit charges to reflect the environmental damage
caused by the traffic. We would wish to see explored the merits
of charging for particular routes or networks affecting sensitive
environments.
Those roads selected for charging should be
characterised by few junctions with few opportunities for local
routes using non-trunk roads or rural roads. Recognising that
the diverted flow may be insignificant when seen from the perspective
of the trunk road, but that the increase in traffic volume on
the rural roads would be significant, the Agency recommends that
a detailed traffic model incorporating even "c" roads
is constructed when judging the merits of charging individual
sections of trunk road.
Motorway charging represents the most straightforward
option, but given that these roads generally avoid communities,
traffic diverting from the motorway would be directed to other
roads with a greater risk of accidents. Given that the multi-modal
studies were requested to investigate the effectiveness of road
user charging and that several studies recommended that capacity
enhancements be locked in by some form of restraint, it would
seem to the Agency that roads such as the M25 and the Yorkshire
motorway box merit early consideration for road user charging.
The Agency commends the key principles from
SWYMMS (South and West Yorkshire Multi Modal Study) as reported
in the DfT July 2004 review of multi-modal study modeling of road
pricing.[73]
In particular any proposed increase in road capacity, should be
accompanied by proposals for some form of demand management so
the benefits of increased capacity are "locked in" and
not eroded by induced traffic.
The question of how much of unrestrained future
demand should be catered for is a key question in determining
the level at which a charge is to be set. Consequently, the Agency
considers that the forecast traffic flows in the early years under
a proposed charging regime should be used when considering the
need for increases in the capacity of the highway network, whether
or not road user charging is implemented. This would avoid new
capacity undermining the case for area-wide road user charging.
It would make most sense to introduce charging in advance of decisions
to provide additional capacity.
The technology required will largely be determined
by the type of charging model being investigated. For example:
— Area licensing (eg London Congestion
Charging) involves payment for a license to cross into a restricted
area within a set time period and this generally requires cameras
to record car registration details.
— Distance based charging may involve
toll booths or an in-car GPS system.
— Congestion charging involves charges
linked directly to the amount of congestion through an in-car
GPS system or road sensors.
Road user charging technology can have an adverse
effect on the character of landscape (or townscape), depending
upon the sort of technology being proposed. For example, Direct
Short Range Communications (DSRC) using microwaves require both
communications beacons and enforcement cameras unless GPS satellites
are used. For this reason the Agency would prefer to see Electronic
Vehicle Identification systems in which each vehicle is fitted
with electronic "tags", where there are important environmental
issues.
3. How "hi-tech" does road pricing
need to be?
The Agency does not have a strong opinion on
the question of technology unless the choice impacts qualitatively
on the landscape. We are, however, keen to see the early delivery
of measures that reduce the need to travel, that encourage a modal
shift and reduce the need to expand highway capacity.
Some technologies have potential implications
for scattered rural communities, if they faced difficulties accessing
specialist suppliers of on-board units or there were few rural
outlets in an area at which to purchase licences.
The Agency would like to encourage the development
of a charging regime in which the cost of externalities is incorporated
into the charge. Consequently, there may well be merits in providing
a system that is flexible enough to address the various future
uses that could be provided. Locking into a low cost intermediate
system may well mean that the full benefits are not delivered
while the disbenefits of fixed infrastructure remain.
Whatever charging system is proposed, the tariffs
should be easy to understand.
4. What role should local highway authorities
play in introducing road pricing?
The Agency considers that local highway authorities
are likely to take a lead role, at least in the delivery of urban
congestion charging. However, in the case of the motorway and
trunk road network, this will need collaboration over a wider
area. Collaboration is also needed to deliver the package of measures
to address the negative effects of charging. Charging should not
be introduced on its own. Local highway authorities have a fundamental
role in ensuring that additional public transport, walking and
cycling options are introduced as part of a package.
Local highway authorities should ensure rural
communities are not disproportionately affected by area charging
regimes, particularly in terms of their access to jobs and essential
services, such as education and health. Rural proofing should
be incorporated into the appraisal system for road user charging
schemes.
When considering motorway and trunk road charging
proposals, local highway authorities should check to ensure the
rural and local road network will not experience additional traffic.
Resources should be provided upfront for measures to minimise
the risk of such diversion, rather than providing "fixes"
after the problem has arisen.
5. How easy will it be to move from individual
toll roads and local urban 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?
It is recognised that any national charging
scale is a longer term option. It seems likely, though, that a
series of local charging schemes could make it difficult to move
to a national time and place charging scheme (requiring factory
fitted equipment as indicated in paragraph 4.56 of the DfT road
user charging report). It is important that central government
therefore consults on the principles, objectives and protocols
to be used when local authorities develop individual charging
schemes. In addition, environmental and social benefits of a national
charging scheme should be incorporated into its aims.
A transition from fuel duty charges to road
use charging will also need detailed consideration, in terms of
the impact on rural communities. Associated with this are issues
about local accountability: how the revenues will be spent with
such a transition.
6. How will the Lorry Road User Charge fit
into any national road pricing and motorway tolling developments?
The objectives of lorry road user charging (LRUC)
appear to be about the competitiveness of UK industry rather than
with tackling congestion. The Customs and Excise website states
in the introduction that "overall, the LRUC will be revenue
neutral for hauliers who already contribute through UK fuel duty".
As the charge is distance based, it does not have any direct influence
upon the road used or congestion levels.
The Agency is not aware if the on-board units being
considered for LRUC may also function for general road user charging
or, indeed, whether lorries would be subject to general road user
charging. There appears to be a risk that two sets of roadside
infrastructure may be required, given the different functions
required, so increasing the impacts on the landscape.
7. Are there other measures which could reduce
congestion more effectively?
The planning system has a significant part to
play. For example, inter-urban roads are often a focus for the
development of retail distribution centres and business parks,
which attract considerable local traffic. The Agency would welcome
an authoritative study on the relationship between the investment
in new highway capacity and the development of neighbouring land.
Other trends, such as the loss of small shops
and just-in-time deliveries also contribute towards the increased
reliance upon road transport. Greater attempts to prevent development
around motorway junctions may be needed.
Among the measures that can be considered (and
could be funded by charging) are:
— Maintenance and support of local
services and facilities to reduce the need to travel.
— Support for improvements to public
transport, walking and cycling, and improved concessionary fares
on public transport.
— Tackling the amount of traffic on
the school run by rewarding schools with travel plans that deliver
real reductions.
— Introducing new technologies discussed
in the DfT's publication "Managing our Roads" such as
Adaptive Cruise Control, Intelligent Speed Adaptation and Pay-As-You-Drive
Insurance.
— Improving driver behaviour to reduce
accident induced congestion.
— Enhancing accident recovery times
by improved vehicle safety standards thereby reducing time dealing
with fatalities and serious injuries.
— Variable speed limits, flow metering
and segregated lanes for priority vehicles.
November 2004
73 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_029802.pdf). Back
| 
