Memorandum by Thames Gateway London Partnership
(RP 50)
ROAD PRICING: SHOULD ALL ROADS BE TOLL ROADS?
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP)
was set up in 1995 as an active public private partnership to
promote the economic, social and environmental regeneration of
the East Thames. Its members include eleven London Boroughs in
East and South East London together with Dartford and Thurrock.
Other partners include five universities, two Strategic Health
Authorities, the London Development Agency and the London East
Learning and Skills Councils.
1.2 TGLP has a record of working closely
with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Transport for London
(TfL) and the LDA on shared priorities for the sub-region, not
least in the transport sector. We are represented on the Boards
of the Government's Thames Gateway Strategic Partnership (TGSP)
and the London Thames Gateway Partnership (LTGP) and our Chair
is on the Board of the East London Urban Development Corporation.
Through these connections, we have been influential in driving
the case for transport investment in East London and have lobbied
consistently for many of the transport investments now included
in TfL's Business Plan and Five Year Investment Programme following
this summer's Comprehensive Spending Review.
2. REASON FOR
SUBMISSION
2.1 Under the Government's Sustainable Communities
Plan, a new city is emerging in the east side of London as part
of the Thames Gateway stretching from Tower Bridge to the M25
and beyond. Over the next 20 years, this part of the Gateway will
see over 130,000 new homes and over 200,000 new jobs, the largest
area of growth and regeneration in the UK.
2.2 The scale of development and change
planned in the area, gives us a unique opportunity to plan at
the outset the transport infrastructure and management systems
necessary to ensure that new communities are both successful and
sustainable.
2.3 With new development and consequent
forecasts of major increases in car ownership and use within the
M25, the issue is how this potential traffic growth can be reduced
and managed in the most sustainable way. Even with considerable
public transport investment as planned by the Mayor, there is
still likely to be a considerable increase in traffic without
it being possible to match that with increased road capacity.
For example, it is possible that those car trips in the 3hr am
peak period completely local to East London could increase by
between 10% and 15% by 2016. The increase in total traffic, including
through trips, would be less than that.
2.4 The consequences of that scale of increase
could be considerable as there is already significant congestion
on key routes now, which badly affects journey times and reliability,
especially for bus services which must play their part in local
regeneration. The congestion also affects freight traffic, which
is important as modern logistics and manufacturing sectors develop
in the Gateway, and emergency services. To examine in detail the
outcome of the growth proposed in population and public transport,
Transport for London is carrying out a transport study, the Gateway
Integrated Transport and Land-use Study (GILTS), and it is proposed
to test how the effects of demand management measures will help
to mitigate the adverse effects of traffic growth. The initial
results from GILTS are expected soon.
2.5 We believe that the Committee would
find our practical experience in developing our Transport Agenda
in response to these challenges, in promoting and planning a key
infrastructure project and in helping to implement the London
Plan in the East London Sub Region, of help in addressing the
questions about road charging more generally. At every stage,
we have appreciated that all types of demand management measures
will be needed as part of an integrated approach to transport,
even before the growth agenda was adopted.
2.6 It has not always been easy to shape
and achieve the agreement we needed across the wide variety of
views of our Members, but our Transport Agenda and our particular
stance on Thames Gateway Bridge has unanimous support. We have
not considered the overall question posed by the Committee, should
all roads should be toll roads. More partnership work of the kind
we have already undertaken will be needed for us to address in
full the sensitive issues raised by the Committee.
2.7 We have therefore based our submission
with specific responses to the Committee's key questions, mainly
on providing a sub-regional example with clear practical implications
and conclusions about benefits.
3. RESPONSES
TO COMMITTEE'S
QUESTIONS
Question 1 Should road pricing be introduced
for certain sections of the road network in the short term?
3.1 The introduction of tolls or road charging
schemes can help to support local, regional and national government
to deliver new sustainable communities in the London Thames Gateway
where we expect significant development and population growth.
We have always said that the task of supporting large scale regeneration
without unsustainable growth in traffic and an unacceptable roads
building programme is one of the biggest challenges we face, and
there is clearly a role for the development of such schemes in
the area. A case study setting out why and how we developed our
policy for road charging and applied it to the Thames Gateway
Bridge is set out below in Section 4.
3.2 We promote transport schemes and measures
in the Gateway not for their own sake, but specifically to support
the wider objectives of local economic regeneration, social inclusion
and environmental improvement. Road charging schemes have a role
as part of an integrated package of schemes and measures which
provide a step change in public transport and balance the need
to manage car use with a recognition that it is likely to remain
the principal means of transport for many, particularly in Outer
London in the short-term.
3.3 We are, therefore, also actively supporting
the development of other demand management measures particularly
the selective re-allocation of road space away from general traffic
to public transport, and measures which reduce the overall share
of car trips, even if not absolute volumes, such as:
(a) tighter parking standards;
(b) parking charges and controls;
(c) selective tolling of key routes, particularly
river crossings;
3.4 In planning new communities, it is vital
that every opportunity is used to build in mechanisms to control
traffic growth as and when they arise. For example, we have used
the opportunity to build an innovative tolling regime into the
operation for Thames Gateway Bridge which will help to support
local regeneration. We have also set out how this could be the
start of an incremental approach to a wider demand management
strategy for the larger Thames Gateway area. We have thought through
in some detail these initial ideas but much more consideration
is needed to see how that wider strategy should be developed and
applied in practice.
3.5 In developing a transport strategy for
the Thames Gateway, in the late 1990s and subsequently, we recognised
clearly the need for an integrated approach with packages of schemes
for public transport and new river crossings and that it had to
include various soft/smart and demand management measures to change
individual and group travel patterns permanently. In particular
we concluded that new transport schemes and measures such as car-sharing,
personalised travel plans and tele-working, would not be sufficient.
Some means of demand management by charging would also be needed
to make the most effective use of the existing network, as well
as a new approach to planning that allows a tighter integration
of work and social space.
3.6 The Government has a unique opportunity
with the planned regeneration and development of the Thames Gateway,
to examine how to apply the new demand management thinking to
the area, including the suitability of road charging for controlling
traffic growth and ultimately for delivering sustainable communities.
3.7 Gaining the powers necessary to implement
the innovative, flexible/variable tolling regime with maximum
scope to manage demand for the Thames Gateway Bridge has not been
straightforward. It might be helpful if the powers for local authorities
to initiate, develop and run local and regional charging schemes
could be reviewed to see if improvements could be made.
Question 2 If road pricing is introduced,
what factors should determine what roads are priced and what technology
should be used?
3.8 Initially, tolls or congestion charging
could be introduced where there are clear bottlenecks with good
public transport alternatives and no alternative route choices
through sensitive areas—residential and town centres. We
supported the introduction of Congestion Charging in Central London
provided that it would be accompanied by additional bus services
and protection for the areas immediate outside the boundary. The
results of the scheme show that a small reduction in traffic has
led to a much larger reduction in congestion. There may be good
arguments for introducing similar schemes elsewhere. Alternatively,
with new schemes, as with Thames Gateway Bridge, there could be
a budget and framework associated with tolls to help mitigate
any adverse effects.
3.9 That scheme and existing tolls already
in place are changing the ways people travel. Care must be used
to ensure that the effects of new schemes are appropriate to the
purposes of different parts of the road network, local or strategic,
commuter or business, as we did for Thames Gateway Bridge. Any
scheme-local or national—needs to be publicly and politically
acceptable. In this sense, widespread application of demand management
measures will only come from a radical change in public attitudes
and car culture. As this will take a number of years to achieve,
it is vital that we start consideration of the context and application
of a wider strategy now.
3.10 The key criteria for introducing new
tolls or charging schemes must be to improve transport conditions,
and to encourage regeneration. We do not see them simply as means
of raising revenues for funding new transport schemes. That is
underlined by our view that the most important purpose of the
tolls is to keep the Bridge used truly as a local bridge, aimed
at regeneration in the Gateway without causing uncontrolled traffic
growth, and to ensure the new communities are sustainable. Although
in this case, they will also raise revenues providing a significant
contribution to the cost of the scheme, increased use of tolls
and charging must not bear heavily on the very people we are trying
to help in East London, and the majority of funding for new schemes
should come from the Government, indeed as it currently is.
3.11 Technology should be appropriate to
the roads covered and the timing of implementing the measures
(eg cameras for river crossing tolls and for cordon based congestion
charging zones, with higher technology for much larger area-wider
schemes. We welcome the proposal for Thames Gateway Bridge to
use cameras for toll enforcement as that will maintain free-flow
conditions and avoid the need for a toll plaza.
3.12 On a more local scale, perhaps even
a permit system for access might be a possible practical way of
early implementation to keep residential areas clear of through
traffic and excessive parking on-street, perhaps as a complementary
measure with controlled parking zones.
Question 3 How high tech does road pricing
need to be?
3.13 There seems to be a view that unless
a very high success rate at catching defaulters is possible, no
scheme should be introduced. If that is the main, even if not
the only, criterion, no controls are ever likely to be introduced.
The earlier a system can be introduced, even with relatively simple
technology, the sooner the inevitable growth can be influenced
for the better and the public introduced to the principle that
roads are not free.
3.14 There is a simple parallel with public
car parks in the 60s and 70s and then with on-street parking in
the 1990s. No-one really argues now that because not all offenders
can be identified there should be no controls. The lesson from
introducing parking enforcement, though, is that without evident
and vigorous enforcement of the controls when they are introduced,
they fall into disrepute and the public are enticed to behave
as if they were not there at all. When finally introduced, the
vigorous enforcement needed met strident, and misplaced, opposition
as motorists had become accustomed to parking illegally.
3.15 A critical criterion for success, of
course, is that the sophisticated high technology for national
and regional schemes must not crash and lessons can be learnt
from experience in other countries.
Question 4 What role should local highway
authorities play in introducing road pricing?
3.16 The role might well depend on what
is to happen to the revenues—for example if there is no
reduction in national licence fees and fuel charges, then perhaps
the revenues should go back to the local authorities. If the funds
are to help to promote other transport projects in the area, the
local highway authorities must be involved. In London, the Mayor
clearly deals with congestion charging but must consult the boroughs,
and in the case of the tolls on Thames Gateway Bridge, an agreement
is being negotiated to involve the Boroughs affected in toll reviews
and changes.
3.17 We believe a similar package is needed
to promote tolls at Blackwall to lock in the secondary benefits
of Thames Gateway Bridge and other transport schemes, and to help
fund the Silvertown Link.
Question 5 How easy will it be to move away
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?
3.18 We expect this will need considerable
thought. There must be an overall vision by the Government that
allows a seamless integration of local and regional charging schemes
into a national scheme in the future. That is crucial if, as we
believe is necessary in our answer to Question 1, that local schemes
are introduced in the short term.
3.19 This is particularly important for
the Thames Gateway area, where we are developing a new sub regional
transport network, with significant public and private sector
investment. A clear steer from Government in the short term will
allow us to develop our schemes from the outset so that they can
be fully integrated in any subsequent regional or national scheme.
Question 6 How will the Lorry Road User Charge
fit into any national road pricing and motorway tolling developments?
3.20 It appears that the main objective
of the national scheme is financial, with a move towards a more
effective way of charging for road use, rather than congestion
relief directly. The effects of the scheme are clearly most relevant
for London Thames Gateway and we will need reassurance that we
do not suffer the problems encountered in Germany.
Question 7 Are there any other measures which
could reduce congestion more effectively?
3.21 A step jump in public transport is
vital but under realistic investment assumptions, it is most unlikely
to be sufficient to prevent growth in congestion in London Thames
Gateway. The basic problem leading to congestion, as has been
identified for many years, is the imbalance in the way travel
by road and travel by public transport are paid for—the
former by marginal pricing and the latter by average pricing.
Either a more appropriate way of charging for road use must be
introduced so that all travellers pay average costs, or there
should be increased subsidies for public transport so that travel
choices are made on a level playing field. The latter approach,
of course, would encourage increased travel overall.
3.22 If all road use is to remain free,
the only effective way of regulating competing demands on the
most popular sections other than by road charging, and without
relying on congestion, would be heavy controls on car ownership
and use, which would be politically unacceptable.
4. WHY ROAD
CHARGING IS
NEEDED AS
PART OF
AN OVERALL
STRATEGY AND
SHOULD BE
INTRODUCED FOR
CERTAIN SECTIONS
OF THE
ROAD NETWORK
IN THE
SHORT TERM
London Thames Gateway and Thames Gateway Bridge—A
Case study
4.1 Members of the Committee may find instructive
our experience in our approach and applying it to one particular
section of the road network.
4.2 Demand Management has always been a
crucial element in our sustainable transport strategy and was
raised during the stakeholder workshops right at the start of
the development of our transport strategy in the late 1990s. We
recognised clearly the need for an integrated approach with packages
of schemes for public transport and new river crossings and that
it had to include various soft/smart and demand management measures
to change individual and group travel patterns permanently.
4.3 One of the major impediments to delivering
the Thames Gateway vision is the scarcity of crossings over the
Thames—there are only nine between Tower Bridge and Dartford
while over the same distance from Vauxhall to the M25 in the west,
there are 27. Consequently, in the first of our published brochures
with other stakeholders addressed to the Government and the new
Mayor of London, "Time for Action" February 2000, we
argued for a package of river crossings. As we recognised that
there would be concerns about the impact of increased traffic
across any road connections such as Thames Gateway Bridge, we
proposed tolls that would have a limiting effect on traffic increases,
discouraging unnecessary car journeys and maximising local regeneration
benefits. Furthermore, by adding specific public transport facilities
to the road crossings, more choice would be created and the package
would have the potential to reduce congestion and encourage a
shift to public transport.
4.4 Later, when we finally published our
"Transport Agenda" in May 2002, we made it clear that
we did not view transport as an end in itself, but as a means
to support our wider objectives of economic regeneration, social
inclusion and environmental improvement.
4.5 Whilst recognising that the use of the
car is just one choice of a number of travel options, not the
only one, with our main emphasis on traffic reduction and increased
use of public transport, we also support limited measures to enhance
the efficient operation of the strategic highway network (eg Thames
Gateway Bridge, Silvertown Link, Thames Road, A1306 improvements).
4.6 After considerable work and discussions
with our Members and other partners, we explained how our approach
could be applied in the short term on Thames Gateway Bridge in
our joint publication with other stakeholders, "Thames Gateway
River Crossings—Linking communities to new Opportunities",
April 2003.
4.7 We strongly believe that new river crossings
are essential in East London for increased accessibility to promote
local and wider regeneration. But such crossings would attract
considerable amounts of traffic if there were no restraints and
alternative transport choices. We could not rely on the possibility
of extending Central London Congestion Charging into the Sub-Region
or the longer term proposals for wide-area road charging systems.
So bluntly, we had to find a way to improve accessibility without
opening the floodgates—or, as the Department for Transport
now advise, how to "lock in" the primary benefits of
journey time savings from new transport schemes.
4.8 With tolls on the Dartford Crossings
at the eastern end and Central London Congestion Charging in the
west, there seemed to be the opportunity to manage traffic across
the Thames with tolls, tailored to fit the function of each crossing
and operated to control demand as it changes. It was, therefore,
important to focus on the single scheme approach initially.
4.9 We unanimously agreed that there should
be a new bridge linking Thamesmead and Beckton, now called Thames
Gateway Bridge, and that it should be a tolled road link for local
people with segregated public transport lanes. We want a similar
approach to be adopted for the proposed Silvertown Link between
Greenwich Peninsula and Canning Town.
4.10 We have always insisted that the tolls
should be differential with discounts. In that way, the regime
will ensure the benefits of the Bridge are enjoyed by local people
(particularly those who are seeking employment) and businesses,
and will encourage through-traffic with no business in the local
area to use the strategic road network and existing crossings.
More recently, we have insisted that for the tolling regime to
control the balance of local and non-local traffic and to prevent
congestion as development occurs and traffic demand grows, there
must be flexibility for the toll arrangements, levels and discounts
to be reviewed from time to time within an established framework.
4.11 We discovered that such a scheme has
already been in operation successfully for many years on the Itchen
Bridge in Southampton under the powers of the Hampshire Act. Close
partnership working with Transport for London and the Department
for Transport has led to a proposed legal agreement between TfL
and the Boroughs on such a framework whereby the local Boroughs
will be involved in those reviews. That proposed agreement was
instrumental in securing the conditional planning permission granted
in December 2004.
4.12 We see this flexible, differential
tolling regime for Thames Gateway Bridge as the start of a wider
traffic control strategy. Indeed, we believe there is a strong
case for additional congestion charging schemes, and for tolls
to manage traffic at the Blackwall Tunnels as well. This will
also provide funds to help vital transport projects in London
go ahead. We have drafted text for the GLA's Sub Regional Development
Framework that sets out these ideas and promotes the policy approach
and effective partnership working we have adopted so far.
4.13 Some opponents of the Thames Gateway
Bridge have perhaps realised that the tolling regime and public
transport lanes which are now part of the scheme, will protect
(and "lock-in") the time saving benefits it will provide.
They have argued that since the Bridge will relieve other parts
of the strategic road network, the spare capacity so created will
attract more long distance traffic and create more congestion.
We accept there are secondary benefits arising from relief to
other parts of the network, but they are created by all transport
schemes, whether road schemes or public transport ones, as people
change their travel patterns. The only comprehensive way of locking
such secondary benefits in is with a wider strategy of demand
management including road charging.
4.14 One of the secondary benefits of Thames
Gateway Bridge is the relief from the transfer of local trips
from the Blackwall crossings. As part of the incremental approach
to such a wider strategy in East London, it would be possible
to lock those secondary benefits in by implementing tolls at Blackwall
when Thames Gateway Bridge opens. That would provide a way of
maintaining the improved journey times and reduced queues at Blackwall
whilst providing a revenue stream to contribute to developing
and constructing the Silvertown Link.
4.15 We believed that in 15 years, much
of our Transport Agenda would become a reality, supporting the
sustainable growth of the linear city and serving its current
and new citizens in an environment where the car is the servant
of regenerated communities rather than their master.
Stephen Joseph
Deputy Chief Executive: Strategy
Peter Morley
Senior Transport Adviser
January 2005
| 
