The concept that motorists and other road users should pay charges to use the roads in relation to when, where and how far they drive is not new. In 1962 the government commissioned the Smeed Report, which suggested charges on busy roads to reduce congestion.

Despite broad acceptance of the underlying economic theory, it has proved almost impossible to gain political and public acceptance for schemes of this type, so that very few have been put into effect around the world so far.

Now, increasing problems of congestion, and environmental damage from roads and traffic, are leading to renewed interest in the idea, with the London congestion charge providing added impetus. The acceptance difficulties have not gone away, however, and the government is treading very cautiously.

There is a balance to be struck between promoting a national scheme and introducing individual schemes for major urban areas.

Questions also remain about the objectives of charging – is it intended to reduce congestion, to tackle environmental problems or to fundamentally change the way we pay for roads to a more equitable system?

Issues for today

At this early stage of development, it is difficult to give an opinion on whether the government’s plans will achieve their objectives. Much will depend on how any scheme relates to wider policy measures such as urban regeneration and environmental protection.

The key issue is the relationship between the economic efficiency of the overall road network, the promotion and development of cities/city-regions as the drivers of economic growth, and the spatial distribution of homes and activities. Road user charging affects all these factors, with economic, environmental and social consequences.

In particular, making road use more expensive in congested urban areas could encourage both businesses and households to move to cheaper areas on the edge of, or outside cities. While this might reduce congestion (at least in the short term), it would also generate more and longer journeys, thus increasing the emission of carbon dioxide (with impacts on global warming), and the isolation of socially excluded groups without access to cars.

Economically, it could weaken inner city economies and the potential for economic development and regeneration. Alternatively, and more positively, it could provide a mechanism to reduce congestion and pollution and improve the quality of life in our cities, thereby supporting their regeneration.

On the inter-urban road network, increased charges on congested motorways could increase traffic on alternative routes, which may lead to significantly higher accident rates, and increase traffic through built-up or environmentally sensitive areas.

The bigger picture

Road user charging cannot be considered as a policy measure isolated from a much wider range of issues. The challenge is to develop a policy package that addresses all the potential conflicts.

An overall theme of ‘sustainable development’ provides a starting point for doing this. For cities, unsustainable dispersal would be countered by investing in inner city regeneration; improving connectivity by other modes of transport; and reducing the need to travel through intelligent land use and the encouragement of virtual communications.

But this can only work if the amounts of revenue generated by a charging scheme are recycled into these measures. Otherwise the sums paid will represent a loss to the local economy.

On the inter-urban network, alternative routes may generally best be provided on the network itself. For example, dedicated charged lanes can provide a choice for users between a congested, free, route and an uncongested lane with charges.

However, different solutions may be appropriate at different locations. Congestion on some of the strategic road network is due to large volumes of short-distance traffic, where an urban approach to management may be more appropriate than a charging solution.

There is no doubt, however, that the current charging regime encourages unlimited use of our roads. It is right and proper that we should consider roads as a utility which is paid for by use, just as we pay for our telephones, electricity and gas utilities.

It is fair and reasonable that if we want to use our cars when everyone else does we should pay a premium, and if we use them in uncongested, rural areas we should pay less.

A national road user charge would give proper choice to car drivers, help rural users by reducing their costs and increasing their accessibility, and remove competition problems between towns and cities.

It would also provide a base for the reduction of congestion and pollution, and a fair and equitable way to pay for our road use. How we do this will evolve over the next few years. The government has made a good start, but many questions remain to be answered.