Transcript RAC Foundation

RAC Foundation
Pricing, planning and new technology.
Are they alternatives?
Sir Christopher Foster
RAC Foundation for Motoring
23July 2004
To the Conference on Reducing the Impact of Vehicles on Air and
Environment Quality in Cities, Mexico City
Pricing Objectives
Let me start with pricing. Wherever adopted its
objectives can be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To alter behaviour
To raise money
To give signals for investment, development, but also
disinvestment, contraction
To compensate losers


2 and 3 most important in private sector
1 and 4 more important in public sector
But they can clash
The Smeed Committee on
Road Pricing
My introduction to RP was a member of this committee –
in 1962, the first anywhere? - with Alan Walters, Michael
Beasley and Gabriel Roth.
Discussion threw up various problems:




The inter-urban toll road: MC < AC
In cities: the respective roles of planning and pricing
Should one price to reflect current demand and supply?
What social costs?
Why so slow?




Slow development of technology: a response not a
cause?
Better management of existing roads through traffic
engineering: bought 40 years but is much more left?
Catchment area problems: easier in islands
Belief that one could:





invest one’s way out of the problem by more roads
or public transport (without pricing to divert)
or deter traffic by not investing
or plan one’s way out without demand management: very
slow
or do it through new forms of transport
The nature of political resistance


Greatest problem to overcome is political resistance
Features just listed are important but also



Huge uncertainties about technology and behavioural reactions
Common belief that pricing is for private not public sector
Frequent preference for controls



Parking: non-optimal side-effects
Land use changes: often very slow or evaded
Concerns about the poor
And public misunderstanding in the Polls
How acceptable is road
charging?

‘In the future would you be willing to pay tolls to
drive in city centres?’
NOP Automotive Survey March 2002
YES
UK
Scotland
London
age 17-24
age 65+
social class AB
social class C2
43%
36%
39%
31%
47%
58%
38%
No
55%
62%
61%
69%
50%
40%
62%
How acceptable is road
charging?

‘How acceptable would road tolls be to you if there were
equivalent reductions in fuel duty?’
NOP Automotive Survey March 2002
80
76
70
60
50
acceptable %
40
30
20
10
0
unacceptable %
18
How acceptable is road
charging?

‘How acceptable would road tolls be to you if
improved to guarantee better journey times?’
roads
NOP Automotive Survey March 2002
80
71
70
60
acceptable %
50
40
30
20
10
0
22
unacceptable
%
How acceptable is road
charging?

‘How acceptable would road tolls be to you as part of a
package of better roads, public transport and traffic
management?’
NOP Automotive Survey March 2002
80
71
70
60
50
acceptable %
40
30
20
10
0
23
unacceptable %
Spending the revenue

Which is the top priority for spending the money generated
from the tolls?’
Road maintenance
19%
Better roads e.g. road widening
and bypasses
32%
Public transport
34%
Public services
12%
General Poll Findings
60% felt it would be fairer if motorists paid tax
according to amount of time they drive in congestion
rather than tax on fuel and tax discs.
Only 22% argue that tax on petrol is a better way of
restraining traffic than a charge or toll for using
congested roads.
69% disagree with the concept of fuel tax rising by a
given annual %.
58% think that if charges are introduced for using
congested roads there should be concessions for
those on low incomes.
52% think that the use of satellites to monitor the
location of cars is an infringement of personal liberty.
Opinion in post congestion
charge London
6 Months after the scheme began more than 50% of
London residents supported or tended to support the
scheme, compared to around 30% who oppose or tend to
oppose it.
A full copy of Congestion Charging: 6 Months On can be
found on the TfL website at:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc_intro.shtml
How does one overcome
resistance ?





Public discussion
Dissemination of information from existing schemes
Build up knowledge of elasticities
 demand
 modal and other substitution
Modelling:
 do nothing scenario
 allowing for congestion
 then for congestion charges
Simulating
 effects of improved bus and other public transport
 altered traffic engineering
 new investment to re-direct traffic flows
 land use changes, if any, to aid decongestion
Possible combinations of increased
capacity and motoring charges in UK
Annual Increase in
Motoring Charges
6%
B
4%
E
D
2.2%
A
Do Nothing
after 2010
(Average
speeds fall by
0.6% pa)
No increase in
congestion
F
C
Projecting the
10 Year Plan
High
Option
Capacity
Planning for Congestion
Charges

Success depends on elasticities.

They depend on availability of substitutes:



buses, almost always cheapest option, and busways,
trams
other public transport
less transport-intensive land use solutions
Environmental Improvement

Economics: a very different role from tackling congestion
 pricing and regulation often a constraining influence
 scenario and targeting within a well-defined model
structure needed at national and local levels
 any (indicative) quotes from forecast plans, not the
other way round
 need to use economic criteria

Inducing new technology the key
 already moving fast
 competition between manufacturers vital
 pluses and minuses of it necessarily being a global
development