It’s election year but sensible policies are being sidelined
With local elections been and gone, and a general election looming, it’s an important time to be scrutinising candidates. But sadly, some sensible transport policies have fallen victim to politically charged debate. And nowhere is this clearer than in London and the fierce debate around road user charging.
A policy of pay-as-you-drive, also known as ‘road user charging’, involves replacing the existing various set daily charges for drivers (the Congestion Charge and ULEZ) with one where drivers are charged per mile. The charge would be variable on the basis of vehicle emissions and also location, (considering greater levels of congestion and availability of alternatives in central London, for example).
The cross-party Transport Committee of the London Assembly recognised pay-as-you-drive as a sensible, better and fairer future alternative to the Congestion Charge as far back as seven years ago. It was included as an option in the current Mayor’s transport strategy. Transport for London then consulted on the broad proposition of pay-as-you-drive at the same time as the expansion of the ULEZ to outer London.
However, while the ULEZ expansion did eventually go ahead last year, the level of controversy around this policy gave rise to a ‘war on motorists’ narrative, even though 46 per cent of London households do not have access to a car. The toxic rhetoric reached a point that any further changes to how drivers in London are charged became politically untenable. Indeed, when challenged by Assembly members and in Mayoral husting on his intention to introduce pay-as-you-drive Sadiq Khan was forced to rule it out if he won another term, despite writing in his book last year that pay-as-you-drive would be introduced “by the end of the decade at the latest”.
It is unfortunate that the pay-as-you-drive policy has seemingly been ruled out as it would genuinely be beneficial and fairer for Londoners in a number of ways:
- It would be cheaper: people would be charged per mile rather than a relatively high set daily charge like the current schemes, so for the vast majority of drivers who do relatively short or few journeys, it would be cut costs.
- It would be smarter: different cars can be charged different rates based on emission bands. Rather than the stark cut-off points for ULEZ compliance, cleaner vehicles would simply pay less. Different rates can also apply to driving in central, inner or outer London, taking into account congestion and the availability of public transport – which would be fairer to people with a genuine lack of transport alternatives.
- It would be simpler: in addition to the ULEZ and Congestion Charge, from next year motorists will start paying a toll for crossing the Blackwall and the new Silvertown tunnels to help regulate demand, making the landscape even more complicated to manage. Replacing all these schemes with a single scheme that considers both congestion and pollution would actually make things much simpler for motorists.
This means that politicians who have built a negative narrative around the ULEZ, much as there are legitimate concerns around its impact, have actually denied London drivers a better alternative to it.
Sadly, the discourse in London has also affected other areas, with many Mayoral and local council candidates proceeding with caution not only around schemes like Clean Air Zones, but also around other sensible sustainable transport policies like bus lanes, for fear of being labelled ‘anti-motorist’.
Central government has also fallen foul of this tendency, with the publication of the Plan for Drivers which challenges the policies necessary to improve sustainable transport. Ironically, it won’t be long before pay-as-you-drive needs to be considered at a national level. With the move towards electric vehicles, revenue from petrol and diesel duty will start declining, eventually opening up a £28 billion gap for the Treasury. Pay-as-you-drive would be a sensible way to begin fairly tax electric vehicle drivers, and this was recognised by the cross-party House of Commons Transport Committee a couple of years ago. Importantly, our own research has shown that pay-as-you-drive has high levels of support with the public.
Any candidates using pay-as-you-drive as a political football may be scoring an own goal – locally, denying residents a fair way to reduce congestion and pollution, and nationally, losing potentially billions that need to be invested in road repairs and public transport. With a general election on the horizon, let’s have a sensible debate rather than short-term expediency.
