Written evidence submitted by Mr Robin Heydon (EVP0048)

 

Accelerating the shift to zero emission vehicles

 

- The actions required by Government and private operators to encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles and the infrastructure required to support them;

 

It should be noted by the committee that heavy vehicles, including zero emission cars, vans, and lorries, will still produce particulate pollution. See https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/4a4dc6ca-en.pdf

 

The change to a road pricing model where the charge is on a vehicle using the road and not the energy used would incentivize people to use larger and less efficient and potentially more deadly vehicles in the future. This should be considered. Perhaps road pricing could be banded into a set of simple bands based on the weight of the vehicle. e.g. less than one ton would be one price bracket, less than two tons would another price bracket, less than 3 tons would be yet another, and then everything else would be the top band. Such differential pricing is already accepted on the M6 toll, although by number of axes and not vehicle weight, although the number of axes is a poor proxy for vehicle weight.

 

There are plenty of zero emission vehicles on the roads today, known as either bicycles or e-bikes. Having the Government make LTN 1/20 a required standard for all infrastructure that can be legally cycled, such as shared-use paths, would be the best way to create infrastructure that would encourage their greater uptake. At the moment, agencies such as Highways England say that they do not follow such guideance because people can walk on the same infrastructure. The Netherlands defines a cycleway as a place where people can cycle, but also allow people to walk within them. This is similar to how we define a road as a place where people can drive a car, and cycle and walk. Such a classification in the UK would significantly simplify the ability for agencies and local authorities to build new cycleways for these zero emission bicycles and e-bikes. The “shared-use” label is confusing for everybody especially

 

Road pricing

 

- The case for introducing some form of road pricing and the economic, fiscal, environmental and social impacts of doing so;

 

It should be noted that the Government revenue that comes from petrol and diesel fuel duty and taxes will reduce significantly over the coming years. The vehicle excise duty is also based on carbon pollution and therefore will also reduce significantly in the coming years. An alternative revenue stream is necessary to continue funding of local services and infrastructure such as rebuilding roads to add cycle infrastructure, building village bypasses to reduce the road danger to people within the village, and the maintenance of roads due to heavy vehicles using them.

 

It should also be noted that electric vehicles are heavier than legacy vehicles and this would imply that road maintenance will increase as the adoption of such vehicles increases.

 

Road pricing can be introduced in many different ways, but regardless of the method it should be introduced nationally. Having a different schemes in different area would be very confusing for people and increase the red-tape and local enforcement burden.

 

Fuel taxes are a blunt form of taxation in that they only measure how much fuel is used, regardless of where that fuel is used. Road pricing has the opportunity to allow other social impacts of vehicle use, such as the killing or injuring of children near schools, to also be considered.

 

- Which particular road pricing or pay-as-you-drive schemes would be most appropriate for the UK context and the practicalities of implementing such schemes;

 

I would prefer a simple model that has two complimentary pricing models.

 

The first pricing model is a "pay to access" scheme. If you access the strategic road network then you pay a one-time access free for such access. This will disincentivize trivially short journeys on the strategic road network, thereby freeing up capacity for other more strategic traffic. The access would be granted for a period of time, for example six hours, after which you would have to pay again to access this network. A “pay to acces” scheme could also be applied to an area such as a city centre. If you access a congested town centre, then you pay a one-time access free for such access. This would encourage the use of public transport or cycling to access a town centre, and disincentivize trivially short car journeys. A “pay to access” scheme for the motorway network would only need cameras on each entry ramp of the network. The M1 would only require 88 cameras.

 

The second pricing model is a "pay to pass" scheme. If you pass through a location then you have to pay to use those roads. These could be implemented to disincentivize people from driving through rat-runs, past schools, through villages when a higher quality alternative is available. Critically, if you live in such an area, because you don't pass through the location you do not pay to use your local roads. This will allow people to make a decision on who should pay to use their local roads. Such a scheme could be easily implemented by providing a camera monitoring entry and exit points. If a vehicle only enters or exits an area once, or along the same route, then no charge is made, however, if you pass through the area then a charge would be made. Guidance could be provided that would determine the minimum and maximum size of such schemes, such as saying that they should be a minimum of 250 meters in size up to a maximum of 5000 meters in size. These could then cover an individual school or a large village or neighbourhood.

 

It is important that people experience what road pricing can do before making a judgement on whether the scheme benefits society. Experience from Stockholm should be considered here where congestion charging was introduced, and then removed, and then voted upon by the people. After they experienced better public transport, cleaner streets, and more people walking and cycling, and then experienced the noise and pollution of road traffic, they voted to revert back to a permanent congestion charge. Legislation should be introduced that allows a local authority to introduce a "pay to pass" scheme for a maximum of two years. If during, or after, these two years a public consultation is undertaken that shows support for the scheme, the scheme can stay otherwise it would be removed.

 

All money from road pricing should be given back to the local transport authority where such charges are incurred such that they can then spend it on improving roads and public transport and active travel. This encourages local communities that wish to see better public transport or a bypass to be able to lobby for road pricing in their area that could be used towards paying for such improvements.

 

Regardless of the scheme(s) chosen, the pricing information should be available on an open data platform for all navigation providers (such as car companies, map providers) to have access to this pricing information so that people can make informed decisions about how much a journey will cost, and the costs of alternative routes. If such information is public on an open data platform the requirement to have expensive and visually cluttering signs on the side of the road could be reduced or removed completely. A new sign that warns of a road price could then be introduced that warns people of such an area, with the name of the area underneath. Critically, the signage should not show the price as this reduces the ability for local authorities to adjust prices over time or by time as required to manage congestion or other externalities of road traffic.

 

The prices could be adjusted based on a vehicle being driven by a person who must use a vehicle to access services such as a disabled person.

 

- The level of public support for road pricing and how the views of the public need to be considered in the development of any road pricing scheme;

 

Abolish fuel duty and replace it with road pricing. Make the initial road prices commensurate with the cost of fuel duty for a similar journey. For example, a 30 mile trip in a petrol vehicle would cost approximately £3.50 of fuel duty. If a “pay to access” scheme for the strategic road network was introduced with a £3.50 charge, then people who need to travel less than 30 miles would be disincentivized whilst people who have to travel further than this for work would have a net gain.

 

 

February 2021