Local authority and academic attitudes to urban road pricing:

a UK perspective
S. Ison
*
Anglia Business School, Anglia Polytechnic University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK
Received 1 August 1999; revised 1 April 2000; accepted 1 April 2000
Abstract
Urban road pricing as an instrument of trafc management has generated a great deal of interest in the UK in recent years. Whilst this is the
case there is still no urban road pricing scheme in operation in the UK. The reason for this is primarily one of `acceptability.' This paper,
through the use of a national survey, examines the attitudes of key stakeholder groups with respect to urban road pricing. How serious is
trafc congestion and trafc related pollution perceived to be by Local Authority Councillors, Ofcials and the Academic community in the
UK? How is urban road pricing viewed by this sub-group of the population in terms of its effectiveness and public acceptance when
compared to other policy options? and how could the saleability of urban road pricing be improved? This raises issues in terms of how the
revenue raised from urban road pricing should be utilised, the use of urban road pricing as part of a package of measures, the concerns
expressed by the stakeholders with respect to urban road pricing, such as the invasion of road users' privacy, and the type of technology
which should be considered. Overall, the paper aims to further the debate among policy makers. q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Urban road pricing; Attitudes; Local authority; Academic community
1. The UK policy background
Urban road pricing has generated considerable interest in
recent years and the UK Government has stimulated the
debate with such reports as the House of Commons Trans-
port Committee Report on Urban Road Pricing (1995) and
the ndings from `The London Congestion Charging
Research Programme' (1995). In fact, as part of the Govern-
ment's White Paper on the Future of Transport (Department
of the Environment Transport and the Regions, 1998a) it
was stated that `We will therefore introduce legislation to
allow local authorities to charge road users so as to reduce
congestion, as part of a package of measures in a local
transport plan that would include improving public trans-
port. The use of revenues to benet transport serving the
area where charges applywill be critical to the success of
such schemes.' There has been recognition therefore of the
need to ring fence the revenue raised from urban road
pricing and in the Government's consultation paper `Break-
ing the Logjam: The Government's consultation paper on
ghting trafc congestion and pollution through road user
and workplace parking charges, published in December
(Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions,
1998b), it stated that `local authorities which bring forward
pilot road user charging schemes should be able to retain
100% of the net revenue generated for at least 10 years from
the implementation of a schemeprovided that there are
worthwhile transport related projects to be funded.' At the
time of writing this paper the Transport Bill is proceeding
through the House of Commons and this includes powers
allowing a charging scheme to be made and operated by
local authorities. In addition, the Greater London Authority
Act 1999 has conferred road user charging powers in
Greater London. With respect to the Bill it is stated that
`A local charging scheme may only be made if it appears
desirable for the purpose of directly or indirectly facilitating
the achievement of policies in the charging authority's local
transport plan. The Bill also contains a provision requiring
`documents to be displayed while a motor vehicle is on a
road in respect of which charges are imposed, or equipment
to be carried in or tted to a motor vehicle while it is on such
a road.' In this respect the Secretary of State may approve
standards for the equipment used in terms of operating
charging schemes.
There are currently 25 English Authorities tentatively
interested in piloting road user charging or workplace
parking levies (Local Transport Today, 2000). In addition
Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 PERGAMON
0967-070X/00/$ - see front matter q 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0967-070X(00)00019-6
www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol
* Tel.: 144-1223-363271; fax: 144-1223-352900.
E-mail address: s.g.ison@anglia.ac.uk (S. Ison).
Edinburgh is also actively considering road user charging
and cites 2004 as a possible start date. Bristol and Leeds are
thinking of much the same time scale whilst Derbyshire
County Council could have a road user charging scheme
in place on a limited scale in part of the Peak District
National Park by spring 2001.
Whilst the Transport Bill will give local authorities the
power to introduce a road user charging scheme and certain
authorities have expressed an interest in at least, piloting a
scheme, there are still a number of hurdles to be overcome,
not least the issue of acceptance. On the whole there is a
dearth of studies seeking to ascertain public and decision-
makers attitudes to congestion and urban road pricing. This
paper seeks to address the lack of studies with respect to
decision-makers attitudes namely that of Local Government
Councillors and Ofcials or those who help form opinion
such as transport academics and certain transport interest
groups.
The following section seeks to present a brief outline of a
number of attitudinal studies relating to urban road pricing.
This is followed by Sections 3 and 4 which detail the results
of a survey aimed at ascertaining the opinions of decision-
makers and opinion formers with respect to congestion and
trafc related pollution in the UK? How effective and
publicly acceptable they perceive urban road pricing to be
as a means of dealing with congestion? How could urban
road pricing be made more acceptable in terms of the use of
urban road pricing revenue, what are perceived to be the
main areas of concern with respect to urban road pricing and
what type of technology should be utilised? Finally, an
attempt is made to compare the results of the survey of
local authority and academic attitudes to urban road pricing
with those outlined in Section 2.
2. Attitudes to urban road pricing
A survey undertaken almost a decade ago aimed at ascer-
taining Londoner's views to road user charging (NEDO,
1991). Of the sample approximately two-thirds used the
car for all (or part) of their journey to work. Taken in isola-
tion less than half (43%) of those interviewed regarded road
user charging as acceptable
1
whilst over half (53%)
regarded it as unacceptable. If however the revenue raised
from a road user charge was spent on policies in the way
they suggested, then the acceptability increased consider-
ably with 62% regarding it as acceptable whilst 33% still
considered it as unacceptable. In terms of allocating the
revenue, then Londoner's required 38% to be spent on
improvements in public transport, particularly in London,
25% to be spent on road improvements (60% of which
should be spent on improving roads in the London area)
and 14% on non-transport government services such as
the NHS and Social Services.
In terms of UK public attitudes to urban trafc problems
and possible counter measures Jones (1991) undertook a
poll of polls. This related to the level of support for different
measures aimed at limiting trafc congestion in various
national and London surveys. It revealed that the strongest
support was for the provision of alternatives to car use, most
notably Park and Ride schemes, the improvement in public
transport and the encouragement of cycling and walking.
Regulations were next, with better enforcement of parking,
and restrictions on cars entering central areas receiving
majority support. Support for more road building was
expressed by about half the population but the introduction
of some form of urban road pricing in inner and central city
areas was generally only supported by a minority of those
interviewed. A general increase in petrol tax was even less
popular. The view was that road pricing was being held in
reserve as a `policy of last resort.' Jones (1998) returned to
this point by stating that the lack of a need for road pricing
can be argued on the grounds that `Trafc containment or
reduction is needed, but it could be better or more appro-
priately achieved in other ways. Either by simply improving
modal alternatives (for example `better public transport') or
through the use of other restraint measures such as bans on
road trafc in major shopping streets, or restrictions on
access to certain parts of the road network. Something less
`draconian' will sufce.'
A recent RAC Report on Motoring (2000) concludes that
trafc congestion in towns and cities is perceived as the
major transport problem in Britain today. In fact 83% of
motorists surveyed viewed it thus (in 1999) compared to
72% in 1995. In terms of air pollution 60% perceived it as
a major transport problem compared with 71% in 1995. As
for major transport problems having reached a critical level
and requiring immediate action in Britain today, then 60%
of respondents cited trafc congestion in towns and cities
while 32% believed air pollution has reached a critical
point.
In terms of support for various policy options, then the
Report found that there is net opposition of minus 58% for
charging motorists to drive into town centres. This is
compared with minus 71% for an increase in the price of
diesel and minus 89% for charging 6% extra on fuel over
and above ination each year. As for how the taxes raised
through motoring should be spent, then in response to the
question `taxes raised through motoring should be mainly
spent on public transport' then 40% either tended to agree or
strongly agreed whilst 38% tended to disagree or strongly
disagreed. If the question asked was `taxes raised through
motoring should be spent mainly on roads' then 88% tended
to agree or strongly agreed compared to 4% either tending to
disagree or strongly disagreeing.
As part of the Government's consultation to Breaking the
Logjam, comments were invited and 665 responses were
received, 32% of which were from local authorities. These
were published as part of Breaking the Logjam: The
Government's Response to the Consultation (Department
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 270
1
Mainly `fairly', rather than `totally' acceptable.
of the Environment Transport and the Regions, 2000). A
number of key issues emerged not least, a strong concern
that the revenue raised from road user charging `should be
hypothecated to fund better local transport, and that this
should be additional to existing transport funding.' In fact,
44% of all responses stressed the importance of ring-fencing
the revenue from new charges in order to fund better local
transport. Hypothecation was perceived as being essential in
terms of achieving new charge acceptance. In addition,
there was concern that `some transport improvements
need to be made before or at the same time as charges are
introduced.' Again this was seen as all-important in helping
to make charging more politically acceptable locally.
Another key concern was `the need to maintain healthy,
thriving towns and cities if charging schemes are intro-
duced.' This was an issue raised by 30% of local authorities
and many businesses.
The aim of this section has been to give a brief overview
of a limited number of surveys, which have sought to ascer-
tain the attitudes of various groups to the issue of urban road
pricing. The following two sections detail the results of a
national road trafc survey aimed at ascertaining decision-
makers attitudes to urban road pricing.
3. Method
In order to obtain the opinions of the key stakeholder
groups a National Survey was undertaken. Table 1 gives a
summary of the individuals who received the survey and the
response rate. The Municipal Year Book was used as a
source for determining the recipients of the survey for
each local authority in England. Six distinct groups where
identied in terms of local authorities with a direct interest
in urban road trafc issues as detailed in Table 1. Two
difculties were encountered when using the Municipal
Year Book. First, there was no consistency with regards to
the names of Departments and titles given to the individual
responsible for transport planning and policy issues within a
particular Authority. It is no clearer in terms of Councillors,
and in particular the Chair of the respective Transport
Committees. Second, Local Authorities have been subject
to a high degree of reorganisation in recent years, leading to
frequent changes in Departmental names and staff respon-
sibilities. For both these reasons it was deemed necessary to
telephone the Department of each Local Authority most
likely to be responsible for transport planning and policy
issues. As such it was possible to obtain the name and of-
cial title of the individual with key responsibility for trafc
issues and in particular urban congestion and the policies for
dealing with it. At this stage the name/s of particular Coun-
cillor/s, who chair the Transport Committee was also ascer-
tained. This exercise proved most useful in determining
contact names, titles and addresses (if different from the
Municipal Year Book), to which the Urban Trafc Survey
should be sent.
The high response rate illustrated in Table 1, can be
attributed in part to determining contact names prior to
sending out the questionnaire and also, perhaps more impor-
tantly, to the considerable interest and concern regarding the
trafc issues involved.
In terms of the Academic community three particular
groups were identied, namely Economists, Planners and
Civil Engineers. Since an interest in transport was of para-
mount importance then simply distributing the question-
naire to the Heads of the particular Departments within
UK Universities would/could have resulted in a disappoint-
ing response. It was thus decided to use two sources, namely
transport related Journals and the University Transport
Studies Group. As such, ve Transport Journals were
consulted over the previous six years. The aim was to obtain
the names of UK academics who had contributed to those
Journals over the period in question. In addition the contact
names for the University Transport Studies Group in UK
Universities was also utilised. In a number of instances there
was an overlap between the two listings, as might be
expected.
A third group was also identied namely the `transport
interest group', which could be sub-divided into the Road
User Interest Group, the Environmental Group and Profes-
sional Bodies. In this area two sources were consulted,
namely, the Associations and Professional Bodies of the
United Kingdom and the Directory of British Associations.
This paper will however concentrate on the opinions of local
authority Councillors and Ofcials and the Academic
community.
The questionnaire was piloted with individuals from local
authorities and academics, who were not part of the nal
mailing of the survey. This proved useful in terms of iden-
tifying issues of clarity and content and as such all criticisms
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 271
Table 1
Summary of questionnaire response rate
Number of
questionnaires
mailed out
Number of
respondents
Response
rate (%)
Local authorities
County Ofcials 47 41 87
County Councillors 55 39 71
Metropolitan Ofcials 36 28 78
Metropolitan Councillors 36 23 64
London Ofcials 32 23 72
London Councillors 31 16 52
Academics
Economists 40 25 63
Planners 25 18 72
Civil Engineers 38 27 71
Transport Interest Groups
Road User Interest Groups 15 7 47
Environmental Groups 4 1 25
Professional Bodies 10 6 60
Total 369 254 69
and suggested improvements were dealt with as deemed
appropriate. The nal questionnaire survey was conducted
over a three-month period. Each respondent was mailed a
self-completion questionnaire and a second class pre-paid
addressed envelope together with a covering letter explain-
ing the purpose of the survey and the fact that the respon-
dents personal view was required. Any respondent who had
failed to return a completed questionnaire within three-
weeks was mailed a further questionnaire.
4. Findings
4.1. The seriousness of congestion and pollution in the UK
Respondents were asked `How serious do you consider
the current levels of trafc congestion and trafc related
pollution to be in towns and cities of the UK?' The results
are given in Table 2.
As revealed, 83.6% of respondents viewed congestion as
being serious or very serious in the towns and cities of the
UK. In terms of pollution the gures were somewhat lower
at 73.1%, although still cause for concern.
The respondents can be split into specic groupings,
namely Councillors and Ofcials at County, Metropolitan
Borough and London Borough level and academics, Econ-
omists, Planners and Civil Engineers.
Table 2 reveals that:
with the exception of London Borough Councillors all
Local Authority groups view congestion as more serious
than trafc related pollution in towns and cities of the
UK;
Councillors in all three areas perceive congestion and
trafc related pollution as more serious than Ofcials.
In fact, over 90% of Councillors view congestion as
serious or very serious;
in terms of academic opinion Economists, Planners and
Civil Engineers all view trafc congestion as more
serious than trafc related pollution (serious or very
serious);
although this is the case, if one simply takes very serious
as a benchmark, then the situation is somewhat different.
All three groups of Councillors view trafc related pollu-
tion as more serious on this basis when compared with
congestion. In terms of London Borough Councillors
75% view pollution as being `very serious.' In fact if
`very serious' is used then all but Metropolitan Borough
Councillors, Economists and Civil Engineers view pollu-
tion as more serious; and
the strength of feeling hardens the more urbanised the
area, particularly for Ofcials. For example, 67.5% of
County Ofcials and 92.1% of County Councillors
view congestion as being serious or very serious, whereas
in the London Boroughs the gures are 91.3 and 93.8%
respectively. If one considers trafc-related pollution,
then for the same groups the gures increase from 57.5
and 86.8% to 86.4 and 100%, respectively.
Given the perception that current levels of trafc conges-
tion and trafc related pollution are serious or very serious
in towns and cities of the UK then the question raised is
what can be viewed as effective and acceptable methods of
dealing with the problem?
4.2. Effective policy options for reducing congestion
The National Urban Road Trafc Survey was undertaken
on a 5 point scale. In terms of `effectiveness' illustrated in
Table 3 for all respondents, 1 is taken to be `totally ineffec-
tive' and 5 as `totally effective.' On this basis, Selective
expansion of road construction was perceived as the least
effective and the Banning or restricting of vehicles in central
areas perceived as the most effective.
The Table reveals the implementation of urban road
pricing as one of the most effective options for dealing
with urban trafc congestion. In fact, 81.6% of respondents
viewed urban road pricing as being totally or fairly effective
with only the Banning or restricting of vehicles in central
areas seen as being more effective. This is also the case if the
only category considered is `totally effective.' In this case
the response in terms of the implementation of urban road
pricing and the banning of vehicles is 22.1 and 33.7%,
respectively.
4.3. The acceptability of policy options
In terms of publicly acceptable (totally or fairly accepta-
ble) then the opinion is somewhat different to the one for
effectiveness. As regards the implementation of urban road
pricing only 11.4% view it as being totally or fairly
acceptable, as illustrated in Table 4, and if only `totally
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 272
Table 2
Strength of feeling with respect to the seriousness of congestion and trafc
related pollution in towns and cities in the UK
Respondents Trafc congestion
(serious or very serious %)
Trafc related pollution
(serious or very serious %)
County Council
Ofcials 67.5 57.5
Councillors 92.1 86.8
Metropolitan Borough
Ofcials 78.6 64.3
Councillors 91.3 78.3
London Borough
Ofcials 91.3 86.4
Councillors 93.8 100.0
Economists 83.3 62.5
Planners 100.0 88.9
Civil Engineers 73.1 53.8
All 83.6 73.1
acceptable' is considered then the gure is 2.4% with only
the `selective expansion of road construction in urban areas'
being lower, at 2.1%.
The most publicly acceptable relate to improving alter-
native modes of transport to the private car. Measures such
as improvement in the frequency and reliability of public
transport, cheaper public transport fares, the creation of a
comprehensive network of safe cycle and walking routes
which do not involve the use of heavy trafcked roads and
the introduction or expansion of park and ride services are to
the fore. Even if `totally acceptable' is considered
then gures for the above are 64.9, 63.0, 47.3 and 31.4%,
respectively.
4.4. A comparison of effectiveness and acceptability
Table 5 illustrates the four most effective and publicly
acceptable policy options as perceived by Councillors, Of-
cials and Academics.
The Table reveals that:
banning vehicles in urban areas is seen as one of the most
effective methods of dealing with congestion in urban
areas for all groups;
there is a preponderance of the `stick approach' in terms
of the perceived effectiveness of various policy options,
particularly chosen by Ofcials and Academics;
with respect to acceptability the `carrot approach'
prevails, most notably through public transport improve-
ments, cheaper public transport fares, park and ride
improvements and a comprehensive network of safe
cycle and walking routes; and
with respect to Councillors, the traditional decision-
makers, there is a degree of overlap between effective-
ness and acceptabilityin the area of public transport
improvement, cheaper fares and park and ride, as well as
a land use and transport planning strategy.
It could be argued that the results given in Table 5, namely
trafc management and public transport improvements are
understandably `preferred' to pricing policies because these
so-called `carrots' would be offered free.
Since urban road pricing is perceived as being unaccep-
table however by all the groups surveyed and in fact not that
relatively effective, by Councillors, then the question arises
as to what can be done in order to improve the saleability of
such a policy? As such, certain issues require consideration
and these are addressed as follows.
4.5. The use of urban road pricing revenue
In relation to urban road pricing Goodwin (1989) argues
that the closer a scheme comes to actual implementation
then the more necessary it is to dene details. In addition,
he states that contending pressures by different interest
groups rather than the particular state of public opinion at
a moment in time need to be accounted for. As such, he
suggests that the legitimacy of the competing arguments
should be built into the scheme design from the beginning.
In order to ascertain how the revenue should be utilised
the survey asked each respondent to allocate 100 units of
money to various policies. This is similar to the survey
undertaken by National Economic Development Ofce
(1991). The 100 units represented the total amount of
money raised from urban road pricing and Table 6 outlines
the response for the sample as a whole, to the question
`Imagine you have 100 units of money to spend, which
represents the total amount of money raised by urban road
pricing. How do you think the units should be allocated to
the various policies?'
The response reveals:
that the respondents allocated the largest proportion of
the revenue generated from urban road pricing to the
improvement of public transport. In fact, the view was
that 56% of the revenue raised should be allocated to that
particular policy, of which approximately 80% should be
spent in the area in which urban road pricing is intro-
duced. Improving the road network was the second-rank-
ing area of expenditure, approximately 16% in terms of
both improvement in the area in which urban road pricing
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 273
Table 3
Effective policy options for reducing trafc congestion in towns and cities
of the UK % (all respondents)
Policy option Totally/fairly
ineffective (%)
Totally/fairly
effective (%)
Selective expansion of road
construction in urban areas
55.1 35.2
The encouragement of home
working
38.8 28.6
The encouragement of car
sharing
39.4 28.9
The creation of a
comprehensive network of safe
cycle and walking routes which
do not involve the use of heavy
trafcked roads
19.9 56.1
An increase in the price of
petrol to 5 per gallon
18.9 62.1
Introduction or expansion of
park and ride sites
3.5 67.8
Cheaper public transport fares 15.0 65.4
A doubling of parking charges
in urban areas
13.4 73.2
An improvement in the
frequency and reliability of
public transport
9.7 77.4
The development of a land use
and transport planning strategy
7.8 80.8
The implementation of urban
road pricing
11.5 81.6
Banning/restricting vehicles in
central areas
4.9 87.4
is introduced and nationally. As with public transport
however, the preference was for the revenue raised
from urban road pricing to be spent locally on road
network improvements (80%). The third ranking area
of expenditure was for the better enforcement of trafc
regulations, such as the strengthening of parking
controls. Other options such as spending on non-transport
services and reducing the Council Tax were given a much
lower priority with little overall support. It is interesting
to note that an allocation of revenue to non-transport
areas was only in the region of 10% of the overall spend-
ing available;
a preference was expressed for local as opposed to
national expenditure. Discounting `Better enforcement
of trafc regulations, such as strengthening of parking
controls' for which no local/national allocation was
stipulated, then the suggestion was that 76% of spending
should be utilised in the area in which urban road pricing
is introduced; and
the information presented in Table 6 can be broken down
into the various stakeholder groups (not detailed in this
paper). It reveals consistently strong support for using the
revenue raised from urban road pricing to improve public
transport.
Overall the gures given in Table 6 are perhaps not too
surprising since one would expect decision-makers and
those who have to implement policy to favour expenditure
on improving public transport services.
4.6. Urban road pricing as part of a package of measures
The respondents were asked `If an urban road pricing
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 274
Table 4
Publicly acceptable policy options for reducing trafc congestion in the
towns and cities of the UK % (all respondents)
Policy options Totally unacceptable/
not very acceptable
Totally/fairly
acceptable
An increase in the price of
petrol to 5 per gallon
89.1 5.6
The implementation of urban
road pricing
79.7 11.4
A doubling of parking charges
in urban areas
77.6 13.5
Selective expansion of road
construction in urban areas
60.4 26.7
Banning/restricting vehicles in
central areas
46.9 38.0
The encouragement of car
sharing
15.8 50.0
The encouragement of home
working
10.9 60.7
The development of a land use
and transport planning strategy
1.6 80.7
Introduction or expansion of
park and ride sites
3.8 84.9
The creation of a
comprehensive network of safe
cycle and walking routes which
do not involve the use of heavy
trafcked roads
2.5 88.5
Cheaper public transport fares 3.8 91.6
An improvement in the
frequency and reliability of
public transport
1.6 94.2
Table 5
A comparison of the most effective and most acceptable policy options with
respect to reducing trafc congestion listed in terms `Totally and Fairly'
effective and acceptable (%)
Effectiveness Acceptability
County Ofcials
85.4 Parking charges 90.0 Cycle/walk routes
85.4 Land use strategy 92.5 Land use strategy
85.4 Urban road pricing 95.0 P T improvement
90.2 Banning vehicles 95.0 Cheaper PT fares
Metropolitan Borough Ofcials
64.3 Petrol price 85.2 Park and Ride
71.4 Land use strategy 96.3 Cycle/walk routes
85.7 Banning vehicles 96.3 Cheaper PT fares
89.3 Urban road pricing 96.4 P T improvement
London Borough Ofcials
81.8 Land use strategy 77.3 Park and Ride
87.0 Parking charges 90.9 Cycle/walk routes
87.0 Banning vehicles 90.9 P T improvement
91.3 Urban road pricing 95.5 Cheaper PT fares
County Councillors
81.1 P T improvement 82.9 P T improvement
83.8 Land use strategy 88.9 Cycle/walk routes
91.4 Banning vehicles 91.2 Cheaper PT fares
97.3 Park and Ride 100 Park and Ride
Metropolitan Borough Councillors
85.7 Cheaper PT fares 83.3 Park and Ride
86.4 P T improvement 84.2 Cycle/walk routes
91.3 Banning vehicles 89.5 P T improvement
100 Land use strategy 94.4 Cheaper PT fares
London Borough Councillors
85.7 Land use strategy 93.3 Cheaper PT fares
85.7 Banning vehicles 100 Land use strategy
100. Cheaper PT fares 100 P T improvement
100. P T improvement 100 Cycle/walk routes
Economists
87.0 Parking charges 80.0 Cycle/walk routes
87.5 Petrol price 84.0 Park and Ride
91.3 Banning vehicles 87.0 Cheaper PT fares
91.7 Urban road pricing 100.PT improvement
Civil Engineers
70.4 Petrol price 74.1 Park and Ride
77.8 Banning vehicles 85.2 Cycle/walk routes
88.9 Land use strategy 88.9 Cheaper PT fares
88.9 Urban road pricing 96.3 P T improvement
Planners
72.2 P T improvement 83.3 Park and Ride
73.1 Land use strategy 89.9 Home working
94.1 Urban road price 94.4 Cycle/walk routes
94.4 Banning vehicles 100 P T improvement
scheme was introduced and the money spent in the way you
suggested, how publicly acceptable would you now think
urban road pricing would be?' The results for all the respon-
dents is shown in Table 7 which compares support for urban
road pricing before and after the question relating to the
specic allocation of urban road pricing revenue has been
asked. It reveals that taken in isolation only 11.3% of those
who completed the survey viewed urban road pricing as
acceptable (either totally or fairly) and approximately
80% regarded it as being unacceptable (either not very
acceptable or totally unacceptable). If however the revenue
raised by an urban road-pricing scheme was spent on
specic policy options, as indicated in Table 6, then
urban road pricing was perceived as more acceptable.
In fact, if the revenue is allocated to specic policies
such as improved public transport, then over 50% would
regard urban road pricing as acceptable. There is
however approximately 30% who would still consider
it as unacceptable.
The information presented in Table 7 can be broken down
in order to provide detail of the opinions of the various
stakeholder groups (not detailed in this paper) and this
reveals consistently strong support for urban road
pricing if the revenue is allocated to specic policy
areas. The level of acceptability (both totally and fairly)
is in excess of 50% for all groups apart from Metropo-
litan Borough Ofcers and Councillors, 32.1 and 36.4%,
respectively.
4.7. Issues of concern
The national survey asked `If an urban road pricing
scheme was introduced how concerned would you be
about each of the following issues?' The results for all the
respondents is shown in Table 8.
The Table illustrates a number of important issues relat-
ing to urban road pricing and it is possible to separate them
into issues of principle and practice. Issues of principle
relate to aspects such as whether road users should in fact
be charged for the use of road space and the invasion of road
users' privacy aspect of urban road pricing. Practical issues
relate to the `practicalities' of introducing an urban road
pricing schemethe uncertainty and lack of detailed
knowledge of issues such as who should be exempt, how
an urban road pricing scheme would integrate with other
congestion management measures, how the scheme would
be enforced, the adequacy of public transport provision and
how the revenue raised from an urban road pricing scheme
would be utilised. What is clear from Table 8 is that two
main issues of principle, mainly `the fact that the introduc-
tion of urban road pricing would mean that in congested
periods the road user would have to pay for the use of the
road' and `the invasion of road users' privacy' are of least
concern to respondents, whereas practical issues particu-
larly in terms of `the need for clearly stated objectives
with respect to urban road pricing', `public transport provi-
sion' and `how the revenue raised is being utilised' are
deemed of greatest concern. It is perhaps somewhat surpris-
ing that the principle of charging for the use of road space
was of least concernwith 77.5% of respondents being
either `very' or `fairly unconcerned' with respect to that
issue. On the other hand the lack of real concern in terms
of `the invasion of road users' privacy' may be a result of the
development of pricing technology.
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 275
Table 6
Allocation of the revenue raised from urban road pricing to various policy
options (all respondents)
Policy options Allocation of revenue
to each policy (%)
Improving public transport in the
area in which urban road pricing
is introduced
44.45
Improving the road network in
the area where urban road pricing
is introduced
12.51
Better enforcement of trafc
regulations, such as
strengthening of parking controls
11.65
Improving public transport in
urban areas nationally
11.59
Reducing the Council Tax in the
area where urban road pricing is
introduced
4.18
Improving the urban road
network nationally
3.30
Spending on non-transport
government services, such as
Health and Education, in the
urban area where urban road
pricing is introduced
3.12
Spending on non-transport
government services, such as
Health and Education nationally
2.86
Reducing Vehicle Excise Duty
nationally
2.13
Other 1.80
Reducing the Council Tax
nationally
0.64
Total 98.23
a
a
The total does not sum to 100% since there were a very small number of
nil returns from the respondents.
Table 7
The public acceptability of urban road pricing: Before and after the revenue
has been allocated to various policy options (%) (all respondents)
Before revenue
allocation (%)
After revenue
allocation
(%)
Totally/Fairly acceptable 11.3 54.6
Neither 8.9 15.7
Not very acceptable/
Totally unacceptable
79.7 29.7
4.8. The type of technology utilised
Table 9 reveals respondents attitudes to various methods
of urban road pricing. The ndings are inconclusive which
is somewhat surprising since, as revealed in Section 4.6,
over 54% of the respondents viewed urban road pricing as
being acceptable if the revenue was allocated to specic
policy options. Of the schemes illustrated it can be seen
that an Area Licence appears to be the most acceptable. In
fact, 40.7% perceived the Area Licence as fairly or totally
acceptable, although a similar percentage (42%) viewed it
as being unacceptable (totally or not very acceptable).
There was however much less support and a greater
strength of negative feeling towards the other methods of
urban road pricing. For example, only 31.3% viewed the
smartcard method, along the lines envisaged for Cambridge
city 19901993 (Ison 1996) as being acceptable compared
with 53% unacceptable.
5. Conclusions
What is clear from the survey is that key stakeholders
perceive the problem of trafc congestion and trafc related
pollution to be serious or very serious in towns and cities of
the UK. The motorists responding as part of the RAC Report
on Motoring (2000) (see Section 2) are of a similar opinion.
In terms of Local Councillors, the traditional decision-
makers, the problem is viewed as more serious than Ofcials
and in fact more serious among London Councillors and
Ofcials than in other areas of the country. This being so
then one would perhaps expect a policy option such as urban
road pricing, to be viewed as effective as a means of redu-
cing congestion. This is in fact the case in terms of respon-
dents as a whole, along with the banning/restricting of
vehicles in central areas, the public transport option and
increasing parking charges. If however, the individual
stakeholder groups are considered it reveals that whereas
there is strong support for urban road pricing among certain
groups such as Economists, there is somewhat less support
among Councillors. For Councillors, public transport
improvements and cheaper fares, banning and restricting
vehicles in central areas and land use and transport planning
strategies are viewed as more effective.
As regards public acceptability, approximately 80% of
the respondents view urban road pricing as being publicly
unacceptable. The more acceptable measures include public
transport improvements, the creation of a comprehensive
network of safe cycling and walking routes and a land use
and transport planning strategy.
There are however a number of measures which can be
undertaken in order to address the situation. If the revenue
raised from urban road pricing is allocated to specic
areas it will improve acceptability. The results of the
survey suggest devoting over 50% of the revenue to
improving public transport, with an overall preference
for local as opposed to national expenditure. This view
is consistent among the various stakeholders. If the
revenue is allocated as suggested, in fact as part of a
package of measures, then the level of acceptability
increases substantially with over 50% of the respondents
viewing it as acceptable (although 30% still view it as
unacceptable). The surprise however is not that 80% of
respondents view urban road pricing as being publicly
unacceptable nor that when `packaged' with public trans-
port improvements that proportion falls to less than 30%
(a similar nding to the National Economic Development
Ofce, 1991), but that 11% would accept it without any
guarantee on reinvesting the revenue.
In addition, one would expect demand management
measures, which offer improvements to travellers in urban
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 276
Table 8
Concern with respect to urban road pricing (all respondents)
Issues Very/fairly
unconcerned (%)
Very/fairly
concerned (%)
Fact that the introduction of
urban road pricing would
mean that in congested
periods the road user would
have to pay for the use of the
road
77.5 14.0
Invasion of road user privacy 54.6 26.3
The impact on delivery
vehicles and commercial
trafc
13.7 61.8
Exemption for certain groups 15.4 69.6
How urban road pricing would
be integrated with other
congestion management
measures
15.2 75.6
The cost of implementing an
urban road pricing scheme
12.4 77.2
Equity/fairness of an urban
road pricing scheme
14.5 77.1
The reliability and accuracy of
urban road pricing equipment
12.8 75.2
The economic impact on the
urban area in which urban
road pricing is introduced
6.4 83.2
Enforcement of an urban road
pricing scheme
7.6 82.8
The need for clearly stated
objectives, such as, the
regulation of trafc demand,
the achievement of
environmental benets and
the raising of revenue for
investment in transport
systems
4.4 91.6
The public transport provision
once urban road pricing is
introduced
4.8 92.8
How the revenue raised from
urban road pricing would be
used
1.6 93.6
areas, at no cost to themselves, to be preferred over
those that do. Hence improvements in the frequency and
reliability of public transport, cheaper public transport
fares, the creation of a comprehensive network of safe
cycle and walking routes and the introduction or expansion
of park and ride sites rather than an increase in the price of
petrol, doubling of parking charges or the implementation of
urban road pricing are perceived as more acceptable. The
improved demand management measures do however
require nancing and ring-fencing the revenue raised from
urban road pricing offers an ideal opportunity, as well as
being critical for the success of such schemes. Local Autho-
rities will, as part of their local transport plan be required to
allocate the revenue raised from urban road pricing on
`worthwhile transport related projects.' This will call for
careful consideration since whereas the survey of Local
Authorities and Academics suggests devoting over 50% to
improving public transport, the NEDO Report of
Londoners' views suggested allocating somewhat less, at
38%, with 25% on road improvements. In terms of the
response to the RAC Report on Motoring, 88% of motorists
agreed that `taxes raised through motoring should be spent
mainly on roads.' Hence there is a need for assiduity in
revenue allocation if acceptance of urban road pricing is
to be required.
It is certainly the case that the issue of how the revenue
raised from urban road pricing would be utilised, along with
the public transport provision once urban road pricing is
introduced are major areas of concern to key stakeholder
groups. These survey ndings are reinforced by the
evidence received as part of the Government's consultation
to `Breaking the Logjam' (2000).
Similarly, the type of technology utilised also requires
considerable thought since the ndings are inconclusive in
terms of acceptance.
Acknowledgements
I amindebted to Dr John Preston and an anonymous referee
for their many helpful observations and recommendations.
References
Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, 1998a. A New
Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone, Cm 3950, The Government's
White Paper on the Future of Transport, London: The Stationery Ofce.
Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, 1998b. Break-
ing the Logjam. The Government's consultation paper on ghting trafc
congestion and pollution through road user and workplace parking
charges, London: The Stationery Ofce.
Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, 2000. Breaking
the Logjam. The Government's Response to the Consultation, London:
The Stationery Ofce.
Goodwin, P., 1989. The rule of three: a possible solution to the political
problem of competing objectives for road pricing. Trafc Engineering
and Control 30, 495497.
House of Commons Transport Committee, 1995. Third Report, Urban Road
Pricing, Volume I, Report and Minutes of proceedings, 104-I, London:
HMSO.
Ison, S., 1996. Pricing road space: back to the future? The Cambridge
experience. Transport Reviews 16, 109126.
Jones, P.M., 1991. UK public attitudes to urban trafc problems and possi-
ble countermeasures: a poll of polls. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 9, 245256.
Jones, P.M., 1998. Urban road pricing: public acceptability and barriers to
implementation. In: Button K.J., Verhoef E.T. (Eds.), Road Pricing,
Trafc Congestion and the Environment: Issues of Efciency and Social
Feasibility, Edward Elgar, chap. 12.
Local Transport Today, 2000 (3 February). No fast track likely to reach
council charging promised land, Issue 282, 9.
National Economic Development Ofce, 1991. A Road User' Charge-
Londoners Views, London: NEDO.
The London Congestion Charging Research Programme, 1995. Principal
Findings, London: HMSO.
RAC Report on Motoring 2000, 2000. 12th ed.
S. Ison / Transport Policy 7 (2000) 269277 277
Table 9
Acceptability of various methods of urban road pricing % (all respondents)
Methods of urban road pricing Totally
unacceptable
Not very
acceptable
Neither
acceptable nor
unacceptable
Fairly
acceptable
Totally
acceptable
Cordon Charge which is levied each time a
vehicle enters a designated urban area
13.7 45.2 11.7 28.6 0.8
A daily, weekly or monthly Area License
which once purchased allows you to drive
within a designated urban area
7.7 34.3 17.3 38.7 2.0
A meter installed in the motor vehicle which
monitors journeys undertaken in the designated
urban area. An itemised bill is then sent to the
vehicles owner (like a telephone bill)
18.1 37.1 13.7 28.2 2.8
A meter installed in the motor vehicle which
accepts a smartcard which is purchased in
advance and from which monetary units are
deducted when average speeds (for example)
fall beneath a selected threshold.
20.9 32.1 15.7 27.3 4.0