Think-tank recommends UK-wide congestion charging
Congestion charging – only operating in London at present – should be extended to the whole of the UK, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research.
The left-of-centre think-tank claims that the additional charge for motorists is the only way to curb traffic growth and pollution. The sweetener for motorists is that the ippr has suggested scrapping road tax.
In a report published today the ippr also suggests that the extra revenue raised should be ring-fenced to pay for better roads and public transport.
Julie Foley, ippr transport researcher, noted that introducing such charges would be ‘politically challenging’. But she added: ‘In the coming years there is likely to be little extra money for transport as health and education will be the priority spending areas. Congestion charging could not only help to reduce traffic and cut pollution but also provide a much-needed source of revenue for paying for better roads and public transport.’
Motoring organisations have greeted the proposals with contempt, claiming that it would signify another expense for drivers on top of what are already the highest fuel costs in Europe.
However, the Commission for Integrated Transport has shown that overall motoring costs in countries such as the UK, France and Germany are broadly comparable, and that the price of driving and owning a car is actually falling in real terms.
The Government forecasts that traffic will grow by between 20% and 25% by the end of the decade. And environmentalists fear that rising road transport emissions could endanger the prospects of meeting the Government’s climate change target to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010.
If congestion charges were added on top of fuel taxes, it could reduce traffic by 7%, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8% and increase bus patronage by 11%, according to the ippr.
However, John Dawson of the AA, described the proposal as ‘an example of not really thinking the problem through’. He claimed that the report didn’t suggest different payment options, or actual incentives to reduce car use.
And he added: ‘Its basic thesis is just plain wrong; carbon dioxide emissions from cars aren’t growing, they haven’t grown for ten years and they’re actually going to fall.’
