RAC Foundation director Steve Gooding’s advice to Ministers was: “Go with the simplest scheme you possibly can; don’t over complicate it.” At one extreme, he pointed out, “there could be a complicated scheme of time, distance and place charges” whereas at its simplest, it could involve simply paying for distance travelled. “That is akin to the fact that, when we pay fuel duty, we are really paying in relation to the number of miles that we drive.”

A second witness pointed out that as more people adopt zero emission vehicles, they should be paying their way. Toby Poston, a director with the British Vehicle Rental & Leasing Association also said: “The longer we leave it, the more people will get used to the idea of having very low cost transport. We need to start working on it very soon.

“The whole ‘keep it simple’ message is absolutely paramount,” he added. “However, I do not think there is any reason why, with a nice, simple, distance based road pricing scheme, you could not make pricing adjustments for weight of the vehicle, emissions from the vehicle and, importantly, type of use for the vehicle.”

Road Haulage Association policy director Duncan Buchanan said he did not think technology is a barrier to distanced based road user charging. “The technology is pretty much out there, you can make it work. The simpler you make it, the easier it is.” He also described the fuel duty system as we have it today as “a proxy for road use” and therefore is “reasonably transparent and reasonably fair”.

Duncan added: “The more fuel you use and the heavier the vehicle, the more you pay. Fuel duty in and of itself is reflective of the use of the network. I do not think that road user charging will be any different; it should not be.”

Renewable Energy Association chief executive Dr Nina Skorupska told the evidence session she thinks “a place based approach with a simple road user charge is an appropriate way forward, but at the heart of it is zero emissions”.

Dr Skorupska added that consumers are becoming more familiar with zonal road charging schemes, low emission zones and congestion charges. “People are aware there is a requirement to pay. It is about how much and when, and how will that be deemed to be fair if people have taken the step of having an electric vehicle and all of a sudden they have to pay the same kinds of taxes that a polluting vehicle will pay. It is about getting that fair and proportional responsibility.”

During a second evidence session, Arup’s highways business leader Alistair Hunter said there needs to be a road pricing system “that is accessible and easy to understand nationally rather than 20 different systems”. He pointed out: “We need simplicity, but we need flexibility in what you may choose to do downstream”.

Jacobs’ director of economics John Siraut said road pricing should be introduced “at a fairly simple level to begin, with perhaps slight graduations”. He added: “People are very used to public transport having peak and off peak fares. People understand that, and perhaps over time you introduce additional granularisation into the system.”

John was asked how long it could be before a road pricing system was introduced. “If you are going for a full, all singing, all dancing pay as you drive scheme, you are probably talking five or six years. You could introduce a cordon based system relatively quickly.”

Foundation for Integrated Transport senior fellow Professor Phillip Goodwin said the first Government led study advocating road pricing was in 1964. “That report said that it would take about 10 years to introduce a full road pricing scheme by the time the technology was ready, and that has been the same conclusion,” he said, “of every single road pricing study ever since”.

Referencing the predicted timescale provided by John Siraut, Professor Goodwin remarked: “I was delighted to hear your five or six years, because at least we are making some progress.”

The witnesses were asked to fast forward in their minds 10 years from the implementation of road pricing. What would they like the scheme to look like? “First and foremost, it would be a national system,” replied Alistair Hunter, but he added: “That does not mean that it applies everywhere equally. You might choose different parts of the country to have absolutely no charging, rural areas for example.

“You would also have a one user account. People will have absolute transparency, if they are going from A to B, about what it might cost them. They understand it. Secondly, I would like to make sure, particularly in the urban areas and outside London, that hypothecated revenue goes back into mass transit schemes and active travel.”

Professor Goodwin replied: “It would result in less traffic overall and a reversal of a long term trend. A higher proportion of the traffic that was there would be essential, including freight traffic.”

John Siraut answered: “In 10 years’ time what you would have is a road network that is well maintained and highly efficient, offering very reliable journey times and that is much better utilised across the whole of a day than it is at the moment with just the peaks and troughs.

“There would not necessarily be a lesser amount of traffic, but the traffic would be more evenly distributed over the day.”

(Photograph: 1000 Words - Shutterstock)