Attitudes to congestion and road use charging: new findings

New research reports that summarise people's experiences of road congestion and their attitudes towards alternative ways of charging for road use has been published and is available online.

Key findings show that:

• A substantial minority of respondents experienced congestion frequently. Almost a quarter (23 per cent) said they experienced congestion all or most of the time on their road journeys. When asked about their most frequent journey, 25 per cent said they experienced congestion all or most of the time on this particular journey.

   

• Of those frequent road journeys on which congestion was experienced all or most of the time, the majority involved travelling to or from work (68 per cent) and took place during morning or evening peak.

   

• People are more likely to consider congestion in towns and cities to be a serious problem to them personally (18 per cent said this was a very serious problem; 33 per cent a serious problem) than motorway congestion (13 per cent and 20 per cent respectively).

   

• A far higher proportion (87 per cent) of respondents considered road congestion to be a serious problem in the country as a whole, than who reported frequently experiencing congestion themselves (23 per cent said they experienced congestion all or most of the time).

   

• The majority (76 per cent) of respondents felt it very or fairly important for the Government to tackle congestion relative to its other priorities.

   

• Just over a half (55 per cent) of respondents agreed that: 'The current system of paying for road use (e.g. fuel and road tax) should be changed so that the amount people pay relates more closely to how often, when and where they use the roads'.

   

• Support among frequent drivers stood at 57 per cent and among infrequent drivers at 64 per cent. Support was lower among non-drivers (46 per cent) but this was mirrored by a higher proportion of non-drivers unable to give a definite opinion.

   

• Levels of support for the principal of road pricing do, however, vary depending on exactly how the question is phrased and the context in which it is asked. This reflects the complexity of the issue and a degree of uncertainty about exactly what such a system would entail and how it would impact on individuals.

   

• Support for individual elements of a road pricing system ('paying more to drive on busy roads than quiet roads' and 'paying more at busy times than quiet times') was relatively low at around 25 per cent.

   

• Conversely, support was higher if 'there would be no overall increase in the amount of taxation paid by motorists as a group' (44 per cent) or 'as long as any extra money raised was spent only on roads and transport' (61 per cent).

   

• When respondents were asked how road pricing would affect them personally, 27 per cent indicated it would have no impact because they did not drive. A further 10 per cent indicated that it would lead them to change their behaviour. However, 24 per cent indicated they would not change their behaviour as a result of such a system (either because they were unable to or did not want to).

   

• 30 per cent of respondents felt that road pricing would be effective in reducing congestion, 50 per cent did not believe it would be effective. The main reason given for the perceived ineffectiveness of road pricing was that people would not change their behaviour, either because they were unable to or did not wish to.

   

• 32 per cent felt that road pricing would be fair, 50 per cent thought it would be unfair. The main reason given for perceived unfairness was the inability of people to change their behaviour. The lack of adequate alternatives, cost and potential for disproportionate impact on people on lower incomes were also mentioned relatively frequently.

   

• Around four in ten (44 per cent) respondents considered it acceptable for data to be held on where drivers travelled as long as laws were in place to prevent the use of the data for any other purpose. Support fell (to 30 per cent) when the caveat of the information being held by an organisation independent of Government was mentioned. This suggests that the public may be more accepting of the Government holding the information than another organisation. Further research will be exploring this issue in more depth.

   

• Respondents were relatively sceptical about the ability of any system to accurately monitor and charge for road use. 37 per cent agreed they would believe the system was accurate if they received an itemised bill, 37 per cent disagreed.