Attitudes to Road Pricing

Introduction

This article summarises new research on people's attitudes to road pricing. It is part of a package of work undertaken to inform the Road Pricing Feasibility Study (RPFS). The package also includes an Evidence Based Review, which looks at current research, and a qualitative study conducted by BMRB (British Market Research Bureau) ¹ International. The results in this article have come from questions included for the Department for Transport in the Office for National Statistics' (ONS) Omnibus survey ² for March 2004. Results relate to Great Britain unless stated otherwise. Where sample sizes are sufficient, the article reports any significant differences by factors such as age, gender, region of the country², frequency of mode use. Differences between urban and rural areas are also included. Where relevant, results have also been analysed by socio-economic groups and, for respondents in England, Index of Multiple Deprivation². Precise question wording is not referred to on all occasions within the text, but is displayed in the titles of the accompanying charts.

Respondents were asked about their views on the following issues:

• The current system of road charging and levels of car tax.
• How seriously they were affected by congestion, and how they thought the problem could be dealt with.
• How essential they considered using their cars for work, how a direct charge might affect their journeys and under what circumstances they would be prepared to accept charges.
• If road pricing were to be introduced, how difficult they would find it to change their travel behaviour and why, and whether public transport would be able to cope with extra demand.
• When and where charges should occur, how they should be paid for and how the proceeds from such a scheme should be spent.
• Whether it would be acceptable for information to be held on where they had travelled, and their general views on satellite-based charging.

Summary of key findings

• For all socio-economic groups, and in all areas except London, driving a car was the most common form of transport for respondents' most regular journeys. (Section 1)
• The majority of motorists felt that they were already paying enough for using the roads. In addition, respondents thought that others should not be able to evade road taxes. (Section 2)
• A clear majority of respondents did not consider congestion to be a serious problem on their regular journey. The dominant proposed solutions to congestion were to improve public transport or make it cheaper. (Section 3)
• Respondents were more willing to accept charges for using roads if there were good alternatives, if the overall level of motoring tax did not increase or if it would reduce delays due to congestion. They were less willing to accept charging simply to reduce the need for more road building. (Section 7)
• Three quarters of respondents would make some changes to their car journeys if a direct charge were to be introduced. A clear majority (83%) said that if they personally experienced less congestion it would make no difference to the number and length of car journeys they make. (Section 8)
• However, respondents would generally find it difficult to change to a different means of transport. When asked why they would find it difficult to change, the largest proportion cited issues with public transport. (Section 9)
• Fewer people from the most deprived 20% of areas than those from more affluent areas say they would find it difficult to adapt their means of transport if a direct charge were introduced. (Section 9)
• Two thirds thought that the public transport system would not be able to cope with an increased number of users if people decided to change modes due to direct charging. (Section 10)
• The majority of respondents thought that any charges introduced should apply in city centres at peak times. (Section 11)
• Although there were mixed views on payment, the preferred method would be to pay a monthly charge in arrears, followed by a pay-as-you-go system. (Section 12)
• The majority of respondents were happy for information to be held on where drivers had travelled, provided there were safeguards. However, 36% of respondents thought this was unacceptable under all circumstances. (Section 13)
• Overall, people had fairly negative views on satellite based charging, with 68% expressing such opinions. (Section 13)

GENERAL ATTITUDES TO ROAD PRICING

Characteristics of regular journeys

1.1. To provide respondents with a context for considering later questions, and also for purposes of disaggregation, a number of questions were asked about what respondents viewed as their most regular journeys. Data from these are included in Annex A. The results showed that:

In general, respondents' most regular journeys tended to be by car and tended to be for the purpose of travelling to work.

London was the only region where public transport use exceeded car use.

Local roads in a town or city were the roads used by the highest proportion of people.

Younger people were more likely to use public transport and older people made shorter journeys.

Journeys in the South East tended to be longer.

Respondents from rural areas, higher socio-economic groups and more affluent areas tended to use the car more and travel further. The reverse was true for public transport.

Regardless of varying patterns across groups, driving a car was the most common form of transport for all socio-economic groups and in all types of area except London.

Views on current charging system

2.1. Many motorists felt that they were already paying enough for using the roads. Of all respondents, 48% thought that motoring taxes were currently too high, 32% thought taxes were currently about right, 4% thought that driving was a right and should not be taxed, and 3% thought taxes were currently too low.

2.2. 56% of respondents driving every day thought motoring taxes were currently too high compared with 45% who drive less often and 35% who never drive (Chart 1).

2.3. A lower proportion of respondents from Scotland and Wales (both 41%) thought motoring taxes were too high.

2.4. It was difficult to make inferences across other categories due to the variability in the proportions of people having no view on motoring taxes. However, considering just those who did express an opinion, the picture became clearer.

2.5. A higher proportion of younger people aged 16-24 thought that driving was a right and should not be taxed than those in other age groups. 11% of this age group took this view, compared with 4% of all respondents.

2.6. Respondents from routine and manual (59%) and intermediate (58%) occupations were more likely to think motoring tax was too high compared with those from managerial and professional occupations where 49% thought it was too expensive.

2.7. When asked about their views on possible changes to the current system of road charging, the highest proportion of respondents thought that people should be unable to evade road taxes (36%). Equal proportions of people (14%) believed that there should be incentives for environmentally friendly cars and people who don't use certain road types should pay less (Chart 2).

Congestion: experiences and solutions

3.1. The majority (78%) of adults questioned did not consider congestion to be a serious problem on their regular journey whereas 21% did. Table 1 shows the variations in answers to this question by different groups. About 2% of respondents said "don't know" or did not respond to this question.

3.2. A lower than average proportion of those who did drive, but not every day, thought that congestion was a serious problem on their regular journey (Chart 3). Less than 14% in this group thought it to be a serious issue, compared with the average of 21% for all adults.

3.3. The younger the respondent, the more serious a problem they considered congestion to be on their regular journey. 27% of 16 to 24 year olds considered congestion to be a serious problem, compared with 15% of over 75s (Chart 4).

3.4. Respondents living in London experienced the biggest problems with congestion (26% considered it to be a serious problem). Around a half of these London respondents who thought congestion was a serious problem were regular public transport users. Scotland and Wales appeared to be least affected (14% and 16% respectively). (Chart 5)

3.5. As might be expected, congestion was less of a problem for people living in the most rural areas than for urban inhabitants. People who worked in smaller urban areas with a population of between 3,000 and 50,000 experienced significantly lower than average congestion, with only 13% of these respondents considering it to be a serious problem compared with the average of 24% for all adults who reported their workplace location.

3.6. About 8% of respondents who walked or cycled on their regular journey experienced problems with congestion, compared with around 20% for those who travelled by car or public transport.

3.7. More people whose regular journey was travelling to work had a problem with congestion (23%) than those on leisure journeys (15%).

3.8. The further the distance travelled by the respondent on their regular journey, the more serious a problem congestion was considered to be. 34% of respondents travelling journeys of over 25 miles regularly had a serious problem with congestion compared with 13% of those travelling less than a mile.

3.9. As would be expected, peak time car users were more likely to report experiencing problems than off peak users.

3.10. Respondents were asked an open question about what they thought would be the best way to deal with congestion. This yielded multiple responses from many respondents. 40% of responses related to public transport (either improving it, making it cheaper, or generally encouraging its use). Building more or widening existing roads was suggested by 8% of respondents.

3.11. In order to provide an overall view of these disparate responses, most of them were combined to form the more general categories shown in Chart 6. Only 5% of respondents thought that pricing interventions, in the form of either direct charges or increases in fuel duty, would be the best solution to congestion.

3.12 Other responses were more difficult to group, but 27% were 'physical interventions' such as building/widening roads, banning cars from city centres, or other changes to infrastructure or provision. A further 18% of the suggestions were 'soft measures', such as encouraging car sharing, encouraging cycling or walking, or trying to influence the start times at schools and work places.

Necessity of car travel

4.1. Respondents who used cars, either as drivers or passengers, were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "car travel is essential for my work". The majority (68%) believed that this was the case, with 31% disagreeing. A higher proportion of men (78%) than women (68%) felt that their car travel was essential. The high level of agreement with this statement suggests that many respondents have interpreted the statement to mean travel to work, rather than only for carrying out work.

4.2. Fewer users in the 16 to 24 age group thought that car travel was essential for their work. 58% agreed compared with an average of 68% for all car users. This viewpoint could be explained by the fact that a lower proportion of younger people drive a car every day: 30% compared with the average of 45% for all adults.

4.3. There was some regional variation for this question (Chart 7). A larger proportion of car users resident in the South West (79%) and Wales (75%) agreed with this statement than those from London (47%) and Scotland (52%).

4.4. A lower proportion of car users who lived and worked in London boroughs considered car travel to be essential than those in other areas. 50% of users who lived and 48% who worked in London considered it to be essential for their work. Relatively, fewer people who worked in urban areas with a population over 50,000 considered their cars to be essential (62%) than those working in smaller urban and rural areas (69%). (Chart 8)

4.5. A larger percentage of users from higher socio-economic groups agreed with the statement than those in lower groups (Chart 9). 75% of people working in managerial and professional occupations, 71% in intermediate occupations and 60% in routine and manual occupations thought car travel was essential.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE-OFFS

Direct charging or road building?

5.1. Respondents were asked whether they would prefer direct charging to building more roads as a way of dealing with congestion. Of all respondents, 38% agreed that they would prefer road charging to building more roads and 52% disagreed. However, as shown in 3.11, people would rather see improved public transport as a solution to the problem of congestion.

5.2. Chart 10 shows that a larger proportion of less frequent drivers (46%) agreed that they would prefer charging to avoid increased congestion than those driving more than twice a week (38%). Non drivers had less strong opinions, a quarter of non-drivers didn't know or did not answer.

5.3. Residents in the South East (where 48% agreed and 45% disagreed) and Scotland (45% agreed, 42% disagreed) were more in agreement that charging should be introduced to prevent road building than those elsewhere (Chart 11).

Priorities for spending proceeds of scheme

6.1. Respondents were asked what they thought should be a priority for spending the proceeds of a road-charging scheme. The idea of spending the proceeds on public transport appealed to the majority of people (53%). ³ (Chart 12)

Acceptance of road pricing as a concept

7.1. 66% of all respondents agreed that they would be prepared to accept direct charging for roads if there were good alternative ways to travel. The highest proportion (60%) would accept it if the overall level of car tax did not increase, 54% if it would greatly reduce delays due to congestion and 44% if it would reduce the need for large scale or continuous building of new roads (Chart 13).

7.2. More younger people than older people agreed that they could accept road charging if there were good alternatives (Chart 14). 75% of 16 to 24 year olds agreed they would be prepared to accept road charging if this was the case, compared with 62% of 55 to 64 year olds.

Adaptability

8.1. A large majority (83%) of car users thought that if they personally experienced less congestion, it would make no difference to the number and length of their car journeys (Chart 15).

8.2. Less frequent car users were more likely to increase their car travel in the event of reduced congestion; 14% of less frequent car users said they might use their cars more, compared with 7% for all adults.

8.3. If a direct charge were to be introduced, the majority (75%) of car users would make some alterations to their travel behaviour (Chart 16). These alterations range from changing to a different mode other than the car for some car trips (28%) to making fewer journeys overall (7%). However 23% of respondents said that if a direct charge were introduced they would not change their travel patterns at all.

8.4. 22% of respondents who drive every day said a direct charge would make no difference to their car use, but a further 21% said they would change the route of their car journeys.

8.5. Of the London car users, the largest proportion would respond to a direct charge by using public transport to replace some car journeys (21%).

8.6. A considerably higher proportion of car users living in Scotland, than those living elsewhere, would do nothing different if there were a direct charge (36%).

EQUITY AND ISSUES OF CONVENIENCE

Convenience

9.1. With the large proportions of car users reporting their cars to be indispensable, it is unsurprising to find that their responses to the question "How difficult would you find it to change to a different mode of transport, should direct charging be introduced" reflect this view. The majority (60%) of users said they would find it difficult to change to a different means of transport if direct road charging were introduced and 26% thought it would be easy.

9.2. The more regularly the respondent drove the more likely they were to say it would be difficult to change to a different means of transport (Chart 17). 75% of people who drove every day said they would find it difficult compared with 62% of those who drove more than twice a week, 46% of those who drove less often, and 33% of those who never drove (i.e. used the car only as passengers).

9.3. More people from the South West (65% difficult, 20% easy) and South East (64% difficult, 23% easy) said they would find it difficult to change, compared with fewer people from Scotland (45% difficult, 40% easy) and London (54% difficult, 34% easy).

9.4. Fewer people living in the most deprived 20% of areas said they would find it difficult to adapt their means of transport if a direct charge were introduced than those from the most affluent areas. 64% of those living in the least deprived 20% of areas said they would find it difficult to change. This compares with 52% in the most deprived areas. This may suggest that responses to this question are related to experience of using alternative modes. Those living in more deprived areas tend to use cars less and, as a result, alternative modes more.

9.5. The results by socio-economic group echo those by deprivation quintiles. 67% of people working in managerial and professional occupations, 66% in intermediate occupations and 53% in routine and manual occupations thought they would find it difficult to change (Chart 18). Again, this reflects the findings that those in routine and manual occupations were less likely to use the car and more likely to use public transport.

9.6. A larger proportion of respondents residing in rural areas thought it would be difficult to change to another means of transport than those in other areas: 77% would find it difficult compared with the average of 60%. Those in large urban areas with population over 250,000 would find it easiest, although 50% thought it would be difficult.

9.7. Respondents travelling longer distances for their most regular journeys thought it would be more difficult to change than those travelling shorter distances. 41% of people whose regular journey was less than a mile thought it would be difficult, and 36% would find it easy. This contrasts with respondents who regularly travelled more than 25 miles: 88% would find it difficult and 6% would find it easy.

9.8. When asked why it would be difficult to change, there were multiple responses. These were combined to form two main categories of reason: problems with public transport; and the need to use, or liking the flexibility of the car. 64% cited problems with public transport as a reason for it being difficult, for example, that there was either no or very little public transport from their home, or the journey would be too long by this method. 15% said that they either needed the car for a specific reason, such as the school run, or that they needed the independence and convenience offered by a car.

9.9. There was little variation by socio-economic group in those attributing difficulties to inadequate public transport (Chart 19). Those from the least deprived areas (64%) were slightly more likely to have problems with public transport than those from more deprived areas (57%). A higher proportion of people working in intermediate, managerial and professional occupations said that they liked the convenience and flexibility of car travel than those in routine and manual occupations.

Could the public transport system cope?

10.1. Many of the responses concerning difficulties in changing relate to public transport, and whether it is a feasible alternative to car travel. The hypothetical question was posed as to whether, if more people wanted to use public transport as a result of direct charging being introduced, the present transport system would be able to cope.

10.2. 23% of all respondents agreed that the public transport system would be able to cope whereas 66% did not (Chart 20).

10.3. A larger proportion of regular bus users believed that the system could cope with increased public transport patronage than less regular or non-users. 34% of respondents using the bus more than twice a week agreed compared with 26% who travel by bus less often and 17% who never use the bus. However, it was still only a minority of regular users giving these positive responses.

10.4. Frequent drivers were less inclined to agree that public transport would be able to cope with a potential increase in patronage than those driving less often. 17% of people who drive every day thought that it could cope, compared with 35% who drive less often. Again, there was a larger proportion of 'don't know' responses from non-drivers (20%).

10.5. Region of residence affected opinions on this question. A significantly smaller proportion of people living in the South East (but not London) believed that the system would be able to cope: 14% agreed and 77% disagreed (Chart 21).

10.6. There were slight differences across deprivation quintiles (Chart 22): there was a higher level of disagreement that the system could cope from people living in the most affluent areas (73%), compared with those in the most deprived areas (61%). These differences could reflect the propensity of these groups to use the bus.

TECHNOLOGY AND PRIVACY IN ROAD PRICING

When and where should charges occur?

11.1. Respondents were asked when and where they thought direct charges should be applied, were they to be introduced. The main consensus was that they should apply at peak times (Chart 23). City centres at peak times was the choice of the highest proportion of respondents (61%). The second most popular choice was motorways and other major routes at peak times, with 40% of respondents considering this to be a suitable time and place to apply charges. Only 15% of respondents thought charges should be imposed at off peak times.

Payment methods

12.1. There were mixed views about the question of what would be the most convenient way to pay for road charging were it to be introduced; this suggests more than one option may be required. The choice made by the highest proportion of respondents was to pay a monthly bill for what the driver had already used - 33% of respondents took this view. A 'pay as you go' system where the driver could buy credit in advance was the second most popular choice, with 22% of respondents saying this would be most convenient for them.

12.2. A high proportion of over 75s answered 'don't know' or 'don't drive', but for other ages there were some clear patterns observed (Chart 24). A larger proportion of 16 to 24 year olds (13%) said they would prefer to pay a monthly charge or for a year in advance than respondents in other age groups. A greater than average proportion of 45 to 54 year olds said they would prefer a 'pay as you go' system (38%).

Privacy

13.1. Subject to specific clauses, there was a reasonable level of acceptance of the necessity, for the purposes of charging, of holding information on where drivers had travelled. However, 36% of respondents thought this was unacceptable in all circumstances. The BMRB qualitative research explores issues around privacy in more detail ⁴ . When different conditions were attached to the holding of this information, different responses resulted (Chart 25).

13.2. There was general agreement that it would be acceptable to hold information if legislation was introduced to prevent it being used for any other purpose than road charging. 62% of respondents agreed with this idea and 29% disagreed.

13.3. Of all adults questioned, 49% agreed that it would be acceptable for some information to be held by an independent body rather than the government and 38% disagreed.

13.4. The 36% of respondents who agreed with the statement "there are no circumstances under which it would be acceptable for information to be held on where drivers have travelled" does not appear to be wholly consistent with the responses to the preceding two questions.

13.5. There were no clear differences by driving frequency for opinions on the acceptability of the holding of information, provided the specific clauses were mentioned, although non-drivers were again more indifferent. However, there was some inconsistency here, because when they were asked whether it would ever be acceptable for information to be held on where drivers have travelled, more frequent drivers expressed more support than those driving less often. 37% of people who drive every day agreed that information should never be held whereas 41% of less frequent drivers had this opinion.

13.6. Londoners were more opposed to information being held than respondents than other regions were. In contrast, respondents from the South West, South East and the Midlands and East Anglia expressed the least opposition to this idea.

13.7. Within those under the age of 65, there was generally a higher level of opposition the higher the age group. Above 65, the picture was made confusing by a high level of "Don't Know" responses.

13.8. A higher proportion of people in the highest and lowest socio-economic groups agreed that information could be held compared with those working in intermediate occupations (Chart 26).

13.9. There were differences for ethnic background in the responses to this question. The main difference was in the proportions answering 'Don't know': this was higher for other ethnic groups than white respondents. However a slightly higher level of opposition could still be observed for other ethnic backgrounds.

13.10. Overall, the majority of people had concerns about the idea of satellite-based charging (Chart 27). 68% expressed negative views compared with only 18% who wholly supported the idea. Specific worries included that they did not trust the government to run the system fairly, were worried they'd lose their privacy or pay more than now, or more general concerns about how the whole system would work.

ANNEX A

Characteristics of regular journeys

To provide respondents with a context for considering later questions, and also for purposes of disaggregation, a number of questions were asked about what respondents viewed as their most regular journey. The patterns in this group of journeys were not dissimilar to those shown on the National Travel Survey, which provides measures relating to all journeys (rather than just the most regular ones).

Mode of travel (Table A1)

• The main mode for regular journeys, regardless of purpose, was the car, with a higher proportion of men than women travelling by car as a driver.
• Public transport was the next most utilised method of travel, followed by walking or cycling. Taking children to school was the only purpose for which the proportion of people walking or cycling was greater than those using public transport.
• Public transport was used relatively much less than the car across all regions (particularly the South West) with the exception of London where the balance was fairly even between public transport use and car use. Regular journeys in Scotland and Wales tended to be shorter than average and regular journeys in the South East tended to be longer.
• Younger people had a higher propensity to use public transport than their older counterparts.
• Respondents from higher socio-economic groups and more affluent areas travel by car more, use public transport less and travel further than those in lower groups and more deprived areas. Nonetheless, driving a car is still the most common form of transport for all socio-economic groups and in all types of area.
• A considerably higher proportion of inhabitants of smaller urban and rural areas were regular car users than residents of larger urban areas.
• More than double the proportion of respondents from such areas (75%) compared with those from London boroughs (36%) drove on their regular journey, and the proportion of people using public transport in London (43%) was seven times that for inhabitants of rural areas (6%).

Distance travelled (Table A2)

• The longer the distance of the respondent's regular journey, the more likely the person was to travel by car as a driver.
• The majority of regular journeys over 10 miles were to travel to work, but purposes were more diverse for shorter journeys. The main purposes for shorter journeys were to travel to work or for shopping. Journeys for other purposes made up less than 15% of regular trips for all distances.
• 27% of journeys made by respondents were between two and five miles long, while only 7% were twenty-five miles or more.
• Inhabitants of smaller urban and rural areas were more likely to travel shorter distances than those in London boroughs.
• Respondents living in rural areas with a population of less than 3000 tended to travel the furthest: 58% travelled five miles or more on a regular basis.

Purpose of trips

• A clear majority of morning and evening peak time regular journeys were for the purpose of travelling to work. Between 10am and 4pm, 51% of regular journeys were shopping trips, followed by work trips (19%) and leisure trips (14%).
• The majority (51%) of regular journeys were made for the purpose of travelling to work, followed by shopping trips (24%) and leisure trips (9%).
• Particularly high proportions of journeys to work or taking children to school were made by car, 70% and 66% respectively.

Road types used

• Respondents were asked what types of road they travelled on for the car journey they made most regularly. 40% regularly used local roads in a city or town.
• Investigation into urban and rural differences for road types used revealed that a higher than average proportion of inhabitants of smaller conurbations used local roads outside a city or town.

ANNEX B

Explanatory notes

The Office for National Statistics' Omnibus survey is currently carried out eight times a year. It uses a sample of 1,850 randomly selected adults, representative of the British adult population. The fieldwork for this study was carried out between mid March and early April 2004.

Region is defined as grouped Government Office regions (GOR) for this study. GORs are combined into the following categories to ensure sufficiently large sub-samples for robust analysis:

The North - North East, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber

Midlands and East - East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England

London, South East, South West, Wales and Scotland remain the same.

Index of Multiple Deprivationis a measure of deprivation for every ward and local authority area in England. The overall Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) used combines six separate indicators (Income; Employment; Health Deprivation and Disability; Education, Skills and Training; Housing; and Geographical Access to Services) into a single deprivation score for each area. Each ward is ranked according to an overall deprivation score, and the ranking list divided into 5 equal groups, or quintiles. Results presented are for these quintiles ranging from the 20% of areas which are least deprived, through to the 20% of areas which are most deprived.

Type of area classification is based on that introduced for the 1991 Census of Population, by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (now the Office for National Statistics) and the Department of the Environment (now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister). It specifies urban areas based on the extent of urban development indicated on Ordnance Survey maps.

An urban area is a tract of continuously built-up urban land extending 20 hectares or more and including the majority of the population of at least four Enumeration Districts from the 1991 Census. Urban areas, thus defined but less than 200 metres apart are combined into a single urban area. (See ONS, Census 1991: Key Statistics for Urban Areas, Great Britain.)

In this report, urban areas are grouped into the following categories:

• London Boroughs - the continuous built-up area around and including London;
• Metropolitan built-up areas - the built-up areas within the administrative areas of the former metropolitan counties of Greater Manchester, Merseyside, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Tyne & Wear and Strathclyde;
• Large urban - self-contained urban areas of more than 250,000 population (in 1991);
• Medium urban - self-contained urban areas of not more than 250,000 population (in 1991), but more than 50,000;
• Small urban - self-contained urban areas of not more than 50,000 population (in 1991), but more than 3,000;
• Rural - Other areas are designated 'rural', including 'urban areas' under 3,000 population (in 1991).

¹ Full reports for these studies are available on the Department for Transport website.

² See explanatory notes in Annex B.

³ Due to a design error in the questionnaire, responses to this question may have been influenced by the previous question, which was "Could the present public transport system cope with the extra users?".

⁴ In the BMRB Research, some concerns were raised over people’s privacy, the accuracy and reliability of such a system, and the possibility of fraud. However, these concerns were not a dominant issue for the majority of qualitative research participants.