When IS the right time for Australia to introduce road user charging?

RUC is a current issue in Australia

I was fortunate enough to be moderating a panel at this year's ITS Australia Roads, Tolling and Technology conference in Sydney on 25 March 2026.  I also presented on the topic separately.

It was a panel discussions about road user charging and I was honoured to be moderating such a stellar panel of expertise, namely:

• Professor David Hensher AM, Founding Member of University of Sydney's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies;
• Bianca Slack-Smith, Director Legislative Reform and National Policy at Transport for New South Wales;
• Adrian Dwyer, CEO of Infrastructure Partnerships Australia;
• Hon Paul Fletcher, Advisor at Compass IOT and former Minister of Urban Infrastructure and Cities (2016-2018), and Minister of Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts (2019-2022);
• Daniel Antonello, CEO of Here Technologies. 

The panel discussed a wide range of issues. The broad conclusion was that distance based road user charges (RUC) should be introduced, starting with EVs, and be focused on replacement of fuel duty revenue. The rates should be set to be broadly equivalent to fuel duty, and it should be a simple, easy to implement system, with the potential to allow for more sophisticated solutions for those who want it.

Although RUC for EVs is an opportunity, especially for State and Territory Governments in Australia to access a new source of revenue, it should be focused on equity.  Equity being the point as to why people who can't afford to buy a new vehicle, let alone an EV, should pay to use the roads, but EV owners should not.

Starting now with EVs was seen as making little difference to EV sales, but making it much easier to implement than a time when there might be substantially higher numbers of EV owners - who would be opposed.

There should be a nationally consistent system, with a basic product (manual distance measurement and reporting) available for all, and digital/location based options available for those who want them (e.g. to avoid charging distance travelled off public roads). 

Previous efforts to advance heavy vehicle RUC were seen as not the priority for now, as it is too politically difficult, although heavy EVs should be part of any RUC system.  

Any net revenues were proposed to be used, for the first few years, to support expansion of the public EV charging network, to help address range anxiety, although longer term such revenue might be used to support funding of road maintenance (noting fuel duty has not been hypothecated in Australia for over 30 years). 

So following that event, it is worth noting where Australia is right now:

• Federally, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure has set up a RUC Task Force to investigate policy options.
• Legislated is in force in New South Wales to implement RUC for EVs and PHEVs from 1 July 2027, and the NSW Government has indicated it would proceed to implement RUC whether or not the Commonwealth Government proceeds with a nationally consistent approach;
• A High Court of Australia decision (Vanderstock vs. the State of Victoria) ruled Victoria's RUC system for EVs and PHEVs was unconstitutional.

Many State and Territory Governments are supportive of RUC for EVs, not just for revenue, but also because it means EV owners pay to use the roads (whereas at present arguably bus passengers pay more to use the roads than EV owners), which will moderate driving particularly in cities. 

However, the big stumbling block is whether there will be a single national RUC charge, similar to fuel duty, which the Commonwealth will need States and Territories to collect, or if the Commonwealth might at least enable States and Territories to collect RUC.

The prospects for this have varied over recent years. Whilst Treasurer Jim Chalmers is reportedly in favour of it, Transport Minister Catherine King has been reported as being sceptical that any legislation could get through Parliament. She noted concern that any RUC would hinder EV sales.

This last point is argued by EV importers who, of course, support every single measure to subsidise or discount EVs and their use of the roads, and treat any measures to equalise their treatment with other vehicles as harming Australian progress towards reducing emissions.  Besides obviously being self-serving, there is not good evidence that RUC hinders EV sales.

Iceland introduced RUC for EVs in 2024, when EV sales were high. However today 33% of light vehicle sales are EVs in Iceland. In 2026 Iceland abolished fuel duty and put ALL vehicles on RUC, but it has had little apparent impact on vehicle sales, largely because EVs still cost 55% less to operate than petrol vehicles (see below from Iceland. 1 ISK = US$0.0082).

Hawaii introduced a choice of RUC or a fixed annual fee for EVs from 2025, and 7% of light vehicles sold in Hawaii are EVs (5% are PHEVs). New Zealand introduced RUC on EVs from 2024 (following abolition of a subsidy scheme that was signalled to be removed at the end of 2023), and EV sales were 6% of new vehicle sales (before the Iran-US conflict) with PHEVs at 5% of the market.  Since the beginning of the Iran-US conflict, EVs have reached 16% of new light vehicle sales in New Zealand, with a RUC of around A$0.06 per km.  It was just under 15% across Australia, with no RUC.

Essentially, paying a relatively small amount to use the roads has little real impact on the benefits that EVs provide in reducing running costs.

But there is a bigger issue.

How road vehicles are charged and taxed has little coherent basis in Australia. Australia has some of the highest vehicle registration fees in the world, primarily because these are fees collected by States and Territories (which don't collect fuel duty).  It's fuel duty, collected nationally, in usual conditions (it is half price because of current petroleum prices), it is neither hypothecated, and heavy vehicle owners pay a significantly reduced rate compared to light vehicle owners, because... heavy vehicles are subject to a fuel and registration based "road user charge" (which is just fuel tax and registration set at rates that are meant to try to reflect costs attributable to such vehicles). 

There is little political appetite let alone mandate for wholesale reform, as badly as it is needed, but a start would come from enabling States and Territories to charge the largest portion of the vehicle fleet that pay literally nothing to use the roads.

No one can rationally doubt the relative environmental benefits of EVs, but driving an EV in inner Sydney is not more environmentally friendly than taking the train or bus. It uses roadspace, it contributes to congestion, and relies on the maintenance and renewal of roads, which are enormous capital intensive assets.

There's little evidence that RUC on EVs affects sales. 

There is evidence that delaying RUC on EVs makes it harder.  In the UK it is highly controversial, in California it is approaching 10 years since it was first studied and piloted, and it seems as far away as ever.

The Commonwealth should set a date for a national EV RUC that is expects all States and Territories to collect. It should also allow them to collect their own, and might develop a framework within which that should operate. This should include rules about off-road use, about open standards for digital means of measuring, reporting and collecting RUC, rules around what account such revenue goes to, and around rate setting.  The NTC could have a role in this, as it does with the fuel/rego based "heavy vehicle road user charge".

Meanwhile, it should let States and Territories proceed themselves within such a framework, starting 1 July 2027 (to match NSW).  It should start with EVs and PHEVs, including heavy EVs, and the signal should be that it will be extended to other vehicles in due course, such as battery-electric hybrids and other new vehicles.

The easiest time to do this is now.

Does road user charging harm electric vehicle sales?

RUC makes little difference to EV sales.

Under a year ago I wrote this piece Would RUC for EVs harm sales? largely in reference to concerns in Australia from the Electric Vehicle sales lobby that Australian states investigating road user charging (RUC) based on distance, for light vehicles; would significantly reduce consumers' propensity to buy such vehicles. 

Dr Jake Whitehead from the University of Queensland apparently conducted a study which was cited in an article in Driven that claimed it would hurt sales by 25%, claiming that it would be perceived by drivers as adding $4,000 on the cost of owning and operating an electric vehicle. I demonstrated in my previous article that this was highly questionable, because no purchasers of petrol powered cars estimate the fuel tax they would pay on top of the cost of owning and operating the car. If they did, it might be around A$367 a year for a new petrol Hyundai Kona driving the average annual 13,838km of a car in Victoria. This compared to around A$346 for an equivalent EV paying the Victoria state RUC. Sure I understand Whitehead's estimate, but it simply isn't a valid comparison to think anyone buys a car thinking about the lifecycle costs of charges associated with using the road (although buyers of many commercial vehicles do make such estimates). 

However, there is now some actual evidence, with the latest sales data on electric vehicles in Australia.  You see Victoria introduced RUC (known as the ZLEV road-user charge) at A$0.025 per km for battery-electric EVs (BEVs) and A$0.02 per km for plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). Both also obtain a registration fee discount of A$100 a year. 

The data for 2021 indicates that 6,396 EVs were sold in Victoria, with 7,430 sold in NSW and 5,342 in Queensland. Given RUC was introduced in July 2021 if Dr. Whitehead's assessment were valid you would expect a significant decline in EV sales relative to other states, but that isn't what happened.

You see the 7,430 sold in NSW compared to the total passenger vehicle fleet in NSW is around 0.17% of all vehicles. Whereas the 6,396 sold in Victoria, compared to the total passenger vehicle fleet in Victoria is around 0.16% of all vehicles.  If it made a difference it was barely discernible, and undoubtedly less relevant than other factors.

In the ACT, the number of EVs sold comprised 0.37% of all passenger vehicles registered in the territory, the highest of any state and territory, but that's not so surprising. The ACT has relatively high affluence, motor vehicle registration is free for two years for EVs, with a 20% ongoing reduction.  

Queensland has a slightly higher number of EVs as a proportion of all passenger vehicles at 0.18%, but that's close enough to NSW and Victoria to suggest that there isn't a significant difference in policy impacts.

Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory all have much lower sales, as a proportion of the total passenger vehicle fleet, than the other states, ranging from 0.1% to 0.05%.  In shortsthere is a great deal of reluctance to buy EVs in Australia, but the wealthiest eastern states/territory have better sales.  Note that both NSW and South Australia announced they would introduce RUC from 2027.

So from that I conclude that RUC in Victoria has made virtually zero difference to EV sales in the state. 

That's with a RUC rate of A$0.025 which is equivalent to US$0.029 per mile or £0.02 per mile or €0.016 per kilometre. That is higher than some US states have implemented or are proposing, but much lower than would be a replacement rate for fuel taxes in any European countries.

A higher rate might make a difference to sales. Certainly New Zealand has maintained an exemption from its RUC system for EVs, which would have resulted in them being charged NZ$0.076 per km (A$0.071 per km, €0.045 per km, US$0.08 per mile or £0.06 per mile). Exemption EVs from RUC has undoubtedly contributed to greater sales per capita than in Australia, but I suspect other factors, including price of electricity and the network of charging points matter as well (plus less range anxiety in a smaller jurisdiction).

What it means is that RUC, as a policy tool, needs to be considered within the context of a wide range of pull and push factors for jurisdictions that want to encourage sales of EVs. 

UK House of Commons Transport Committee Road Pricing report released - so here's my review of it

Nothing new in the UK investigating road pricing

The UK's journey towards national road pricing has been long and arduous.  It once started with the Lorry Road User Charging programme in 2002, essentially a more ambitious version of the highway heavy vehicle RUC systems in continental Europe, but that was abandoned because the business case didn't stand up at the time, given the costs.  It was replaced in 2004 with National Road Pricing, which was to pioneer TDP (Time Distance Place) based road pricing, to better manage congestion.  However, that collapsed due to public opposition, primarily out of concern about how much motorists would have to pay, and a lack of trust that fuel duty and vehicle excise duty would be cut at the same time.

That was 2007.

One of my big questions is whether UK politicians and policy makers have learned from that failure, and maybe learned from the successes of jurisdictions elsewhere that have partially implemented forms of RUC, such as in continental Europe, the United States and New Zealand. 

House of Commons Transport Committee report

Last year, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons (UK) held an inquiry into road pricing (and also electrification of the road vehicle fleet in the UK).  It released the findings of its work on 2 February 2022 with a full copy of the report available here (PDF).

The Committee notes in its report that it "launched an inquiry in December 2020 called Zero emission vehicles and road pricing. We chose to split the inquiry into two parts. We reported our findings on Zero emission vehicles in July 2021. That Report addressed the opportunities and challenges presented by the advancement of the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2030. This Report on Road pricing covers the second part of our inquiry. It examines the consequences of the shift to electric vehicles, including tackling the decline in fuel duty and vehicle excise duty."

Before I review the report's key findings, it is important for those unfamiliar with the UK to recognise that the report is influential but not binding on the UK Government. It is a matter for Cabinet and ultimately Parliament to make decisions on implementing any form of road pricing or road user charging (RUC) for the UK.  

What is behind the inquiry?

• Revenue
• Demand impacts of no charges on electric vehicles

It's fairly simple, because it follows on from the primary reason RUC is being implemented in US and now Australian states. Revenue from fuel taxes is threatened by the shift away from fossil fuel use by road vehicles. £28 billion is the annual revenue from both fuel duty and with the UK looking to prohibit sales of petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030, it will drastically erode revenues from motor vehicles. Add the £7 billion raised from vehicle excise duty (an annual registration fee for motor vehicles) that is hypothecated to the National Roads Fund (which fully funds National Highways and contributes towards spending on local roads) and the total revenue is equivalent to 4% of all tax revenue, and this is more than just a problem for spending on roads, let alone transport.  That revenue is five times what is spent on roads, so it is a general source of revenue.

In other words, unlike the US or Australia where motoring taxation barely or doesn't at all cover the cost of paying for roads, in the UK it does so and so much more.  Setting aside externalities (and given no other sector pays for externalities either), the roads make a significant fiscal surplus.

However, it's not all just about money, it is also about the demand impacts. Electric vehicles pay nothing to use the roads, which means that driving is substantially cheaper for those vehicle owners than others. This is a matter of both equity, but also overall impacts on the network. If a third of vehicles are paying nothing in say ten years' time, the effects on congestion are likely to be considerable. I recall a study around twenty years ago that estimated the demand impacts of fuel duty on driving in the UK was around 10%, in other words, 10% fewer miles were driven in the UK because of the effect of fuel duty. As fuel duty has not increased in 11 years, that impact is likely to have weakened somewhat, but it still exists. So for the UK, RUC is also about sending a price signal to drivers to think about whether to drive or choose another option.

Key conclusions

• It is difficult to predict the timescale of the impact on revenues. In 2021, 11.6% of new cars were battery electric and it is estimated by 2026, only 4% of all registered cars will be electric. (comment: Indeed, but hybrids and more fuel efficient vehicles are eroding revenues easily as much as electric. It would be wrong to focus solely on pure electric vehicles) 
• However, it gets much harder to introduce RUC when there are many electric vehicles compared to when there are few, so the message needs to be sent that electric vehicles will have to pay to use the roads. (comment: agree)
• A shift to electric vehicles could increase "traffic levels" by 51% by 2050 according to the Department for Transport (DfT), with the average driver spending an additional nine hours a year in traffic by 2040. (comment: "on average" hides some disparities, but the aggregate impact is likely to be true. Cheaper driving will mean more driving).
• "Any alternative road pricing mechanism must be revenue neutral to the Government rather than causing drivers, as a whole, to pay more than they do currently. Such a mechanism should be phased in before fuel duty and vehicle excise duty decline to zero. The situation is urgent; work must begin without delay" (comment: YES absolutely)
• Technology already built into vehicles (in-vehicle telematics) has potential to collect and deliver the data necessary for a road pricing system (comment: Yes, and this happens already today on a small scale in Utah).
• "The Government must assess the potential effect of a road pricing mechanism based on telematic technology on high-mileage drivers, such as road hauliers and those in rural communities, and on those least able to adapt to increased motoring costs." (comment: Yes there should be modelling and even piloting of road pricing to assess those impacts. Noting that road hauliers should see the HGV Levy replaced by RUC, but rate setting needs some serious policy analysis. A cost allocation study should be carried out).
• "The successful implementation of a national, technology-based road pricing scheme is contingent on the Government explaining how data capture will work in practice, ensuring that data management is subject to rigorous governance and oversight and reassuring the public that their privacy will be protected" (comment: Data privacy is critical, but there needs to be acknowledgement of some obvious ways to ensure this, such as not having a government owned RUC system collecting trip data, specifying the level of location disaggregation needed, consider having a non-location aware option (at least for a transition period))
• The DfT and Treasury should set up an arms-length body to investigate and evaluate options to replace fuel duty and vehicle excise duty (comment: This seems reasonable, but there isn't an actual need to replace vehicle excise duty. Vehicle excise duty is only an issue because electric vehicles are exempt, but that exemption need not be maintained. However, there are merits in shifting from ownership based to usage based charging of motor vehicles).

Conclusions that are questionable

• (para. 25) A claim that the UK can be a "world leader" in road pricing, is bold but also maybe fanciful, especially given how little progress has been made in the UK compared with other jurisdictions. The report doesn't note that there are three and soon to be four jurisdictions charging light vehicles (in all cases but one, electric vehicles) by distance instead of fuel duty. There are two jurisdictions that charge heavy vehicles by distance, weight and configuration instead of fuel duty. There are twelve jurisdictions that charge heavy vehicle by distance and weight as well as fuel duty, using GNSS technologies. However there is very little citing of relevant international experience. Is that because most of those who gave evidence have no such experience> There are multiple companies in Europe, the US and New Zealand that run RUC account management operations, including supplying technology for vehicles (heavy and light). If the UK WAS able to implement a national road pricing scheme that included congestion pricing based on distance it might be world leading (although I suspect Singapore might beat it), but it has so far proven that it cannot even roll out a basic cordon or area based congestion charge beyond London and Durham after 21 years. 

• (para. 28) The claim is that "The devolution of road pricing could lead to the introduction of clunky, unconnected schemes that charge users the same price for driving one mile into the zone as those who drive across it for hours in a day. The more regional schemes that are created, the harder it will eventually be for the Government to implement a functional national system". This is simply nonsense, not only because it is based on the idea that there is only ONE type of congestion pricing scheme (cordon or area charges) and only one way to implement it (assuming there is a flat all day charge). Why can local schemes not work with a national system? The US looks like it may have multiple state RUC systems and ultimately federal system, which may all be interoperable and function seamlessly. Several European countries have toll schemes plus heavy vehicle RUC systems operating in parallel (see Belgium which has a national heavy vehicle RUC scheme, with Brussels developing a local congestion based scheme for light vehicles). New Zealand has a national RUC system and is investigating a local congestion pricing scheme for Auckland. There MIGHT be a problem if systems require multiple accounts, or multiple pieces of on-board equipment, but this is unnecessary and avoidable. It is likely to be lower risk for congestion pricing to be locally defined and implemented, even if nationally regulated.  It seems to be an excessively engineering rather than policy and business based perspective.

• (para. 32) The report cites John Siraut from Jacobs who says:

"He stated that a system where charges vary dynamically based on the road being used and the time of travel are “certainly perfectly feasible to do”, even though they do not exist at the moment"

This is simply wrong. There IS a system that varies by location, time of day and charges by distance, in the Czech heavy vehicle RUC system. For heavy vehicles, the charges vary based on the type of road (motorway vs. 1st class highways) and the time of day.  Arguably, Singapore also has a system that varies by road being used and time of travel since.. 1997 (albeit not charging by distance), but certainly the can rates vary across 78 charging points by small increments of time of day. Strange in particular when he is previously cited as saying "Singapore comes closest" to the model discussed, which suggests he may have been misquoted at least once. . (Disclaimer: I used to work for a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs, in the UK from 2012-2015).

• (para. 34) The report says "The Government must assess the potential effect of telematic technology on changing drivers’ behaviour and delivering its wider policies on air quality, congestion, public transport and public health.".  No, the effects of telematics technology on drivers' behaviour should be minimal. It is about the policy that is implemented, not the technology (although technology is the enabler).  Furthermore, if you think introducing road pricing should also address a whole host of externalities, then you'll spend another five to ten years investigating it.  This seems like an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction. The effect on environmental and transport policy outcomes will depend on the policy selected. 

Where to from here?

There is one thing missing from the report, which is a thoughtful and considered view on why road pricing failed last time it was tried in the UK. Perhaps it is because most of the politicians were not in Parliament at the time, perhaps it is because the public servants don't want to look into what were largely mistakes by public servants and politicians.  However, it is important to remember how sensitive the issue is.

The number one reason road pricing failed before was that the policy was not designed to benefit those who would pay, and there was no leading of the narrative to address the two biggest concerns:

• Road pricing means paying a lot more to drive
• Road pricing means tracking everywhere that you drive

It cannot be repeated too much that road pricing needs to be introduced in a way that generates the same net revenue as fuel duty and vehicle excise duty. It has to be done in stages and steps that are achievable, but it is almost impossible to introduce any form of congestion pricing until all vehicles are on a road pricing system that measures location and time of day.

So congestion management should be very much a secondary concern, it should be about replacing the current system. There are various pathways for doing this, ranging from starting with electric vehicles, starting with newly registered vehicles or with heavy vehicles.  

There should NOT be pursuit of a central government owned and managed system that is procured centrally with a single provider of technology and account management. This is NOT a model that any jurisdiction has pursued for network wide RUC for twenty years (see Switzerland).  There should ALSO not be pursuit of a PPP with a single integrated supplier of a system to collect revenue, that is ALSO not a model any jurisdiction has pursued for sixteen years (see Germany).  It should be an open market of certified service providers, supported by a government managed enforcement system.  Revenue should be collected by competing service providers, with multiple technical platforms (such as in-vehicle telematics or plug-in devices), but enforcement managed by government.  

Consideration needs to be given as to how to refund/credit fuel duty paid when vehicles that pay fuel duty transition to RUC.

NONE of this matters unless policy is designed correctly.  That means:

• RUC rates that are based on a rational economic assessment of what different types of vehicles should pay.
• Charges that don't vary by time of day until a vast majority of vehicle are on a system
• Charges that vary by road type and location for traffic management purposes, but not to such an extent as to encourage use of vehicles that do not pay RUC
• Hypothecation of some revenue for roads, to go beyond what the National Roads Fund does now
• Care being taken as to how to treat the surplus of revenue beyond what is needed for roads.
• A feasible staged transition path.

It doesn't require investment in alternatives to motoring.

This requires a level of engagement with the public and business that did not happen with National Road Pricing, but is exactly what has been going on in some US States in recent years.  

It would be extremely helpful if the UK looked beyond itself to see that things are moving fast elsewhere.  

Take for example Victoria, Australia.  In a short period of time it went from studying to implementing a basic distance based RUC system for electric vehicles, based on odometer reporting.  Is it the long term scheme? No.  Does it work? Yes. Is it a start beyond which more can be learned and it can be built on? Yes.

I lived in the UK for fourteen years, I worked on Manchester's congestion charging scheme that faltered because of a lack of public support (in part because there was poor communications with those who would pay as to what it would mean for them). I observed the National Road Pricing project going wrong because politicians and civil servants didn't think they needed to seriously and convincingly address concerns of the general public about paying twice, or being tracked. If they still think that, then road pricing isn't going to happen easily.

It's my hope that both DfT and The Treasury can reflect carefully on lessons learned from the past, in the UK and elsewhere, and recognise that for road pricing to be advanced in the UK it might need to think of doing it in incremental steps, that means not all objectives are met at first, and that it doesn't need to re-invent the wheel.

Making Road User Charging work in the UK: Part Two - Get motorists on side

So what should the UK do to advance road user charging?

Decide on objectives. The fewer the better. Let’s be honest, there are two key ones that matter here:

• Revenue replacement
• More efficient pricing of road use

But there should be a third one, fairness. More on that later.

Bearing in mind that to even get a chance politically to implement any form of RUC in the UK, there needs to be public acceptability for it, which means key public concerns must be addressed, and for the public to be taken with the policy makers on this issue. This is hard because so often policy makers have failed to want to address some serious “elephants” in the policy room.

So let’s say the primary objective is replacement of existing taxes on road use, but that better pricing would be nice to have as well. That seems reasonable, it’s just how far down the road of better pricing you might want to go. Simply charging for road use by mile IS better pricing, and for heavy vehicle making weight and configuration count would also be better pricing. Yet to do more you need location and time of day, and that’s where you face some key issues – because most vehicles will need equipment to enable measurement of that data, and for older vehicles that’s a challenge. So you could choose to say, for now, that you just want to charge by mile and for heavy vehicles, by weight and configuration, and leave aside location and time of day, until all vehicles are moved over to such a system – with an eye on the idea that every ten years or so, you can make further steps. After all, it is unlikely to be a good idea to charge just electric vehicles by time of day and location (to address congestion), because it will incentivise other vehicles to drive at those times. It might be a good idea to charge just heavy vehicles by time of day and location, once all of them are on such a system, which in itself could take time.  However, don't get too tied up with pricing yet.

Incorporating congestion pricing with a replacement of fuel tax is difficult if many vehicles are not on the system, unless you run two systems in parallel. A time/distance/place based RUC for newer vehicles, and fuel tax plus a number plate based location congestion charge for older vehicles. However, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the acceptable, and remember the UK, the Netherlands and Finland have all tried to go towards some form of national road pricing, and failed because what was wanted was unacceptable.

Alongside objectives need to be some principles around designing a system for such revenue replacement. These could be:

1. Net revenue neutrality. This isn’t a means to raise additional revenue. The message has to be that nobody will pay both fuel duty and a road user charge. This cannot be repeated and emphasised enough, because any doubts over this will be real and will undermine any progress.

2. Shifting road funding to full user pays. Treasury might not like this, because it will look like hypothecation, but road pricing is about pricing road use, then what is raised needs to be related to what is spent on roads. Rate setting should be based on objective criteria as to who should pay what. For National Highways that should be relatively easy, but for local authorities, it would make sense to fully fund all A and B roads from central government, and for the management of their roads to be accounted for transparently.

3. User choice and competition: The old model of delivering RUC was that government would contract a single entity, through a PPP, to install and operate a system across the vehicle fleet, but this neither necessary nor commercially wise. In Europe, competition among service providers for RUC is increasingly commonplace, and consideration should be given as to whether all users need to be charged by location and time of day, particularly owners of vehicles that may do limited distance.

4. Depoliticise road funding: User pays roads should be managed by an independent funding body that funds based on maintenance needs and delivering net benefits to users. This will help take away the idea that it’s just another tax, but can also provide security of funding for maintenance and major projects, although it also needs wider reform of governance of roads at the local authority level.

There needs to be very clear and simple messaging once objectives are clear. Messaging ought to be:

· Who will pay and what they will not pay

· The basis for setting how much they will pay

· How trips will be measured and paid for

· What will be done with the money

Transition paths need to be developed. It may be that the UK starts with pure EVs and then hybrids (taking into account what they pay in fuel tax either as a credit to a RUC account, such as in Oregon, or a refund). It could start with heavy vehicles replacing the HGV Levy. It could start with all new vehicles paying RUC, whatever strategy it starts with needs to consider scenarios around revenue and objectives.

Rate setting ought to be objectively based at the start, on a medium-term approach to road funding. The long run costs of maintaining and developing roads should be identified (across all public roads), and these costs recovered from a rate structure based on a cost allocation approach.

A wide range of technological options should be considered. There should be choices such as having telematics systems on commercial vehicles certified as trip measurement devices, certification of vehicle manufacturer installed telematics systems and on the other end of the scale, verified odometer reporting IF location and time of day doesn’t matter. As new vehicle enter the fleet, built-in telematics could be designed to meet the needs of a RUC system so that, over time, more sophisticated pricing could be implemented.

A big policy issue is how to address demand for revenue far above what is spent on the transport network. The current system generates much more revenue than is equivalent to that spent on roads and railways/public transport more generally, so there may be several ways to continue this in a more transparent manner, ranging from keeping fuel tax through to a specific levy on top of RUC or to start treating roads as commercial assets that make a profit (that is then used by government to invest in public services). This might be one of the more difficult policy questions, but understanding of the problem is needed to develop options that could be acceptable. For example, it could be that all footpaths and cycleways get funded from this source, but there needs to be oversight and accountability for how that is spent and leaving it up to local authority councillors is a bad idea, because they are not accountable for the raising of revenue. Roads as utilities is a better model.

However, most of all, there needs to be a vision more sophisticated that “we’re not making enough money”. 

See the US states facing exactly that issue, due to the rise of alternatively fueled vehicles, got NO traction from the public when they complain about a lack of money -it is different when it is about fairness and about spending on the roads.

The entire debate in states like Oregon, California, Washington, Hawaii etc is that it is unfair that those who can afford new electric vehicles pay nothing to maintain the roads, because it means the burden of doing so gets transferred more and more to others. Sure, in the UK that argument seems less obvious because fuel duty doesn’t get spent on the roads, it is just general revenue, but if you drive a petrol-powered car you pay to use the roads, even if much of the revenue is effectively spent on welfare and the NHS.

So the UK needs to start a discussion, about fairness, about sustainably funding the roads and maybe then, about how charging for road use directly can result in better outcomes.

If you doubt why focusing on congestion wont work, look at the experience with congestion pricing so far. London still only has a central city area charge that is blunt and ineffective, its one serious attempt to expand it didn’t last for political reasons. No other city (Durham really doesn’t count) has implemented a congestion charge (and no, low emission zones aren’t congestion charges). Much of the public doesn’t believe road pricing can reduce congestion, because the London experience looks like a tax, not pricing, because it is effectively is just a tax – unlike the more sophisticated Stockholm and Singapore examples.

The UK needs to start talking about road pricing or road user charging now, and to talk about it in relation to paying to use the roads, using money for the roads, and worry about better pricing later, worry about how much money is raised, later. Get motorists on side, it will be a LOT of work.

Making Road User Charging work in the UK: Part One - it's got a problem

Nothing to see here! This is the response you might give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK)’s latest budget (PDF) in terms of the future of revenue from UK road users. Well not strictly true. For the twelve year in a row, the Government has frozen fuel duty (it officially is meant to inflation adjust it, but this has not happened now except once, under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition in the Government’s first term). This is estimated by Treasury to cost £1.51 billion (US$2.05 billion) in 2022/23 alone, but the net impact over that time has been to erode the value of the £0.5795 per litre (US$2.99 per gallon) fuel duty significantly. If it had been adjusted it would be £0.78 per litre (US$4.01 per gallon), meaning it has already lost almost 26% of its value, although arguably if it had been inflation adjusted there would be slightly reduce demand, so the revenue loss is far from linear (and indeed it is a gain in the hands of households and businesses).

So this is quite some problem. It's not quite the US scenario, which has seen the US Federal Gas Tax not increased since 1993, at US$0.187 per gallon, which translates into a mere £0.035 per litre. Even California, which has the highest state gas tax, only adds £0.129 per litre.  So even around £0.16 per litre in the US isn't anywhere near £0.5795 per litre in the UK.  What it means though, is that fuel tax in the UK is much much more important than in the US, and the key reason being, it isn't about paying for roads, it's just another tax.

What do existing motoring taxes raise?

Fuel duty does raise £28 billion (US$37.9 billion) per annum as it stands. 

Related, but much simpler to resolve, is declining revenue from Vehicle Tax (formerly known as Vehicle Excise Duty (VED)), which is basically registration fees. The decline is purely due to the zero rating for new electric vehicles, which could easily be addressed by introducing fees for such vehicles. VED raises £7 billion (US$9.5 billion) a year. There might be a case for shifting away from a fixed fee to pay for roads to a usage-based fee, to encourage change in behaviour, and better reflect externalities, but that’s another story. 

The real issue is that the UK Government has a whole series of policies that result in declining fuel tax revenue. The main one being the prohibition on the sale of new petrol and diesel light vehicles from 2030, supported by £620 million (US$840 million) in public spending to fund plug-in charging points for electric vehicles. Of course, all of this is driven by UK Government commitments on climate change, so the issue arises as to whether the UK can manage with fuel duty revenue declining or if it will want to replace it, and if so with what?

Road user charging (RUC) is an obvious answer, but unlike in the United States, the revenue collected from fuel duty is many times the spending on roads in the UK. The latest budget (which only reflects England), seeks the Department for Transport spending £6.4 billion on roads, £5.6 billion which comes from VED (the remainder of VED is allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as devolved administrations). Adding fuel duty and VED revenue sees £35 billion raised almost entirely from road transport, even though spending on the sector is a fraction of that. A shift towards RUC to replace revenue becomes qualitatively and politically challenging if it is revenue, not only to pay for roads, and even public transport, but for general spending purposes. RUC, after all, is much closer to a fee set to recover costs, not a general tax. Nowhere has RUC been introduced just as a tax to raise revenue for general government spending (although Singapore’s Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system, which is a congestion pricing scheme, sees all net revenues treated exactly like that – but its objective is not to generate revenue).

UK history of RUC

The history of attempts to introduce RUC in the UK matter as well. Let's also NOT muddy the waters with related, but fundamentally different policies. For a start, tolls are insignificant ( a full list here) in their role in paying for roads in the UK. Beyond a few bridges and tunnels, and one motorway near Birmingham (M6 toll), they have not been widely used. Similarly, congestion charges are not really relevant here. There are two in the UK, London and Durham, and both are in place to manage traffic, not raise revenue. 

From 2001 until 2010 there were three connected but separate attempt to introduce road pricing, which varied on scale, scope and to some extent, objectives.

First, the Lorry Road User Charging (LRUC) project, from 2001-2005, which was both to recover revenue from foreign lorries, but also to become a first step in introducing national road pricing. It would have priced all UK roads by vehicle weight, but also a broad-based time of day (night/day) and location (cheaper on motorways), using the now widely applied GNSS telematics technology. It folded for several reasons, not least being cost and the low level of expected new revenue generation. It was led by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which raised questions about the incentives around governance for a project requiring high levels of customer service, user acceptability and ultimately application of transport economics. (More recently, the UK introduced the HGV Road User Levy to raise revenue from foreign trucks, essentially implementing a European-style vignette scheme)

In 2005 it was replaced by the National Road Pricing project, which sought to reduce congestion and emissions by implementing full scale time of day, distance and place (TDP) road pricing for all vehicles on all roads.  It was meant to be a 15 year programme, but it collapsed in 2007 due to public opposition, and was folded into the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) programme to support proposals from local authorities for congestion charging. No actual congestion charging schemes resulted (although Manchester came close, until local politicians decided a referendum was necessary to obtain support to proceed), and with the change of government in 2010 that was the end of further measure by the British Government to promote road pricing.

How hard is this?

The politics around this are brutal. Over 1.7 million people signed a petition opposed the National Road Pricing project, and polling has regularly indicated large majorities opposed to the idea. In 2010, a paper written for the RAC Foundation by Dr John Walker included a poll indicating that a majority would support reforming how roads were paid for, but was not supportive of congestion pricing. Bear in mind that the MAIN objective for all of the previous attempts has been to reduce congestion, which at the time required all vehicles to be equipped with GNSS based telematics systems. Headlines about “tracking your movements” scared many about government interference in privacy. Even more critical, given the previous Labour Government had a policy of increasing fuel duty higher than inflation, year after year, few would believe that same Government would actually cut a tax to introduce road pricing, so on average, people wouldn’t pay more.

So introducing road pricing/RUC in the UK to manage congestion is unlikely to gain much support, but what about introducing RUC simply as a replacement of fuel duty?

The House of Commons Transport Committee recently held an inquiry into both electric vehicles and road pricing, and has yet to issue its report on the inquiry (it most recently heard oral evidence in mid October). However, from the evidence seen so far there is every risk that the UK will repeat some of the previous mistakes. This includes:

· Treating the whole exercise as being mostly if not entirely about revenue-raising, which is understandable if it is led by HM Treasury and HMRC, but does not encourage public support and is unlikely to be seen as acceptable politically.

· Turning only to European experience as particularly relevant, when in the past decade it has been the United States that has moved much more rapidly and, in some cases, nimbly, to test and implement small-scale RUC systems designed to replace fuel tax revenue. Australia also has some lessons that may be drawn upon as it considers whether to replace fuel tax and registration fee revenue from heavy vehicles, and some states introduce RUC for light electric vehicles.

It’s worth reminding those from countries where hypothecating fuel tax for road funding is standard practice that this is NOT what happens in the UK, this is treated as “just another tax”, with no link whatsoever to any spending. This is a position held firmly by HM Treasury, because of fear about what would happen if there was “too much revenue raised” or indeed “too little”, which reflects a position whereby governance, funding decisions and the structure of the highways sector is largely unchanged. Bear in mind, that the creation of Highways England (now National Highways) as a company, with a five-year funding settlement, drawn from VED has already broken away from this model.

Clearly the number one barrier to implementing RUC in the UK is public acceptability and the politics around this, but to address that there needs to be a significant change in the mindset around how motor vehicles are taxed/charged, how the revenue is used and what governance arrangements need to be put in place to support that.

Even if there were to be growth in the scale of spending on roads in the UK, and indeed that might be justified given the backlog of maintenance particularly on local roads (and in some cases, the paucity of local authority interest in capital spending due to funding constraints), it is not going to be anywhere near the scale of £35 billion per annum. The “right” amount is unknown because the lack of price signals and useful data on revenue raised doesn’t indicate what should be spent on the network, but given that motor vehicle owners and users are clearly willing to pay £35 billion a year to own and operate their vehicles, it is likely to be higher than at present. However, the question may well be reasonably asked as to whether the road networks, in their entirety, shouldn’t be generating returns on capital, that could then, reasonably, be treated as dividends able to be applied to other public spending. A return on capital and a carbon tax might be ways to address the revenue gap between road spending and current revenues from motoring taxes, but all of that needs some more revolutionary thinking that has largely been absent from the debate to date.

So what could the UK do? That’s the subject for a future post.

US Federal Government looks to fund more state pilots and a Federal RUC pilot : Part Two - A National RUC pilot for the USA

Following on from proposed additional funding for state led RUC pilots is the proposal for what is called the National Motor Vehicle Per-Mile User Fee Pilot (NMVPMUFP!). It is always intriguing how Americans can generate new terms for what could just be called a National Road Usage Charge Pilot (although I’ve also heard that officials in one state didn’t like the acronym RUC because it rhymed with a well-known pejorative). 

Objectives

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would establish a pilot program to demonstrate a national RUC system. The objectives of RUC are stated as being:

· To restore and maintain the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund; and

· To improve and maintain the surface transportation system.

This is all very well, but there is no way it can restore the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund without setting fees that are substantially higher than what is paid now with the Federal Gas Tax, because it hasn’t been increased since 1993. To make the Highway Trust Fund solvent, it will need to be increased by more than inflation over the next decade or so. It seems unlikely there is much political will for that. To improve and maintain the surface transportation system is laudable, and presumably means raising enough funds to spend on the network. However, it could also improve it by subtly using tools around pricing, particularly around heavy vehicles and configurations, by encouraging more road-friendly configurations. It seems highly unlikely that location and time of day pricing would be explored (which would really make a difference).

The objectives of the national pilot are stated as:

(A) to test the design, acceptance, implementation and financial sustainability of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee;

(B) to address the need for additional revenue for surface transportation infrastructure and a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee; and

(C) to provide recommendations relating to the adoption and implementation of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee.

Elements

This largely parallels other programmes, which is fine, although the second objective is somewhat tautological. Other interesting elements of the proposal are:

· Multiple methods of measuring miles travelled will be tested.

· Volunteer participants will be sought from ALL states and DC, and even Puerto Rico;

· The distribution of participants will be an equitable geographic distribution (although it is unclear how this will factor in population size);

· Both “commercial vehicles” and “passenger motor vehicles” will be included, so not just light vehicles, but also trucks and potentially buses.

· The pilot will co-ordinate with states pursuing pilots, to consider using the components of their systems or pilots.

All of this seems largely sensible, although one unanswered question is the scale of the proposed pilot program, which seems likely to be in the thousands of vehicles.

It’s unclear whether the pilot will collect money (either from those that pay no gas tax or by crediting gas tax paid), or will just generate mock invoices, but the Bill states that the Secretary of Transportation will set rates for the pilot and the amounts may vary between vehicle types and weight classes (which is dead right for heavy vehicles) to reflect estimated impacts on infrastructure, safety, congestion, the environment, or other related social impacts.

Infrastructure is obvious, but safety seems odd, as nowhere charges differentially based on safety ratings of vehicles. Congestion is only possible if there is location and time of day measurement as well as distance, which limits technical solutions (but is likely to generate huge benefits if feasible). Environment could be reflected in different rates for levels of emissions. Related social impacts is unclear but would need to be explored further. Let’s be clear though, the gas tax does none of this well.

Technology

Tools for measuring distance are mentioned in the Bill, specifically:

· Third-party OBD-II devices (plug-in devices, suitable for most light vehicles up to a certain age);

· Smart phone applications;

· Automaker installed telematics;

· Data collected by car insurance companies;

· Data from States that have piloted RUC under the FAST Act;

· Data obtained from fuelling stations; and

· Any other method considered appropriate by the Secretary.

Interestingly this does NOT include commercial vehicle telematics, widely used for truck fleet management. It also doesn’t include more manual options, but of course there is scope to include these obviously. 

A Federal System Funding Advisory Board will be set up to develop recommendations related to the structure, scope and methodology for developing and implementing the pilot programme, carrying out the public awareness campaign and developing a report to Congress. That report will be on whether the pilot has achieved its objectives, how protections for participants were complied with and some estimate of administrative costs and equity impacts.

Members of the advisory board will include representatives of:

• State Departments of Transportation
• Entities that led pilots under the FAST Act
• Representatives of the trucking industry (note, these have been vehemently opposed to RUC for many years)
• Data security experts with expertise in personal privacy (though I would have thought it needed legal expertise as well)
• Academic experts on surface transportation systems
• Consumer advocates, including privacy experts
• Advocacy groups focused on equity
• Owners of motor vehicle fleets
• Owners and operators of toll facilities
• Tribal groups or representatives
• Anyone else deemed appropriate by the Secretary

This is potentially recipe for an utter mess, but is demonstrative of the US approach to public policy, which is to consult with whatever interests are seen to be relevant (interestingly it doesn't include railroads, doesn't include automotive manufacturers, doesn't include telematics system suppliers, doesn't include customers of transportation systems, doesn't include bus or coach operators, doesn't include agriculture or business).  

Conclusion

This is potentially a BIG deal, and has the potential to be quite some success, but also the potential to fail spectacularly due to complexity, scale and overlapping objectives. It seems likely to be much more appropriate to first undertake a desktop study of options for RUC and to then consider why a pilot is a good idea. There are really only two main reasons in this case, given pilots are underway at the state level:

• To build public acceptability by demonstrating that RUC would be unobtrusive and not cost more than the Federal gas tax;
• To test how a Federal system might interact with State ones.

US$10 million per annum is being proposed to fund this pilot, which is a great deal of money, but likely to be necessary.  However it begs a lot of questions particularly around scale, duration and how a wide range of participation will be enabled and ensured. What matters most of all is ensuring that a national pilot can avoid being dominated by negative publicity and negative narratives, which requires a lot of work to be done around communicating objectives to a public that is highly sceptical.

The US needs more rational debate and discussion about how roads are paid for and are managed, and this ought to help. It just needs to be done with a great deal of thought and care, because the world is littered with countries that have tried to advance road user charging on a wide scale (see the Netherlands, UK and Finland) and have failed, due to public backlash.

Governor of Pennsylvania commits to phasing out state fuel tax

The Governor of the US State of Pennsylvania, Tom Wolf, has announced on his website that the state fuel taxes ("gas tax") are unreliable and will have to be phased out.  He is understood to be the first Governor of a US state to say this and is possibly the first jurisdiction in the world to have done so. 

The key part of the statement reads as follows:

“Our economy, our communities, and our future rely on a strong transportation system that supports our safety and growth. We have more than $9 billion in annual unmet needs across our state-maintained transportation system alone. At the same time, Pennsylvania is relying too much on outdated, unreliable funding methods, and the federal government hasn’t taken meaningful action in decades,” Gov. Wolf said. “Phasing out the burdensome gas tax, coupled with seeking long-term reliable funding solutions that will keep pace with our infrastructure needs, deserves a close examination. Forming this bipartisan commission will bring multiple, bipartisan voices to the table to ensure that we can examine reliable, sustainable revenue solutions to address both near-term and long-term funding needs.”

In other words, there is insufficient revenue now from the gas tax to meet the state's demands, with the US$9b shortfall estimated to rise to US$14.5b by 2030.  He puts the unreliability of the gas tax down to the rapidly increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles and the rise of new motive power technologies (electric and hybrids) that render the gas tax increasingly unreliable.

It is of course also increasingly unfair. It is only those who can afford to buy a relatively new vehicle who get the benefits of new vehicle technologies, so over time it means those who don't have the financial means to buy such vehicles that would increasingly pay a higher proportion of the gas tax.  This argument has been critical to the success of states such as Oregon and Utah in starting a transition towards distance based road user charging. 

The Governor has announced establishment of a "Transportation Revenue Options Commission (PDF for the executive order), to investigate how to progress away from the gas tax.  It's main responsibilities are to:

• Study  and  prepare  a  comprehensive  list  of  potential  revenue  sources  available  for  current  and  future  funding  of  transportation  in  the  Commonwealth  for  all  modes  of  transportation.    The  funding  sources  must be reliable, dedicated, inflation sensitive, and adaptive to changing environmental factors; and 
• Prepare  a  comprehensive,  strategic  Commonwealth  transportation  funding proposal.

This is a wide open mandate, but this should be expected. The modes referred to are not just roads, but also public transport, Amtrak, rail freight and airports/heliports, so it will include public transport fares and airport user charges, as well as the road based options well known on this blog.

So I fully expect Pennsylvania to consider:

• Tolls on major highways and crossings;
• Full network distance (and weight) based road user charging;
• Congestion pricing on congested corridors or at major centres;
• Motor vehicle registration/licensing fees;
• Taxes on energy;
• Taxes on land related to it benefiting from transport infrastructure;
• Other direct user charges;
• Non-transport related taxes (sales taxes, income taxes).

The Tax Foundation reports that 56% of Pennsylvania's state transportation tax revenue is raised by the state gas tax, and to replace this with distance-based RUC (also known in the US as Vehicle Miles Tax (VMT) or Mileage Based User Fees (MBUF)) would need to be an average of US$0.08 per mile, but rightfully points out that any such fee would have to vary by vehicle weight.  Heavy trucks should pay much more than that, and cars much less, to more closely reflect their current fuel consumption, or better yet to actually reflect the costs they impose on the network (as is done in Oregon).

Pennsylvania currently has one of the higher state gas taxes in the US at US$0.576 a gallon (that's US$0.152 per litre for the metric world).  In July 2020 it was the second highest, so perhaps it is an admission that it isn't just the rate that is the issue, but the yield. Noting that this is significantly higher than the Federal gas tax at US$0.184 per gallon (US$0.049 per litre) which itself hasn't increased since 1993.

Whatever comes out of Pennsylvania, it demonstrates that there is growing political recognition at the higher levels of government in some US States that the status quo is unsustainable.  It is encouraging to see these emerging on the eastern states, given that the western seaboard states (Oregon, Washington, California and Hawaii) have all embarked on pilot programmes (and in the case of Oregon revenue-collecting) to explore RUC. There are bigger challenges in the east, due to the smaller states and much higher interstate traffic movement, but these challenges can be overcome, since they all face the same issue.

In the long term, the gas tax is not only unsustainable, but is unfair.