Does Road Pricing Force the Poor Off the Roads?

The short answer to this question is "yes".

The long answer is more interesting. I agree that road pricing/congestion charging might price some people out of using the roads at rush hour. But the same could be said of petrol prices, or road tax, or insurance... The key point is that roads are not free to use for any motorised vehicle now. The aim of a charge is to make road users (effectively) pay the economic cost of the congestion they cause: yes, this means that the rich can cruise in more quickly than before. But today the rich can use their private car versus having to use the (cheaper) bus service. The poor have less choice.

If the charge is set correctly, and there is a viable public transport alternative, the (really) less well-off in society end up with a more affordable and efficient public transport service than at present. The issue is that congestion is damaging to a country's/region's economy as a whole, and the only way to reduce that is by reducing the number of vehicles on the road at rush hour (i.e. somehow people are forced to change journey timings or move on to public transport).

Jon Davies makes another interesting observation: if a congestion charging scheme is made revenue neutral (i.e. total revenues raised by government are the same as currently under road taxation), then it might in fact become cheaper for the less well-off to drive at certain times (e.g. midnight). That might mean some people could afford to use the road who cannot at present.

For some facts and figures on cost/benefit of cordon-based road pricing, see the results of the Stockholm trial. The last page details benefits of reduced journey times, cleaner air, etc..

Ultimately, is being able to afford to use a car a "right" or a privilege? If we had good public transport I think I'd regard it as more of a luxury... Thoughts?

(Cross-posted from the thread on congestion charging over at the Cambridge Network social network.)