Road User Charging

[Bper]

Sadiq Khan is investing £150m in ‘secret’ technology that could deliver pay-per-mile road charging

London Mayor employing 157 staff on TfL scheme amid claims he is stepping up war on motorists

Sadiq Khan has already spent £21 million on the project

is investing £150 million on a “secret” technology project capable of charging motorists a pay-per-mile road tax, 

The scheme, called Project Detroit, was set up by Transport for London (TfL) to create a “more sophisticated… new core technology platform for road-user charging”.

A series of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests show 157 staff are now working solely on the scheme, with some engineers being paid more than £100,000 a year.

In total £21 million has already been spent on the project, which started in 2021, but the “platform has an estimated final cost of between £130 million to £150 million”.

But Conservatives at City Hall claim Project Detroit, which is creating a single “road user charging” platform for the congestion charge, Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) and Low Emission Zone, could be used to introduce a charge based on the distance driven in cars within London.

One FoI response from TFL says: “The Detroit platform has the capability to be extended and we will be looking to build the system flexibly so that other forms of charging based on distance, vehicle type, etc could be catered for if a decision was made in future to do so.”

In 2018, the mayor’s Transport Strategy said an “integrated pay-per-mile charge could replace pre-existing schemes”, such as the congestion charge.

However, the furore over the expansion of Ulez and claims Labour is waging a “war on motorists” saw the mayor recently insist he would not introduce a pay-per-mile tax on cars in the capital.

Third term

Peter Fortune, the Conservative London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley, insisted that Project Detroit paves the way for pay-per-mile charging.

“Sadiq Khan can deny it all he wants but it’s pretty clear he plans to introduce pay-per-mile road-user charges for every motorist if he wins a third term,” he said.

“He has a history of saying one thing and doing the opposite. Remember he told us he wouldn’t expand Ulez, then did precisely that.

“Sadiq Khan relies on road-user charges to plug the black hole in TfL finances. Motorists will pay TfL £1 billion in Ulez and other road-user charges this year.

“As the number of non-Ulez compliant vehicles inevitably falls, he’ll need to find new sources of revenue. He recently confirmed plans to charge motorists at least £123 million annually from 2025 for using the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels.

TfL income

“Pay-per-mile is next in providing a steady source of income for TfL.

“He has confirmed TfL is developing new technology to integrate Ulez, congestion and other charges into a single payment. Charging motorists for each mile they drive won’t be difficult once this technology is in place.”

The latest FoI responses from TfL show how 41 of the 157 staff dedicated to the scheme are permanent. Of those, three are Band 4 employees earning between £76,000 and £111,800, a further 33 are in Band 3 paid between £58,300 and £85,8000, while five are on Band 2 wages, earning between £51,000 and £75,700. Meanwhile, 89 are “third-party consultants”.

The number of staff working on the scheme, begun in 2021, has increased from 97 in December 2022 to its current 157.

Ruled out

Mr Fortune added: “I know the team includes experts working on a pay-per-mile road-user charging scheme. It’s a very secretive project. I asked to visit the project team last year. I’m still waiting for an invite. ”

Asked to release “any correspondence sent to the mayor” regarding Project Detroit, TfL’s FoI team replied: “We do not hold any correspondence sent to the mayor during the requested period in which Project Detroit is referred to.”

A TfL spokesperson said: “Any work carried out or staff hired as part of Project Detroit has been in relation to TfL’s existing road-user charging schemes.

“This was part of TfL’s wider work to bring in-house the currently outsourced system for which the contract expires in 2026.

“Pay-per-mile charging has been ruled out by the mayor and no such scheme is on the table or being developed.”

 

[Mjolinor]

Just shows how paper pushing has taken over from sense.

Nothing wrong with the right to using the roads being added directly to fuel cost.

Pay per use just sitting waiting to be used with no paper involved.

 

[Haliotis]

Why is Sadiq Khan conducting the pay per mile in secret?  Along with the reported vast expense and large supporting staff, does not this sound like a fanatic at work?   Also, even if his efforts bring success in making the technology workable, kit does not mean that such a payment system will be passed into UK law.  There are many possible hurdles that could sink the process as far as parliament is concerned.   Would Khan be able to force the technology onto the residents of London?  He may be ousted long before that day arrives.

[Bper]

Albert, it is likely that Khan will be elected again if the polls are anything to go by. Doesn't look like he needs Parliament if ULEZ below has been implemented without it.

The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is a road user charging scheme made under section 295 and Schedule 23 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, as amended.  Road user charging schemes are established by the making of a scheme order by TfL, in its capacity as a charging authority under schedule 23, which must be subject to public consultation and must also confirmed by the Mayor of London (with or without modification) before they can come into force.  Subsequent changes by “variation orders” follow the same process.  😠

[Haliotis]

If ‘Road user charging’ were to be implemented under the Greater London Authority Act, cars would need to be fitted with the necessary technology for collecting revenue.  How would vehicles visiting the area be charged?

I am greatly concerned about individual local authorities being allowed to enforce their own rules outside general national regulations.  It leaves too large an opening for local dictators the likes of Sadiq Khan.

Khan likely to be elected again doesn’t say much for residents in the area.  I’d like to see Howard Cox kick him into the long grass.

[Bper]

IMO Local Authorities have been using their financial and political power to enforce regulations almost at will for decades.

In all honesty it's our fault for just standing back and allowing them to do this. We complain that it's unfair for every dictatorial policy that places evermore financial burden on us householders and motorists. However, what do we do? nothing. 

The last real marches that thousands came out for was the anti-lockdown restrictions that were placed on us and what did that achieve? I don't really blame people as there has been a systematic erosion of civil liberties and financial burdens placed on society for thousands of years. It is slowly implemented to firstly test the reaction of communities to a small rule or policy that always leads to either financial burden or restriction. 

Once they are sure that any objection is muted, the policy or regulation stays. Straight away this ensures compliance and gives the green light to push a little more and continue to make the financial burden greater each time with the surety that they can continue with the success of implementation, reaction and end goal, compliance.

This has happened in every area of our lives where financial gain and power has been the required result. It really isn't difficult to see that psychological influence has always been used successfully to indoctrinate societies into believing that it is all in our best interests.

And, in more recent times to save the planet.

People generally think this doesn't happen as we live in a democratic society were the politicians are voted in by us and serve the will of the people and in it's best interests. What most never realise is it has always been done and right under there noses and the beauty of it is they never had a clue they have been so easily manipulated.

 

[Haliotis]

Sadly, Bob, so many UK citizens never bother about challenging Authority - they are more concerned with bingo, football, and TV soaps - but are ready to whinge about it when they feel it in their pockets.

Birmingham City Council filed for effective bankruptcy under section 114 last September.  Now, the government has said they will not deny that council’s request to raise council tax by 10% this year (the cap is 4.99%), and they are looking for another 10% rise the following year - that is 20% in two years.  This will put a strain on thousands of low paid residents in the area - bad financial management that went unchecked, with residents having to pay for an inept council.  Disgraceful.

[FROSTYBALLS]

44 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

Birmingham City Council filed for effective bankruptcy under section 114 last September.

Why single Birmingham out when 13 other councils have issued 114 notices other the last few years, and there are other councils who have already successfully applied to raise more than the 5% increase. For example for 2023/24 Thurrock and Slough were allowed increases of 10% each, and Croyden 15%.

This has nothing to do with the topic subject  - Road User Charging - so please return to the topic subject.

[Bper]

From previous articles the government put forward that.

The Transport Select Committee has suggested to the government that a new road tax scheme be developed by the end of 2022. They also feel it should be drawn up, with all the relevant rates worked out, by a new group separate to the Department of Transport and the UK Treasury.

However, actually implementing the tax changes will take longer than that. It will take time for all the paperwork to be sorted and for the tax changes to become law. There is also a need for the proper development of technology and software to record the mileage data that will be used to calculate how much tax a given driver will owe. 🙂

 

[Haliotis]

There is one down side to charging per mile - drivers can organise their day to keep driving to a minimum, and organised car sharing could keep many cars idle for longer periods of time.  So the revenue from these charges could suffer shortfalls.  Also, if pay per mile involved cars having equipment that sent out a radio signal, there would be a ready market for the illegal manufacture of jamming devices which could be small and well secreted in the vehicle. Conversely, the excise duty does at least give the taxman more assurance that his estimated income is more certain.

[Cyker]

11 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Khan likely to be elected again doesn’t say much for residents in the area.  I’d like to see Howard Cox kick him into the long grass.

Not their fault - We have KHAAAN! who we know is a lying two-faced git, who is going to bankrupt us and basically kill car ownership in London, but the people up against him are just as awful for other reasons; The most likely person to be able to challenge him is Susan Hall, and the more I read about her the less I want to vote for, same for Howard Cox.

I will quite literally be having to pick the lessor of three evils on voting day - From what I've learned about them all so far, I'd rather fire all three of them into the sun than vote for any of them; All three sound like vile human beings who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the reins of power, yet here we are having to vote for them. Oh what a time to be alive!

 

[Haliotis]

We have the Department for Transport, the DVLA, and the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders.  Surely, under government guidance, these organisations could grade cars according to their environmental friendliness (or not), and be the ones to determine which cars should be penalised, and which should not.  Whatever course is taken, the decisions should be taken away from amateur councils, who have little or no technical knowledge about car safety and emissions, but only look far enough to find any excuse to squeeze more money out of motorists and generally give them a hard time.  This isn’t democracy - it is a return to the old local barons and feudal system.

Khan is one of these, and there are many other local authority leaders only too willing to learn from him and apply similar tactics.

Any tradesmen who service the Greater London Area, if they have any sense, should be restructuring their client base to exclude customers in the GLC area.  Inconvenienced residents would hopefully then recognise the need to rid themselves of Khan.

[Bper]

This was part of the consultation put to the public and a questionnaire to gauge their views on pay-per-mile charging.

The scheme design options

three viable options for designing a national pay-as-you-drive system:A flat per-mile charge for EVs only (while keeping fuel duty and VED as they are for non-electric vehicles)

Replacing fuel duty and VED for all vehicles with a set per-mile charge with the charge level based on vehicle type and emissions (i.e. lower charges for smaller and less polluting vehicles) but regardless of when and where one drives

Replacing fuel duty and VED for all vehicles with a “smart” per-mile charge that varies depending on vehicle type and emissions, location or type of road, and time of day

Option 1 has the attraction of being simple and addresses directly the gap created by EVs not paying tax. The research showed 65 per cent of respondents believe it is fair for EV drivers to be taxed but at a lower rate than petrol and diesel drivers so as not to slow down their uptake. 

An EV-only charge also does not address the lack of transparency and fairness in the current system, so it would not be a good option while a significant proportion of petrol and diesel vehicles remain. Yet an EV-first charge could provide a good starting point to roll out a pay-as-you-drive system for all vehicles.

Option 2 would expand the distance-based charge to all vehicles so that petrol and diesel drivers pay it instead of fuel duty and VED. It would still be a static per-mile charge but it would charge less polluting vehicles a lower per-mile rate. This would encourage a switch to lower-emission vehicles and ensure that EVs are still cheaper to run than petrol or diesel cars. The main downside of a static set charge, however, is that it cannot address the main concern for 63 per cent of less supportive participants that a pay-as-you-drive system would penalise people when public transport options are less available.

Option 3 – a “smart” scheme which varies the charge according to when and where the actual journey takes place – is the best way of making the system fair to people who have no options but to drive. If a journey takes place in more rural areas with fewer public transport options, or on days of the week and at times of the day/night when such options are unavailable, the rates could be much lower. So a fully variable smart road pricing system should be the option to work towards in the longer term. Its main downside is that it requires vehicle tracking technology (a plug-in device, the vehicle’s in-built telematics or roadside cameras) to account for location and time of day – a key stumbling block in the past – while a static set charge only requires an odometer reading at a vehicle’s MOT. Our research found that, while people disliked the idea of being watched by cameras specifically, loss of privacy was not among people’s top three reasons for considering pay-as-you-drive a bad idea, and both the MOT system and the in-vehicle tracking are equally popular ways to implement the system.

This shows that all three design options are viable and could be different stages of implementation.

 

[Haliotis]

Personally, I am against any form of payment-per-mile (PPM).  Drivers on low/fixed incomes/pensioners would be adversely affected, and any such system would, IMHO, instigate a move towards making car ownership reserved for the more wealthy.  For me, I just do not trust the motives behind any authority’s plans for PPM.  Once introduced, it would be one more charge open to abuse.

[Bper]

I think they will see both public reaction and the revenue raised before considering whether to drop car tax. This may then be the ideal time to raise pay-per-mile charging but defending the rise as mitigating the revenue lost by scrapping the car tax. It's could be a win win.

 

[ToyotaFanDriver]

I wonder what happens if over night everyone stopped driving, perhaps a tax on breathing might be created to scam the general public of their hard earned cash to pay salaries to these idiots and a fund for hurt feelings can be set up.

[Bper]

32 minutes ago, ToyotaFanDriver said:

I wonder what happens if over night everyone stopped driving, perhaps a tax on breathing might be created to scam the general public of their hard earned cash to pay salaries to these idiots and a fund for hurt feelings can be set up.

jack, this is the problem. The public have the power to change these policies but the general apathy is alarming. We just seem to be sitting back and moaning about it but just accepting every single policy that leads to either further restrictions and/or financial burden.

You can see how easy it has been for consecutive governments and councils to impose basically anything they feel they can get away with. And the sad thing is they have.

This Pay-Per-Mile charging will come in and no doubt the same thing will happen as it did with the ULEZ expansion, lots of shouting and a few MP's expressing their objections but it will just go ahead regardless.

Unfortunately, the distraction that takes place with the cost of living, rail strikes, NHS waiting list's, dentist shortages etc., etc., keeps us worrying about these issues whilst they slowly sneak these policies in with so little opposition.😠

[Haliotis]

Bob, you’ve hit the nail on the head - APATHY

[Cyker]

7 hours ago, Haliotis said:

Personally, I am against any form of payment-per-mile (PPM).  Drivers on low/fixed incomes/pensioners would be adversely affected, and any such system would, IMHO, instigate a move towards making car ownership reserved for the more wealthy.  For me, I just do not trust the motives behind any authority’s plans for PPM.  Once introduced, it would be one more charge open to abuse.

In a way we already are paying per mile with fuel tax (And the associated VAT!).

In theory I wouldn't be opposed to it if it was implemented in a sane way (i.e. no expensive trackers or cameras!), and replaced fuel tax and VED, but we all know what will happen is it will be implemented ON TOP of all the existing taxes, which is why I'm currently very against it.

We're already taxed 3 times to drive our cars - 4 if you count the insurance premium tax - That's quite enough in my opinion!!!

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

18 minutes ago, Cyker said:

We're already taxed 3 times to drive our cars - 4 if you count the insurance premium tax

On new cars, 5 times - as there is the £55 fee paid on first registration.

[Bper]

46 minutes ago, Cyker said:

In a way we already are paying per mile with fuel tax (And the associated VAT!).

In theory I wouldn't be opposed to it if it was implemented in a sane way (i.e. no expensive trackers or cameras!), and replaced fuel tax and VED, but we all know what will happen is it will be implemented ON TOP of all the existing taxes, which is why I'm currently very against it.

We're already taxed 3 times to drive our cars - 4 if you count the insurance premium tax - That's quite enough in my opinion!!!

 

The question is what would be deemed sane or fair, how do many taxes across the country balance low income with medium to high earners. Take the example of someone who needs to travel considerable distances for work but are in a lower income bracket.

The same goes for those that live in rural and remote areas who have no choice but to travel further to where their work place is located. How will they be treated with the cost of Pay-Per-Mile?

And of course van and delivery drivers as another example who travel many miles delivering parcels etc., these added costs will need to be met and will have to be passed on to the customer so adding more pressures on the cost of living. So the concept of those that drive more will pay more will affect many income levels but the lower income bracket may well suffer even harder. Will these type of issues be taken into consideration in the implementation or not?🤔

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Taxation isn't fair.

However, pay per mile taxation may include a free mileage allowance, which could be increased for those living in remote areas. Pay per mile for lorries would be partly based on weight to address the increased damage to roads, etc.

[Bper]

It's true that allowances may be offered and this will no doubt come to light as this process progresses. Would this also potentially change the car insurance market to Pay-Per-Mile only polices making possible cheaper insurance. Would their profits be dramatically reduced as people drive less, if so will they raise premiums in other areas say household building and contents insurance etc to redress the shortfalls.

[dannyboy413]

Whatever happens, Government, the motor industry in general, (including petrol stations), insurance companies etc., will not lose out - they will get 'their' money somehow.

[Haliotis]

13 hours ago, Bper said:

It's true that allowances may be offered and this will no doubt come to light as this process progresses. Would this also potentially change the car insurance market to Pay-Per-Mile only polices making possible cheaper insurance. Would their profits be dramatically reduced as people drive less, if so will they raise premiums in other areas say household building and contents insurance etc to redress the shortfalls.

I don’t think Pay-by-Mile would make any difference to car insurance policies - we already give an estimated annual. Mileage when we take out a car insurance policy, and that would most likely remain as this is one of the parameters when setting the premium.

Messing around with home and contents insurance by the government, in order to support dwindling revenue from car tax charges, could cause problems for the government.

As far as pay-by-mile charging is concerned, this is only one of the ‘think-tank’ proposals - last year the government stated that they had no plans to move away from the current method of applying VED.