In these fiscally austere times, the issue of how Britain’s roads are paid for has once more become a matter of controversy, with some suggesting that the previous Government’s plans for a national road pricing scheme should be looked at again.

 

However opponents of road tolls have been preparing their defences early.

 

Today the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) released a report that argued that a pilot scheme for road pricing conducted on the M6 outside Birmingham had failed.

 

 

The campaign group’s report - entitled “The M6 Toll, Five Years On: Counting The Cost Of Congestion Relief” - claims that “the M6 Toll has failed to cut congestion or improve journey times…is poor value for money… [and] is yet to make a profit.”

 

These findings, the report notes, are predicated on research conducted by the Highways Agency itself.

 

However advocates of road pricing dispute these conclusions.

 

Speaking to Radio 4’s Today programme, the RAC Foundation’s David Bayliss argued that there was evidence to suggest that the toll system “would improve congestion …[and] provide the funds to improve roads.”

 

So where does the weight of evidence fall in this apparent divergence of opinion?

 

 

The 27-mile stretch of the M6 toll road opened in 2003 and is managed by a private company; Midland Expressway Ltd.

 

Since that time, according to the Campaign for Better Transport, the supposed benefits of the scheme have failed to materialise. Their report claims that “not only has the toll road not improved transport in the West Midlands, but drivers who paid the toll are not receiving value for money.”

 

According to the document, this conclusion was reached after the “Campaign for Better Transport looked at a recent Highways Agency report which explores what the M6 Toll’s impact has been.”

 

Using the Highways Agency data, the CBT argue that congestion and journey times have failed to improve between 2003 and 2009.

 

But just how accurate are these conclusions?

 

Full Fact spoke to the Highways Agency, and they cautioned us against using the data in this way.

 

A spokesperson told us: “The problem with these figures is that they don’t take into account background growth in traffic on our roads nationwide. There might seem to have been little change over the five years, but in real terms there has been some improvement.”

 

This is a fact that is apparently confirmed by Department for Transport data, which shows that the number of vehicles on our roads has grown 4 per cent since 2003.

 

Furthermore the number of kilometres travelled by all vehicles in Great Britain has risen from 490.4 billion in 2003 to 508.9 billion in 2008.

 

Against this background the stagnancy of some indicators, taken alongside some falls in congestion and vehicle time noted by the Highways Agency looks more impressive.

 

As a spokesperson for the RAC told us, “it’s difficult to draw any proper conclusions from such a limited trial, but the data we have certainly doesn’t undermine our support for a national road pricing scheme in the future.”

 

 

Whilst the data on the M6 toll pilot is somewhat inconclusive, there is certainly scope for interpreting it in a different light to that which is offered by the Campaign for Better Transport.

 

Indeed it is worth noting that the Highways Agency report does just that, claiming that “five years on, the M6 Toll continues to provide an alternative route to the M6 for motorists and has improved congestion and journey times on the M6.”

 

With such difficulties existing in judging the worth of a 27-mile stretch of road, the implications the pilot has for the proposed national scheme is near impossible to gauge.