The Road Not Priced: Learning from Our EV Mistakes Before AVs Change Everything
Key Takeaways
- AVs have enormous potential to transform our cities, but without road user charging (RUC), they will also generate serious negative consequences, including increased congestion, reduced liveability and worse environmental outcomes.
- The intellectual case for RUC for AVs is already strong and growing, but not a single jurisdiction has yet recognised the need to act.
- The failure to implement RUC for EVs over the past decade offers a direct and sobering lesson for how the AV story could unfold.
- Misaligned political incentives are one of the biggest barriers; the benefits of RUC for AVs will be felt long after today's politicians have moved on.
- Government agencies have consistently failed to anticipate and act on emerging policy challenges before they become entrenched problems.
- Every day without action creates a larger and more resistant constituency of AV users, making RUC progressively harder to implement.
- Unlike EVs, the technology and privacy barriers to RUC for AVs are largely already resolved, making this a more achievable policy goal.
- The political window to act is open now, with lower levels of opposition than congestion charges or RUC for EVs ever faced, but that advantage will not last.
- The missing ingredient, for both EVs and AVs, has been organised and sustained advocacy; good ideas do not become policy on their own.
- A dedicated global NGO focused solely on advocating for RUC for AVs is the most promising way to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past decade.
What Next?
Getting RUC for AVs on the agenda won't happen by itself. It will take a network of committed people working together. If you want to be part of that, reply to this blog or drop me an email at russell@transportlc.org. You don't need a lengthy pitch, just say: Interested.
Introduction
A few weeks ago, I made the case for implementing RUC for Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) in one of my vision for AVs blog posts. The argument was straightforward: while AVs have the potential to deliver significant benefits, left unchecked, they will also create serious problems: increased congestion, worsening liveability, undermined public transport and worse environmental outcomes. Road User Charging (RUC), I argued, is the most effective tool we have to prevent those outcomes.
Since then, the case has only grown stronger. David Zipper made the same argument in a recent Bloomberg article, and I have seen growing support from transport researchers and consultants. The intellectual consensus is building.
What remains absent, however, is action.
So how do we get from idea to real-world policy? That is the question this blog sets out to answer.
To do that, I want to start by looking at a debate I was closely involved in roughly a decade ago: RUC for Electric Vehicles (EVs). The parallels are striking.
Understanding why we failed to make progress on RUC for EVs is, I believe, the key to making sure we do not repeat those same mistakes with AVs.
Seven Reasons We Failed to Deliver RUC for EVs
A decade ago, the writing was on the wall. The Tesla Model S had arrived in 2012 and shown the world that EVs could be genuinely desirable. Adoption was accelerating, and forward-thinking people in Transport and Treasury departments around the world could see what was coming: as fuel tax revenues declined, governments would need a new way to price road use. The answer, for those willing to look ahead, was RUC.
The need was recognised. The Wolfson Economic Prize put forward a competition for better roads, and the winning submission had RUC at its heart. I was co-founding a start-up at the time, and our own submission was a finalist.
That was over a decade ago. So where are we now?
Nowhere is the honest answer. Not a single country has implemented RUC specifically for EVs. Iceland, with a population of just 400,000, has introduced a basic annual odometer reading scheme for all vehicles. New Zealand has passed legislation, but has yet to implement it. The UK has signalled an intention to act by 2028, again based on a simple odometer approach. For a problem that has been clearly understood for more than ten years, the lack of progress is striking.
So what went wrong? I see seven key reasons.
1. The political incentives were misaligned
The problems created by not replacing fuel duty were not going to be felt acutely for many years, and neither were the benefits of better demand management on our roads. By the time either materialised, today's political leaders would have long since moved on. Politicians are not incapable of long-term thinking, but in the modern 24-hour media environment, their energies are heavily skewed towards the short term. Pain now for benefits later is rarely a winning proposition.
2. Government agencies were too slow to act
Government agencies are rarely well set up to look ahead, anticipate emerging problems and get them onto the political agenda before they become a crisis. Transport is no exception. For example, a common failure is in asset management, where short-term decisions to cut maintenance consistently cost more in the long run. In fairness, this lack of foresight is partly a product of politicians narrowing the focus of public servants to delivery rather than advice. Raising future challenges is not always welcomed, and over time, agencies learn not to try.
3. RUC conflicted with climate goals
Introducing RUC for EVs came with an obvious drawback: it would increase the cost of EV ownership and risk slowing adoption at exactly the moment governments were trying to accelerate it. Our Wolfson Prize submission spent considerable time on this tension, proposing that RUC revenues be used to reduce the upfront cost of EVs, which at the time was a major barrier to uptake. Many governments went on to subsidise purchase costs, but none paired that support with RUC. The climate imperative, understandably, won out, but it left the fiscal and congestion problems unresolved.
4. Every delay made the problem harder
One of the most insidious aspects of this challenge is that inaction compounds itself. Every day that passed without a RUC decision, more people purchased an EV, creating a growing constituency of drivers who would resist any future attempt to introduce charges. The barriers to action were not static; they were rising. Experts proposed approaches to address this, but they went largely unheeded.
5. There was no organised campaign
Perhaps the most important reason of all: nobody was consistently and professionally campaigning for RUC for EVs as a priority. Various experts made a compelling intellectual case, but advocacy is not their primary role, and expertise does not automatically translate into political influence. Meanwhile, much of the energy in the RUC space was directed towards congestion charges. Despite a high-profile success in New York, the honest global picture is one of very limited progress, and experience shows that even landmark wins do not automatically inspire others to follow.
6. The technology created uncertainty
Even a politician genuinely willing to act on RUC for EVs would quickly have encountered a practical obstacle: the technology. Devices need to be installed in vehicles, which is manageable for commercial fleets but a significant headache for private motorists. The ability to prevent fraud through device disconnection was also unproven. These added risk and in politics, added risk is often enough to kill a policy.
7. Privacy concerns added further complexity
RUC requires tracking vehicle movements, and that raised legitimate concerns about government surveillance. While there are ways to design charging systems that protect individual privacy, allowing billing without government access to detailed movement data, explaining that nuance to a sceptical public is another layer of complexity that many politicians preferred to avoid.
Taken together, these seven factors created a policy environment in which doing nothing was always the preferred option. The question now is whether we are about to repeat the same mistake with AVs.
From EVs to AVs: The Same Barriers, The Same Outcome?
If the seven failures of EV RUC read like a cautionary tale, the picture for AVs is sobering. Almost every one of those barriers applies.
The good news is that two of the seven problems are largely resolved. The technology barrier that complicated EV RUC barely exists for AVs, as the tracking capability is already built into the vehicles. And the privacy concern, while not entirely gone, is significantly diminished in a world where people already routinely share their location data with private companies. Those same companies could handle billing on behalf of governments, without governments needing to know who is travelling where or when.
That, however, is where the good news ends.
Political incentives remain misaligned
The political calculus for AVs is no better than it was for EVs. Implementing RUC now would deliver its greatest benefits years down the track, well beyond the horizon that most politicians plan for. In the meantime, many are actively celebrating AV rollouts as a sign of forward-thinking leadership. Asking those same politicians to impose charges on a technology they have been championing is a difficult conversation, and most might prefer to ignore it.
Government agencies are no better prepared
There has been renewed interest in policy foresight since the pandemic, but there is little evidence that it has translated into serious thinking about AV RUC inside transport departments. The overwhelming focus within government, when it comes to AVs, is on safety regulation, technology standards and managing the immediate operational challenges AVs are creating on city streets. If RUC work is happening inside any transport agency, it has not yet surfaced publicly.
Conflicting priorities are already emerging
Just as climate goals complicated the case for EV RUC, competing priorities are already muddying the waters for AVs. Some voices are arguing that we need to accelerate AV adoption to realise road safety benefits as quickly as possible. Others are viewing AVs through an industrial policy lens, looking to support domestic AI or automotive industries. Both arguments will be used to push RUC down the agenda.
The window is closing
This is perhaps the most pressing concern of all. The dynamic that made EV RUC progressively harder to implement, a growing base of users resistant to new charges, is already beginning to play out with AVs, and it will accelerate quickly. As more people incorporate AVs into their daily lives, and as AV companies grow in scale and lobbying power, the political cost of acting will only increase. The window to establish the right policy framework is open now, but it will not stay open for long.
There is still no organised campaign
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is no coordinated advocacy effort pushing for AV RUC. Many in the RUC community remain focused on congestion charges or RUC for EVs. Good research and thoughtful commentary exist, but they are not the same as a sustained, strategic campaign capable of shifting political agendas. Without that, the default outcome, inaction, is almost certain.
The lesson from EVs is that problems do not solve themselves, and good ideas do not become policy on their own. If we simply do what we did last time, we will get the same result. Something has to change.
What We Need To Do Differently This Time
The lesson from EVs is clear: good ideas do not become policy without organised, sustained advocacy. The intellectual case for RUC for AVs is already strong and growing. What has been missing, both for EVs and so far for AVs, is the organised effort needed to translate that case into political action.
Simply hoping that politicians or government agencies will spontaneously act differently this time is not a strategy. We need to build one.
That is why I am proposing the creation of a global non-government organisation (NGO) dedicated specifically to campaigning for RUC for AVs.
This would not be a large institution in the mould of the major global NGOs. It would be something leaner, more networked and more focused, built around a single, clear objective. Specifically, the NGO would:
Build a network of advocates
Draw together academics, consultants, community advocates and public servants across multiple jurisdictions, people who are already convinced of the case and who have existing relationships with politicians, government staff and the media. The goal is not to create a new bureaucracy, but to connect and empower people.
Provide practical resources and support
Equip advocates with the tools they need to make the case effectively: model policies, briefing notes for politicians and public servants, sample opinion pieces, media releases, responses to common objections and research summaries. Making it easy for busy people to advocate well is one of the most important things a coordinating body can do.
Promote and synthesise research
Commission and promote research that documents the likely impacts of unpriced AVs and quantifies the benefits of RUC. Evidence alone does not drive policy, but it is an essential foundation and good research, well communicated, can shift the terms of public debate.
Develop exemplar policies
Produce model policy frameworks that governments can adapt, covering the full range of issues that need to be addressed: pricing structures, incentives for shared AV models, privacy protections, equity considerations, auditing, KPIs, legislation, regulation, implementation pathways, revenue allocation, etc. The goal is to make it easy to progress the policy.
Answer the objections
Anticipate and address the arguments that will be used to delay or defeat RUC for AVs, including the claim that charging will slow improvements in road safety, with clear, evidence-based responses that advocates can deploy with confidence.
Support aligned peak bodies
Work alongside and support organisations that share compatible goals, including those advocating for public transport, active transport and sustainable urban planning. RUC for AVs is fundamental to the future of our cities, and building a broad coalition will be essential.
Maintain a visible presence
Speak at conferences and forums, engage with the media, and keep the issue on the agenda in the way only a dedicated organisation can.
The good news is that the political environment for AV RUC is, for now, more favourable than it ever was for congestion charges or RUC for EVs. Those policies required significant political bravery in the face of entrenched opposition. RUC for AVs, implemented now, before the industry and its users become a powerful vested interest, faces considerably lower levels of resistance. That advantage will not last, but it gives us a genuine opportunity if we move quickly.
I have already begun building support. Professor David Hensher, one of the world's leading transport experts and a long-standing advocate for RUC, has offered his backing. Others are coming on board.
Conclusion
The transition to AVs is already underway. And just as we once watched the rise of EVs without putting the right policy frameworks in place, we risk making the same mistake again.
Most of the barriers that stalled RUC for EVs: misaligned political incentives, slow-moving bureaucracies, conflicting priorities, delayed action, and weak advocacy, were never addressed and apply to AVs too.
The good news is that we are better placed than we were for EVs. The technology and privacy barriers that complicated EV RUC are far less problematic for AVs. And the political opposition, at least for now, is more manageable than it has been for congestion charges or RUC for EVs. But that window of opportunity will not stay open indefinitely. Every month that passes, more people climb into AVs, more companies embed them into our cities, and the lobbying power of the industry grows.
That is why now is the time to act, and why I am proposing a global NGO dedicated solely to advocating for RUC for AVs.
If you believe, as I do, that AVs have enormous potential to transform our cities for the better, but only if we get the policy settings right, then I want to hear from you. Whether you are an academic, a consultant, a community advocate, a public servant, or simply someone who cares about the future of our cities, there is a role for you in this effort.
Getting RUC for AVs on the agenda won't happen by itself; it will take a network of committed people working together. If you want to be part of that, reply to this blog or drop me an email at russell@transportlc.org. You don't need a lengthy pitch, just say: βInterestedβ.
Together, we can make sure that this time, we get it right.