London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

[someone]

The attached map shows in some detail the exact location of the expanded ULEZ, the numbered sections within the main map can all be opened up to show the position of the boundary within each section. I've opened a number of the subpages and it appears that there may be 'escape' routes at all the zone entry points.

http://lruc.content.tfl.gov.uk/ulez-bou ... detail.pdf

Thanks. I could not find the individual maps that refers to, but I did find an older set that was differently numbered.

Assuming no changes between them, apart from slip roads and places where you need to make a left turn off the North Circular to cross under or over it being excluded to allow neccessary movements, I could only see two exceptions where the zone did not follow the strict lines of the A406 or A205. Albeit in some places the line did seem to include a tiny section of some side streets. Presumably because of where camera infrastructure could be placed.

The first exception was the A4 between Chiswick and Hogarth Roundabouts. Presumably this is because you cannot leave the M4 at the Chiswick Roundabout, where I suppose it is entirely arbitrary whether you start the zone a little outside the Circulars at M4 junction 2, or a little inside where people can circulate back on the roundabout. Maybe there is a problem with people not realizing they need to leave the motorway early and use the A4 to access them, so have to circulate back?

The other, though, is interesting. It stood out as section 16 on your map, but it is not inescapable. That is on either side you can stay within or without the zone, and it crosses the A406 on a bridge anyway. Although u-turns are not prohibited, possibly they wanted to be safe and provide lorries an opportunity to be able to safely turn back. Though that is not an opportunity afforded at any other junction. Otherwise the only explanation I can see it they want to keep the Sainsbury's and retail park outside the zone, so that people will not have to pay to do their big shopping by car.

It is the A1199 and B168 as far as the roundabout that is excluded from the ULEZ:

https://goo.gl/maps/2HSNiASprDfYRb586

[FosseWay]

coronavirus has surely demonstrated this - meetings can be held electronically. I am hoping that one positive development that will emerge from all the crap that is the pandemic and its effects, is that the tendency towards electronic communication instead of travelling all over the place just to talk to people will remain.

Following you off on this tangent, what CoVid has shown is what many of us have suggested - virtual meetings are MUCH LESS EFFICIENT than face-to-face. Especially where discussion as opposed to mere presentations are required. And virtual meetings are shown to be problematic for non-English speakers (when typically, English is the "International" language).

At least when people are in a meeting room, away from the office, they are focussed on the meeting, and not at the beck and call of other distractions.

And that is before taking into account problems with time-zones. eg suggestions please as to the best time of day (UTC) to hold a meeting involving UK (UTC/UTC+1), Japan (UTC+9) and California (UTC-8/UTC-7) ???

I echo what Steven said. I don't find virtual meetings less efficient. In fact, overall, my employer has found that we're *more* efficient; I certainly find that I end up doing more work simply because I'm spending less time asleep/staring into space on the bus. Also, meetings tend to be more focused precisely because you have to concentrate on what people are saying and because other people can't see what's distracting you, so you minimise distractions.

Most of my meetings are held in a language that is not my native tongue, and which moreover I couldn't speak a word of before I was 37. Whenever you have multinational groups you have the potential for linguistic confusion, whether face to face or not. I agree that it can help to see the person you're talking to rather than just hearing them; I find this even when speaking in English to other native English speakers as well. But that is what Teams (or whatever other VC software you want) is for.

I don't see the relevance of time zone problems - they exist regardless. I have frequent meetings with China. In fact, virtual meetings can help here as well, because inconvenient as out-of-hours meetings are, they are far more so if you physically have to go to work at an antisocial time of day in order to speak to the US, China etc. than if you can take the call at home and then take some extra time off at some other point. (What Bryn said about not being expected to work for free is extremely important, but again not something that is specifically a WFH problem.)

Where I think there is a definite disadvantage to working from home all/most of the time is that you don't get the spontaneous discussions with colleagues that you get at the office. This can reduce work-related creativity and have an adverse affect on people's social lives, and is an important thing to consider just now, especially given that other aspects of the pandemic also affect social lives in many places. But we were discussing specifically travelling to *meetings*, not going to work more generally. I'd be quite happy to continue working from home even after the covid-related guidance to do so is lifted, but not 100% - I'd probably choose 3:2 days (in either direction, or varying).

[Stevie D]

Following you off on this tangent, what CoVid has shown is what many of us have suggested - virtual meetings are MUCH LESS EFFICIENT than face-to-face. Especially where discussion as opposed to mere presentations are required.

I think it depends on context. I know that when having a discussion with a group of colleagues, it is less efficient online than getting together in a meeting room. But online meetings mean that people can join the meeting in the background and just chip in as and when needed but carry on with their work for the rest of the time, so less time wasted by spending an hour sitting in a meeting where you neither contribute nor gain anything but you get their input as and when needed. And for people who are not located in the same place there are huge advantages in meeting online ... just this afternoon, I had a meeting with 25 colleagues from across Yorkshire & Humber and surrounding areas. By meeting online, we saved the equivalent of about 75 man hours in travel time. That's two weeks of productivity! So even if we didn't achieve quite as much in the meeting or some people were distracted during bits of it, we still got say 90% of the benefit but with 50% of the time commitment, which seems like a win. It looks like even when we're back to normal, this group will continue to meet virtually.

[Vierwielen]

To avoid this, I will try and create gaps between meetings. That sometimes works, but not yesterday....

This is a critical point in the shift to home working for many to ensure that people don't just assume they're available at ten seconds notice - and also the time saved by not commuting or travelling between meetings does not automatically become time your employers expect you to work for free, because you're no longer commuting. I've made it crystal clear that unless there are exceptional circumstances my homeworking hours are 9-5 as I am contracted for 8 hours per day with a 30 min lunch break, and everyone's been fine with that.

At the site where I worked in 1976-8, the IT department was allowed to work flexi-time (to allow maximum use of the IBM 370 computer). We had to be in the office between 10:00 and 12:00 and from 14:00 to 15:30 and we had to work 37.5 hours a week. The order of arrival and departure of the four programmers was predictable, I was usually second in the office at some time between 07:00 and 07:30. The team leader however made a point in being unpredicatable - people outside the office could always find him at his desk during core hours but trying to find him outside core hours often meant a wasted walk across the site. He did most of his "admin" work during his flexible hours when other were not disturbing him.

[Vierwielen]

The biggest problem with working from home is that once you move onto another job, you do not have the advantage of having met your colleagues and if meeting your colleagues face-to-face is not really neccessary for your job, you might find your job outsourced to India or to China.

[thatapanydude]

How nice of the OP to go from thinking they should get free access to London at the cost of Londoners, to now thinking that everyone in the country should pay for this through their taxes. Thanks!

So to spin that on its head should you get free access to the A1 in Bedfordshire and clog-up Black Cat roundabout at the cost of Bedfordians? To be honest its a silly argument. We all pay contribute to the road system in taxes, whilst admittedly I might not pay to a London local authority, I am of the view that roads are a public good and should be made available at the point of access for all, we aren't charging cyclists neither buses directly for road space? Look I can understand (even with gritted teeth) the old arguments on the pre-covid CC charge - the streets for example at Bank aren't suited to heavy amounts of traffic but this expanded charge which will in all probability be used to top-up trains and buses is ridiculous.

For the record I would be more receptive to a wider CC charge scheme if for example the extra money was used to upgrade (not just maintain) roads in the capital but that is not being proposed.

Of course we can look at a wider point, which I have raised before in that should TfL even be controlling strategic roads in London which have little benefit to them. Not being revenue generating instead being a cost burden it would make sense for DfT to take over as unlike public transport like the Tube, roads in London have a larger benefit to the to those outside of the capital.

[Bryn666]

How nice of the OP to go from thinking they should get free access to London at the cost of Londoners, to now thinking that everyone in the country should pay for this through their taxes. Thanks!

So to spin that on its head should you get free access to the A1 in Bedfordshire and clog-up Black Cat roundabout at the cost of Bedfordians? To be honest its a silly argument. We all pay contribute to the road system in taxes, whilst admittedly I might not pay to a London local authority, I am of the view that roads are a public good and should be made available at the point of access for all, we aren't charging cyclists neither buses directly for road space? Look I can understand (even with gritted teeth) the old arguments on the pre-covid CC charge - the streets for example at Bank aren't suited to heavy amounts of traffic but this expanded charge which will in all probability be used to top-up trains and buses is ridiculous.

For the record I would be more receptive to a wider CC charge scheme if for example the extra money was used to upgrade (not just maintain) roads in the capital but that is not being proposed.

Of course we can look at a wider point, which I have raised before in that should TfL even be controlling strategic roads in London which have little benefit to them. Not being revenue generating instead being a cost burden it would make sense for DfT to take over as unlike public transport like the Tube, roads in London have a larger benefit to the to those outside of the capital.

People have proposed per-mile road pricing to fund road maintenance as a truly hypothecated income stream but entitled motorists have complained that a straightforward "polluter pays" principle is somehow the worst human rights abuse since Stalin set up the Gulag.

[Chris Bertram]

How nice of the OP to go from thinking they should get free access to London at the cost of Londoners, to now thinking that everyone in the country should pay for this through their taxes. Thanks!

So to spin that on its head should you get free access to the A1 in Bedfordshire and clog-up Black Cat roundabout at the cost of Bedfordians? To be honest its a silly argument. We all pay contribute to the road system in taxes, whilst admittedly I might not pay to a London local authority, I am of the view that roads are a public good and should be made available at the point of access for all, we aren't charging cyclists neither buses directly for road space? Look I can understand (even with gritted teeth) the old arguments on the pre-covid CC charge - the streets for example at Bank aren't suited to heavy amounts of traffic but this expanded charge which will in all probability be used to top-up trains and buses is ridiculous.

For the record I would be more receptive to a wider CC charge scheme if for example the extra money was used to upgrade (not just maintain) roads in the capital but that is not being proposed.

Of course we can look at a wider point, which I have raised before in that should TfL even be controlling strategic roads in London which have little benefit to them. Not being revenue generating instead being a cost burden it would make sense for DfT to take over as unlike public transport like the Tube, roads in London have a larger benefit to the to those outside of the capital.

People have proposed per-mile road pricing to fund road maintenance as a truly hypothecated income stream but entitled motorists have complained that a straightforward "polluter pays" principle is somehow the worst human rights abuse since Stalin set up the Gulag.

We already pay such a tax - fuel duty. The more miles you do, the more you pay, and the less efficient vehicles pay more than the more efficient. The government could hypothecate that at the stroke of a pen, but have so far chosen not to do it.

[thatapanydude]

It is an area with relatively low car ownership, which was the case even before congestion charging and the ULEZ were introduced, generally very good public transport connections, and cheaper rail fares because of a zonal system.

I would respectably disagree. Places like Hampstead Garden Suburb, Muswell Hill and eastwards in that section of North London are typically places of high car ownership and poor public transport - with most options only going to the centre.

Take East Finchley (for those of you who don't know this part of London very well - here is a typical street to illustrate the suburbia nature) for a case in point. Yes it has a tube station - northern line so on the face of it not too bad. But being a big Jewish population most travel to the local synagogue - Finchley United Synagogue being a major one and in this case we are asking people to either pay £15 travel 15 mins to a place of worship or take public transport (bus 102 - i can testify as a user its an infrequent but useful service) and cross the A406 with children/large families? This is rather impractical.

Likewise for the typical person of East Finchley and most of this area of North London they would go shopping at Brent Cross and drive considering the free parking. To say that there were good public transport alternatives would be wide of the mark considering the key fact Brent Cross tube station is the wrong side of both the A41 & A406 and whilst you could catch the 102 from East Finchley - its a convoluted journey and not very suited to doing a full-weekly shop let's say. You could use this example for anyone in North London wanting to go to IKEA - they would not be able to without incurring the CC charge (for those inside the boundary) - both N.London IKEA's aren't well served by public transport though the one in Tottenham is a bit better.

Regarding the expectation that people should be encouraged to walk? In East Finchley/Hampstead Garden Suburb you are generally not that close to amenities - in some cases a 1.5/2km away from a semi-decent corner shop and to a supermarket well we aren't expecting people especially the older folk to walk a couple of miles to Finchley or Holloway to the Waitrose - its not wholly realistic.

Final point to add re. public transport especially in this part of N.London is that the frequencies and destinations of buses are not very good - not forgetting a fair chunk of N.London from Crouch End upwards to the A406 aren't that close to a train or tube. Most are 10 minute frequency plus and only really do N-S destinations, e.g the 263 follows the A1 and A1000 from Highbury to Barnet. Moreover, for example you could not get a bus from East Finchley to let's say Finsbury Park - with the tube taking 38 mins and having to go into Euston and back up on the Victoria line into Zone 1 tariff. Think about for a family that is the cost of 4 people (2 adults, 2 children) its adds up a lot, we are talking probably £20+ for a trip, when you could take just an 20 min drive down the A1 to Finsbury Park - it was an arbitrary example but the point still remains - that a congestion charge would be totally regressive for lots of London and non London citizens.

[trickstat]

The biggest problem with working from home is that once you move onto another job, you do not have the advantage of having met your colleagues and if meeting your colleagues face-to-face is not really neccessary for your job, you might find your job outsourced to India or to China.

That depends to some degree on the nature of the job. If the knowledge required for it exists in every country then that would be a possibility. If it is specific to this country, the organisation or the local area then it is not really.

I would have thought anybody running a large business who needed a pandemic before they even considered outsourcing is not the sharpest operator.

[thatapanydude]

The OP will also be familiar enough with this area, but they were talking about reducing the capacity of Trent Bridge to allow cycle lanes. I don't get it, because there's the footbridge slightly upstream which could be used for this, and whilst there's all the faffery about with Clifton Bridge... Maybe a good idea in isolation, but the alternatives are better.

Madness, Nottingham itself needs another crossing even with the full fixing of Clifton Bridge. To be honest, I don't see to many cyclists in Nottingham, yes in and around Lenton but not around Trent Bridge to warrant any cycle lanes.

[Phil]

For the record I would be more receptive to a wider CC charge scheme if for example the extra money was used to upgrade (not just maintain) roads in the capital but that is not being proposed.

Given TfL usually receives NO operational support grant from the Westminster Government (a situation unique amongst capital cities throughout the rest of the developed world) then receipts from charges like the congestion charge could well be used to maintain* roads in the capital once the public transport usage has recovered.


* New road building (or upgrades that increase capacity) is a guaranteed vote loser for the London mayor, members of the GLA and indeed most Westminster MPs within London. As your profile suggests you live in Bedfordshire then what you think about investment in new road capacity / upgrades is irrelevant - Londoners generally don't want them and will kick out anyone who ignores their wishes and spends their taxes on things that only increase traffic volumes.

However that said - things like the progressive cuts to speed limits on the likes of the A40 because TfL hasn't got any money to replace the life expired central reserve barrier or speed limits being cut on the Westway because TfL hasn't got the money to properly refurbish the expansion joints are projects that could benefit from congestion charge income and which in theory will benefit everyone in one way or another.

[someone]

So to spin that on its head should you get free access to the A1 in Bedfordshire and clog-up Black Cat roundabout at the cost of Bedfordians?

TfL roads are funded by TfL, which includes from those who come to London and pay to use their services but not from those who come here without paying.

TfL runs a deficit of around £250m in its spending on roads, obviously they are not something which makes money, although that loss is offset by around £200m in profit from the congestion charge. An amount which has been constantly reducing since introduction as they keep encouraging people to switch to other means of transport. The majority of TfL's income comes from passenger fares, then business rates, and then commercial revenues.

DfT roads are funded by everyone in England, including those living in London.

So to stop your head spinning, people in London already pay for the A1 in Bedfordshire, people in Befordshire do not pay for the A1 in London unless they are paying the congestion charge to do so.

It is an area with relatively low car ownership, which was the case even before congestion charging and the ULEZ were introduced, generally very good public transport connections, and cheaper rail fares because of a zonal system.

I would respectably disagree.

And I would respectfully suggest you look up the meaning of "relatively" and "generally" before countering with very specific rather than general examples, and ones which I imagine most people would not consider counter ones at all.

How many people outside of London would consider being within a mile of several rail/tube stations, with buses running as infrequently as every 10 minutes, operating from 6am until midnight seven days a week, costing £1.50, with free changes onto other routes, as being "poor public transport."

That having to use a zebra crossing to get from the bus stop to the synagogue is "rather impractical."

Having lived outside of London, I certainly do not. Twenty years ago I was paying more for that on a bus, and then paying again for a second bus, to get a to station several miles away, but not after 7pm on a weekday, and not at all in Sunday. And that was in a town of 70k people, not some rural village.

Before shielding and the current situation I would often go shopping in Sutton, which is five and a half miles away. It has a big Morrisons, Asda, and Sainsbury's along its High Street amongst other shops that just makes it very useful. Although I would go on a direct train, the High Street is downhill. I would end up with so many bags of my weekly shopping by the time I am at the bottom (do not do your main shopping in Morrisons else you have to carry it everywhere). But I have health conditions and quite often do not have it in me to walk back uphill to the station. So instead I get the bus, well two because there are no direct ones.

My doing and experiencing the supposedly impossible of public transport — and for my entire life as my mam never drove, my dad did not until I was much older, and yet we still had weekly shopping — that most hypothetical arguments just convince me that some people are just making excuses for not even trying. Honestly, you really think that it is "wide of the mark" to consider public transport "good" when a direct bus takes a convoluted route?

Incidentally, what was being discussed was whether having a single congestion charge zone would cause more people within the Circulars to drive into central London.

[Scratchwood]

Politically, a congestion charge extending to the North and South circulars would be unacceptable. The ULEZ is controversial enough - I'm sure many people are still unaware that it's being extended next year - but at least that's something which benefits the residents, with the removal of the most polluting vehicles, and avoiding the ULEZ fee is easy enough as for petrol cars it goes back to standards set in the mid 2000s.

Apart from anything else, the A406 and A205 while being a logistically easy boundary, are actually really unfair ones as the A406 goes much further out. Silver Street station which is directly above the A406 is Zone 4, ditto the likes of South Woodford and Wanstead, whereas the A205 never goes beyond zone 3 and in some parts (like in Wandsworth and Clapham) goes through zone 2.

It would be ludicrous for example for Brent Cross to be outside, but the retail estates (and Tesco) bang opposite on the other side of the A406 to be within the zone, the A406 and A205 were never designed to be a boundary

[someone]

The BBC's Tom Edwards quoting Heidi Allen at today's Finance Committee meeting: "HA: there has been huge progress I do think we have some differences to resolve. Neither Mayor and I want people to pay £15 to drive a mile inside the south circular & that’s what they want to extend congestion charging zone."

https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards/statu ... 0202198016

"NEW: Dep Mayor: “Neither the Mayor or I could see how it would be right to charge people £15 to drive a mile from Wandsworth to Clapham or from Catford to Lewisham from October of next year if the congestion charge was to be extended out to north & south circular

That is what the Govt say they want"

https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards/statu ... 99872?s=20

So that seems to confirm the government do want a single congestion charge rather than tiered zonal option. But in the meantime a short-term deal has been agreed on the current terms which should keep TfL funded until the end of the month while discussions continue.

[Scratchwood]

It is an area with relatively low car ownership, which was the case even before congestion charging and the ULEZ were introduced, generally very good public transport connections, and cheaper rail fares because of a zonal system.

I would respectably disagree. Places like Hampstead Garden Suburb, Muswell Hill and eastwards in that section of North London are typically places of high car ownership and poor public transport - with most options only going to the centre.

Take East Finchley (for those of you who don't know this part of London very well - here is a typical street to illustrate the suburbia nature) for a case in point. Yes it has a tube station - northern line so on the face of it not too bad. But being a big Jewish population most travel to the local synagogue - Finchley United Synagogue being a major one and in this case we are asking people to either pay £15 travel 15 mins to a place of worship or take public transport (bus 102 - i can testify as a user its an infrequent but useful service) and cross the A406 with children/large families? This is rather impractical.

Likewise for the typical person of East Finchley and most of this area of North London they would go shopping at Brent Cross and drive considering the free parking. To say that there were good public transport alternatives would be wide of the mark considering the key fact Brent Cross tube station is the wrong side of both the A41 & A406 and whilst you could catch the 102 from East Finchley - its a convoluted journey and not very suited to doing a full-weekly shop let's say. You could use this example for anyone in North London wanting to go to IKEA - they would not be able to without incurring the CC charge (for those inside the boundary) - both N.London IKEA's aren't well served by public transport though the one in Tottenham is a bit better.

Regarding the expectation that people should be encouraged to walk? In East Finchley/Hampstead Garden Suburb you are generally not that close to amenities - in some cases a 1.5/2km away from a semi-decent corner shop and to a supermarket well we aren't expecting people especially the older folk to walk a couple of miles to Finchley or Holloway to the Waitrose - its not wholly realistic.

Final point to add re. public transport especially in this part of N.London is that the frequencies and destinations of buses are not very good - not forgetting a fair chunk of N.London from Crouch End upwards to the A406 aren't that close to a train or tube. Most are 10 minute frequency plus and only really do N-S destinations, e.g the 263 follows the A1 and A1000 from Highbury to Barnet. Moreover, for example you could not get a bus from East Finchley to let's say Finsbury Park - with the tube taking 38 mins and having to go into Euston and back up on the Victoria line into Zone 1 tariff. Think about for a family that is the cost of 4 people (2 adults, 2 children) its adds up a lot, we are talking probably £20+ for a trip, when you could take just an 20 min drive down the A1 to Finsbury Park - it was an arbitrary example but the point still remains - that a congestion charge would be totally regressive for lots of London and non London citizens.

I live in the same part of the world you describe, I think people forget that it's a different world from central London, it's 7 or 8 miles out, that's M60 distance from central Manchester.

To give another mundane example of boring but essential cross "border" journeys, the Barnet council recycling depot is in Finchley, just outside of the A406, whereas I live just inside the A406.

[M19]

You never know, London could in future go down the Singapore route whereby you need to buy a Certificate of Entitlement to own a car, then have to pay on top for distance and congestion related road charging. That would be eyewatering. At least in Singapore you see where the money goes into an extensive metro network and also an extensive expressway network with a lot of tunnelling in the most urban and sensitive areas.

As EVs become more popular, I can predict a shift away from fuel duty and VED to road user charging on a nationwide basis. Giving EVs practically free use of the roads at present isn’t sustainable in the long run. No doubt this will operate with a base mileage rate, with congestion and emissions premiums.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this resulted in:

A Government flat rate tariff - all roads

Highways Agency - premiums for trunk roads and motorways

Local authorities: additional local tariffs which will no doubt vary, depending on their political leanings, with additional variances for congestion and air quality management zones.

It’s also entirely possible that we might see highways becoming privatised in all but name if concessions are offered to organisations such as Highways England and regional / joint strategic / local scale authority operators to manage the charging networks, maintenance and new highway infrastructure. Possibly this could be the same model as the regional autoroute concessionaires in France such as SANEF for example, but at tiered levels, or alternatives. Quango operators could equally operate the same way - better if they run on a not for profit basis.

Organised properly, it’s possible that we could have a less politically managed road network and see a national and sub national network which is better funded, well maintained and properly planned and well designed expansion. If you wished, you could expand it to cover rail and public transport. You have a single account to pay fares to use an integrated public transport network, as well as using roads. The system could even offer rewards and incentives for using public transport - free miles earned using the bus and rail if you like for when you need to use the roads offsetting congestion levies in cities when buses aren’t running, that kind of thing.

However, this is the UK and it’s very likely that it could be the opposite, with politicians - local and national, pulling the puppet strings of concessionaires (TfL already exists!) Like fuel duty, expect any funds from road charging to disappear into a centralised black hole, with very little going back indirectly to barely fund local authority pseudo bypasses for more housing. Expects rates to creep up. Expect people relying on petrol and diesel even those outside areas where air quality isn’t an issue to suffer unfair higher rates. Critically, expect concessionaires to make huge profits (e.g. SERCO’s £4bn for a Test and Trace Excel spreadsheet that doesn’t work).

Whilst I quite like the theory of road user charging, I have no trust in how it would be set up fairly in the UK, especially by a government that has made a complete dogs breakfast of all things Brexit and COVID.

[someone]

You never know, London could in future go down the Singapore route whereby you need to buy a Certificate of Entitlement to own a car…

Oh. I was so hoping you meant we could become an independent city state.

[jervi]

As EVs become more popular, I can predict a shift away from fuel duty and VED to road user charging on a nationwide basis. Giving EVs practically free use of the roads at present isn’t sustainable in the long run. No doubt this will operate with a base mileage rate, with congestion and emissions premiums.

It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this resulted in:

A Government flat rate tariff - all roads

Highways Agency - premiums for trunk roads and motorways

Local authorities: additional local tariffs which will no doubt vary, depending on their political leanings, with additional variances for congestion and air quality management zones.

Why would using trunk roads and motorways cost more? surely you want to encourage people to use these routes rather than local roads.

I think the way it may work in 10 years or so, is that yearly you will have to pay for the usage, and this will fall in line with MOTs.
The rates will depend on the vehicle used (which will allow electric vehicles to still be cheaper, and obs cost more for HVGs), however the rate used will be either "trunk" or "local". ANPR cameras will measure how many miles you did using trunk roads (and maybe other roads could be included, such as all primary routes?), for these miles you will be charged the lower rate. Then using the odometer during the MOT, the amount of miles on local roads can be calculated as well. For these unaccounted "local" miles you are charged a higher premium.

For foreign vehicles, they will have to declare their mileage (or kilometerage) upon entering and exiting of the country, and fees apply exactly the same.

The cost doesn't have to be high, should cost the average car £200 a year or so. So £0.015/mile for trunk & £0.025/mile for local?
This difference of a few pence shouldn't make people start using strategic roads more for local journeys, as they may actually have to drive further overall, and the difference of 1p a mile doesn't really make a difference to the majority of people.
You may need some more ANPR cameras, but only at major junctions, and this will aid the current primary uses of ANPR (crime & road analytics) anyway. Where a trunk road (or primary route) goes through a town or village, you only really need cameras either end of the town, you don't need 100% coverage of every junction & driveway, it's a rough science.

[M19]

Why would using trunk roads and motorways cost more? surely you want to encourage people to use these routes rather than local roads.

I think the way it may work in 10 years or so, is that yearly you will have to pay for the usage, and this will fall in line with MOTs.

The rates will depend on the vehicle used (which will allow electric vehicles to still be cheaper, and obs cost more for HVGs), however the rate used will be either "trunk" or "local".

Trunk roads and motorways would likely vary depending on traffic, times of day etc, but with the proviso that any income would be used to properly address capacity issues properly, especially junctions, moving away from the hopeless typical sticking plaster approach of reorganising queuing space a bit differently “cos that’s what the modelling says guv.”

The charges for EVs and ICEs would be the same. Petrol and diesel without duty would still be more expensive than electricity, so why introduce artificial differentials. I don’t see the point in making petrol or diesel artificially more expensive for people who cannot yet afford to upgrade to an EV. It would slow the uptake if extra money that you’re paying pricing could go towards buying an EV in the future instead.