the services.
             Some example of services that now attract charges under the UPP include tertiary education which now attracts HECS, waste disposal which is subject to levies and roads that are now subject to tolls and other charges.
             UPP is a contentious issue with many differing opinions on its impact and whether it actually achieves increased responsibility and accountability or is just an excuse for increased government charges. It is something that needs to be carefully managed to ensure fair access to all services for all regardless of income level.
             This paper attempts to identify and analyse some of the UPP charges and arguments for and against those charges. It concludes with the view that UPP based charges are here to stay regardless of whether they achieve what they were intended to in the first place.
             Deloitte (2003) conducted a survey with regards to road user pricing. Their research found that within the next decade road congestion will increase by 188% in Europe alone. Deloitte (2003) argue that a user pays pricing system for roads is essential to reduce gridlock. According to the study London has already introduced a UPP charge to vehicle usage. Vehicles on the road are subject to a flat fee between 7am and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday. Deloitte (2003) found that this charge has reduced congestion by 40% and increased traffic speed by 37%, the net result being a reduction in travel time of 13%. Users of the roads are more conscientious of whether or not they need to use the car at all and if they do, are more inclined to car-pool to share the cost of the levy thereby reducing the number of vehicles on the road.
             According to Matthews (2000), a UPP system for shipping has ensured those that profit from shipping operations are also paying the full costs of those operations in a fair and equitable manner. Matthews (2000) argues that the potential-polluter levies on shipping operators not only covers the costs of ...