Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bo Bo]

Quite long but ultimately this will affect us all (in two parts).

E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

[Bo Bo]

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair
Further information
Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.
This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.
You can also read the Eddington Report in full.
You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.
There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.
If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk

[Marks DTM Calib]

Which in a nut shell means....'I dont give a toss what you lot think'....

So Then Tony you useless git, how much are you going to plough into public transport and for how long before this is implimented....

[Auto Addict]

As Del Boy would say, 'What a 42 carrot plonker'

[Ronald_McBurger]

Useless stuck up pompous idiot. Can hardly even spell never mind manage anything. Total waste of space.

Anyway, sorry for that outburst Mark. It has been bottled up for months....

Now onto Tony Blair. Can I say  w a n k e r ? No, sorry. He is a wrist shaker with a vengance. He is so far up George bushes arse that he can comb bushes hair - from the inside!

[Markie]

whenever i hear Tony Blair or see him i can only focus on one word.

Bullsh1t.

This proposal - perhaps watered down and perhaps delayed - will go ahead.

[Kevin Wood]

One sentence stood out for me (well, got bored and gave up half way through):

This is being driven by economic prosperity.

In other words, "You're all too rich and that's why you're clogging up the roads. So what you need is a good taxing, and it doesn't matter what I spend it on." .

Kevin

[theolodian]

One sentence stood out for me (well, got bored and gave up half way through):

This is being driven by economic prosperity.

In other words, "You're all too rich and that's why you're clogging up the roads. So what you need is a good taxing, and it doesn't matter what I spend it on." .

Kevin

Or it means; "You're fat and happy so you won't really get off your rear to do anything about the government tracking everything you do and sharing the database with corrupt officials in Bulgaria."  (Not meant as a comment on Bulgaria.)

[ClarCE]

It'll just be yet another case of labour goes ahead and does what it wants anyway, despite all the protest and democratic opposition.

Sometimes I don't feel like I live in a free / democratic country at all.  At the very least when they go ahead with this it should be nowhere near as expensive as the test results I saw, and road tax needs to be scrapped altogether as they'll be making SO much more out of Joe Public.

Shocking, but not suprising.

[bob.dent]

Yes, I got this e-mail this morning - what a load of bol*ocks!! Does Blair really think he can pull the wool over our eyes with some pre-scipted pretentious words written by his overpaid cronies. Most people don't use roads purely for their own enjoyment but out of necessity. Many of us don't have a choice of where we work in terms of location and have to rely on our cars to get there due to poor and expensive public transport. For instance, my office is about 22 miles from home and if I had to rely on public transport it would mean getting 2 trains and a 2 mile walk from the nearest station to my office. This would take me about 2.5 hours instead of the 40 minutes it takes by car and cost me about 3 times as much as by car. I could rant on for ages but suffice to say, I don't think his reply is going to convince anyone that their proposals are anything but stealth tax and big brother!!

[Markjay]

'Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue. '


Sorry guys but this make perfect sense to me... no doubt congestion charge, road tax, toll roads, fuel duty, council parking permits, etc will kill the economic prosperity much before 2015, and so presto traffic problem solved. Where's the problem then?  

[Kevin Wood]

Sorry guys but this make perfect sense to me... no doubt congestion charge, road tax, toll roads, fuel duty, council parking permits, etc will kill the economic prosperity much before 2015, and so presto traffic problem solved. Where's the problem then?

On the other hand, if the government don't meddle with it, business will find its' own solutions to avoiding the cost of congestion before things get desperate by moving out of the congested areas, working more flexible hours, etc. etc.

Kevin

[Martin_1962]

I cannot get to work before 09:54 by public transport, leaving at 07:55, if I leave at 09:24 I can get to work by 10:03 by bus with one change

Leave work at 17:43 get home at 20:29

Car trip takes about 20 minutes

Trip back takes the biscuit!

Bus to Reddich
Train to Birmingham
Train to Worcester
Bus home

[theolodian]

'Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue. '


Sorry guys but this make perfect sense to me... no doubt congestion charge, road tax, toll roads, fuel duty, council parking permits, etc will kill the economic prosperity much before 2015, and so presto traffic problem solved. Where's the problem then?  

Yeah, the congestion charge has reduced the number of cars on the roads in London, but congestion is rising quickly?!  Maybe congestion is b/c the roads are constantly having to be fixed or expanded b/c they weren't done right the first time?  On top of that repairs are done by the lowest/slowest/crappiest bidder?

[bob.dent]

'Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue. '

I'm not racist but if the Labour government stopped letting so many asylum seekers and immigrants in the country over the last 10 years (most of who haven't got a scooby how to drive properly over here anyway!!) perhaps we wouldn't  have had this problem in the first place :-?