Blairs reply to road pricing petition.
21 February 2007, 07:43 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Blairs reply to road pricing petition.
Well, my 'spam' box received a mail from Tony Blair this morning. I'll repeat it in full below - but what a load of flannel. Typical politician reply, the best bit being the '1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving". That really helps congestion!!!!
Enjoy the read.....
Dave
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.
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
Enjoy the read.....
Dave
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.
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
21 February 2007, 08:01 AM
#2
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one welcome the reply!
HOWEVER, people are just NOT going to accept this system -even at this early stage- untill 4 fundamental assurances are given:
1) That congestion charging will not be IN ADDITION to current levels of fuel duty (2nd highest in Europe IIRC) and road tax.
2) That tracking information WILL NOT be used to monitor speed or information about our whereabouts misused by the authorities
3) That we will not have to foot a massive bill to have such systems installed!
4) That money will ALL go to improving public transport (tax revenue from the motorist certainly doesn't now), which is the real solution to congestion!
That's before the critical issue of how much should be charged for road useage at various times is calculated! We all understand that this requires more consultation.
HOWEVER, people are just NOT going to accept this system -even at this early stage- untill 4 fundamental assurances are given:
1) That congestion charging will not be IN ADDITION to current levels of fuel duty (2nd highest in Europe IIRC) and road tax.
2) That tracking information WILL NOT be used to monitor speed or information about our whereabouts misused by the authorities
3) That we will not have to foot a massive bill to have such systems installed!
4) That money will ALL go to improving public transport (tax revenue from the motorist certainly doesn't now), which is the real solution to congestion!
That's before the critical issue of how much should be charged for road useage at various times is calculated! We all understand that this requires more consultation.
Last edited by New_scooby_04; 21 February 2007 at 08:19 AM.
21 February 2007, 08:07 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
And if they want people to stagger journey times in to work, i.e. work flexible hours, then are we going to change the hours that schools open for exampe so that parents can drop their kids off at 7 and pick them up at 3?
How is that going to work?
How is that going to work?
21 February 2007, 08:17 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really care about assurances - once the infrastructure exists, it can be abused. The present government, even if it actually sticks to its promises, cannot control how the system might be used once it is no longer in power. I think a lot of people on both sides of the argument are missing this important point, and it is therefore imperative that the infrastructure not exist at all.
I think that helping people to stagger their journey times is actually the answer. The problem isn't total road capacity, or even total train capacity - it's peak capacity. Flexible working arrangements for all employees (unless their job function clearly mandates otherwise) would enable enough people to travel outside peak hours to alleviate congestion - after all, nobody ever queues in traffic for fun or unless they can't help it.
I think that helping people to stagger their journey times is actually the answer. The problem isn't total road capacity, or even total train capacity - it's peak capacity. Flexible working arrangements for all employees (unless their job function clearly mandates otherwise) would enable enough people to travel outside peak hours to alleviate congestion - after all, nobody ever queues in traffic for fun or unless they can't help it.
21 February 2007, 08:39 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The petition was written by a comic/simpleton. The BBC commisioned a reporter to look into road pricing. Said reporter stuck his finger in the air, came up with a load of 'what ifs' and stuck it on BBC Breakfast.
Those with any spark who watched it dismissed it as ambiguous hypothesis but some plnkas took it as gospel and some conspiracy theorists got all tetchy about Big Brother issues...
Prior to the BBC report nothing had been decided, no figures had been given, it was just, as Bliar suggests an option for the distant future that should not be ruled out.
The petition became a glorified chain mail, like warning of a mysterious bug that will wipe your hard drive unless you send the warning on to 10 of your friends (if you get 10 replies your a special friend indeed
).
People were signing it ***** nilly without investigating the available facts.
Then the media jumped on the bandwagon. It was a story that a wopping 2% of the population cared enough to sign a petition about, without the right facts which in my eyes made the whole thing worthless.
I hate Blair but I hate the public more for getting emotive about something they know nothing about.
When a petition comes out which states both sides of the facts based on the actual proposal for the road pricing then I may be the first in the queue to sign up (if the facts sway me that way)...
Those with any spark who watched it dismissed it as ambiguous hypothesis but some plnkas took it as gospel and some conspiracy theorists got all tetchy about Big Brother issues...
Prior to the BBC report nothing had been decided, no figures had been given, it was just, as Bliar suggests an option for the distant future that should not be ruled out.
The petition became a glorified chain mail, like warning of a mysterious bug that will wipe your hard drive unless you send the warning on to 10 of your friends (if you get 10 replies your a special friend indeed
). People were signing it ***** nilly without investigating the available facts.
Then the media jumped on the bandwagon. It was a story that a wopping 2% of the population cared enough to sign a petition about, without the right facts which in my eyes made the whole thing worthless.
I hate Blair but I hate the public more for getting emotive about something they know nothing about.
When a petition comes out which states both sides of the facts based on the actual proposal for the road pricing then I may be the first in the queue to sign up (if the facts sway me that way)...
Trending Topics
21 February 2007, 08:47 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that helping people to stagger their journey times is actually the answer. The problem isn't total road capacity, or even total train capacity - it's peak capacity. Flexible working arrangements for all employees (unless their job function clearly mandates otherwise) would enable enough people to travel outside peak hours to alleviate congestion - after all, nobody ever queues in traffic for fun or unless they can't help it.
Also has any one else noticed that Saturday teatime is now like Sunday afternoon used to be, there's now't on the roads near us.
21 February 2007, 08:49 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any form of congestion charging has the fundamental problem that the rich do what they want, and the poor are priced off the road. 
If certain things we are doing are so bad for the environment, then they need to be banned, rather than becoming some sort of political target to rake in revenue. An example being 4x4s inside the London CC zone. £25 per day is proposed...why? What do they do with the extra £17? They cannot buy a clean planet, or even a clean city atmosphere with the extra money.
If they are so bad then they should be banned, not seen as a cash cow letting the rich do what they want.....and make them into even more of a status symbol than they are now
If certain things we are doing are so bad for the environment, then they need to be banned, rather than becoming some sort of political target to rake in revenue. An example being 4x4s inside the London CC zone. £25 per day is proposed...why? What do they do with the extra £17? They cannot buy a clean planet, or even a clean city atmosphere with the extra money.
If they are so bad then they should be banned, not seen as a cash cow letting the rich do what they want.....and make them into even more of a status symbol than they are now
21 February 2007, 08:50 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Deepest Darkest Kernow
Posts: 4,404
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yes, but lets make it constructive as a big 
, won't be well received, even if it is how most people feel.
Can we have a sticky on this thread (or another) so as people can post constructive criticism. Then it can be emailed to No. 10
, won't be well received, even if it is how most people feel.Can we have a sticky on this thread (or another) so as people can post constructive criticism. Then it can be emailed to No. 10
21 February 2007, 08:53 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes that could be a plan, but when we reply (if indeed we can) lets send the text in full rather than just a link 
Chances of them clicking in the link is like near zero, maybe just maybe they will read it if its in front of their face.
Chances of them clicking in the link is like near zero, maybe just maybe they will read it if its in front of their face.
21 February 2007, 09:07 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think companies could help the situation by granting employees flexible hours and / or the option of working from home if their job can be done from home on certain days.
I work as an IT Manager for a company in Reading (I commute from Kingston) and have the odd day working from home if I don't have something arranged that requires me to be in the office. I have set up remote Access to the head office network via secure hardware-based VPN's for any staff that can work from home (connect to the office network via your Broadband), including VOIP phones so they can all call the office free of charge from home. I can remotely access anyone's PC using remote desktop to resolve problems from home, or anywhere else on the Wide Area Network.
I'm not saying that employees should work from home every day, only that they can have the option to do so if they don't need to turn up at the office to complete a days work.
If enough companies adopted a similar scheme, overall congestion would be reduced as different people from different businesses would have different days working from home.
If there are any Managing Directors / CEO's reading this, give it some thought - your the people that could reduce the chances of a road pricing scheme being introduced!
Cheers
Anders
I work as an IT Manager for a company in Reading (I commute from Kingston) and have the odd day working from home if I don't have something arranged that requires me to be in the office. I have set up remote Access to the head office network via secure hardware-based VPN's for any staff that can work from home (connect to the office network via your Broadband), including VOIP phones so they can all call the office free of charge from home. I can remotely access anyone's PC using remote desktop to resolve problems from home, or anywhere else on the Wide Area Network.
I'm not saying that employees should work from home every day, only that they can have the option to do so if they don't need to turn up at the office to complete a days work.
If enough companies adopted a similar scheme, overall congestion would be reduced as different people from different businesses would have different days working from home.
If there are any Managing Directors / CEO's reading this, give it some thought - your the people that could reduce the chances of a road pricing scheme being introduced!
Cheers
Anders
Last edited by Anders_WR1; 21 February 2007 at 09:09 AM.
21 February 2007, 09:10 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, absolutely. My contract states 9am - 5.30pm, but it really wouldn't make a whole lot of difference if I started and finished an hour earlier or later. A lot of our software guys could work from home, at least one or two days a week, but the boss won't have it.
21 February 2007, 09:20 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The idea of staggered work times is a good one. The problem is that you will need to free up massive amounts of capacity to make it work. There are currently lots of people who would like to drive somewhere but don't. They delay the trip to some other point due to the amount of traffic on the roads. As soon as you start to free up some capacity, these people come out onto the roads.
21 February 2007, 09:22 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes congestion is an issue, but nobody seems to be asking why the roads are congested. Why are people buying cars rather than using public transport? Is charging people more to use their car, actually going to get people using public transport instead? Here's a little example of why it will just end up being a tax rather than solving the issue;
I live 8 miles from work, I could cycle, but the lack of shower at work combined with the need to lug a laptop and briefcase in to work each day don't make this the most practical of solutions.
I could get the train with a change an a bus Journey each end, taking a little over 2 hours compared to the usual 20 minutes and costing about £8 each way, so about £160 per week compared to the £20 in fuel.
I could do it by bus, 3 changes and 2 1/2 hours at a cost of £6.80 each way per day or £68 per week.
So congestion may be slowing me down in the car, but it's still massively faster and cheaper and more convenient than public transport.
I live 8 miles from work, I could cycle, but the lack of shower at work combined with the need to lug a laptop and briefcase in to work each day don't make this the most practical of solutions.
I could get the train with a change an a bus Journey each end, taking a little over 2 hours compared to the usual 20 minutes and costing about £8 each way, so about £160 per week compared to the £20 in fuel.
I could do it by bus, 3 changes and 2 1/2 hours at a cost of £6.80 each way per day or £68 per week.
So congestion may be slowing me down in the car, but it's still massively faster and cheaper and more convenient than public transport.
21 February 2007, 09:29 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: There is only one God - Elvis!
Posts: 8,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with regards to a staggered working day wont people just end up working longer hours i.e. starting earlier and finishing later to avoid charges - not a good idea
Last edited by The Chief; 21 February 2007 at 11:32 AM.
21 February 2007, 09:36 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
The other problem is that the authorities are deliberately causing congestion, in the name of 'road safety' of course, to engineer the conditions for road pricing. Go see: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...mentguidelines
You'll see that nowhere do any of it's solutions actually lead to cutting congestion. It's all about making life more difficult for the motorist.
Even 'casualty reduction' is used as a political tool to sway the doubters! Social engineering? 'course not mate, we're saving lives ....
B8llux!
Dave
You'll see that nowhere do any of it's solutions actually lead to cutting congestion. It's all about making life more difficult for the motorist.
Even 'casualty reduction' is used as a political tool to sway the doubters! Social engineering? 'course not mate, we're saving lives ....
B8llux!
Dave
21 February 2007, 09:43 AM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dum dum de dum....
Posts: 2,617
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Completely agree with this
I personally don't drive to work as I commute by train to London.... but I do have to cross a major road into Bedford on my walk to the station and every period when the schools are off this road is practically empty. When the kids are in school there are traffic queues as far I the eye can see!!
Andy
I personally don't drive to work as I commute by train to London.... but I do have to cross a major road into Bedford on my walk to the station and every period when the schools are off this road is practically empty. When the kids are in school there are traffic queues as far I the eye can see!!
Andy
21 February 2007, 09:45 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
People will still drive the same amount as they do now, it won't change congestion in the long term whatsoever, it will just give the gov't more income.
The people this will hit the most are car enthusiasts, such as us lot who drive for actual pleasure.
The people this will hit the most are car enthusiasts, such as us lot who drive for actual pleasure.
21 February 2007, 09:54 AM
#21
A sentence that jumps out at me:
Note the word "could" rather than "would" to avoid a definitive promise of removing tax from fuel, road licence, car insurance (IPT) etc. I would be prepared to bet good money that fuel taxation and road fund licence will not be scrapped.
We need to keep fighting on this one
Why introduce a system that requires huge (and i mean huge) investment (read waste) of our money into tracking movements in vehicles when the existing fuel duty already does the job of pricing per mile covered. Does that stop the mileage being put on?
Why would a supposedly tax nuetral system of road pricing do that?
Or maybe there is another reason they want to track movement:
- they can track speed that we are going .... mmm who needs speed cameras
- they can pinpoint any of us on a map at any time .... mmm wonder what would happen if (read when) that info got into the wrong hands
oh and how long before a technowizard develops an illegal blocker for the p.a.y.g. system?
It rages me to think that we will stand by and watch this stealth tax and big brother invasion of civil liberties and spying get dressed up as a "green" bill for our own good.
Complete tosh - wake up people.
The solution is not enforcement - it is quite the contrary it is about education and incentivising people to be greener.
As I said, fuel charges have not dented the amount people drive, it has just raised revenue for some other labour back pocket scam.
What they havent answered with this is:
- will foreign cars be exempt? (hmmm ... i see a loophole)
- will hire cars be exempt? (another loophole waiting for exploitation)
- will uk cars registered to foreign nationals be exempt
- how will they then encourage people to make days trips to our failing tourist attractions? (they will fail and cause huge hikes in unemployment in old tourist areas like GY or Sunny Hunny etc)
- how they will ensure that people that havent paid their £200 to be in the scheme arent on the road? (another waste of time job for pc185 and his colleagues rather than catching proper criminals)
Maybe I am scare mongering and they will sign gtees that the data from the gps based tracking devices arent used for anything else, but I dont trust them as far I can throw them and if the technology is there it will get used to trap us "criminals" that might, where safe to do so, exceed a speed limit in a rural area or Motorway....
As the Bliar said, this is not the end, it is the beginning... (hmmm havent we heard that before ?) but they are already progressing several road pricing schemes in towns and cities around the country without public referendums which will, I am sure, have their boundaries extended like the Central London one has had this week until there are narrow corridors of motoring between them.
This isnt just about the private motorist, it will put many haulage, courier and transport related businesses in a seriously dire competitive position against european companies that will be able to muscle in to the country to offer those services without pay per mile charges.
Angry is an understatement from my point of view.
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.
We need to keep fighting on this one
Why introduce a system that requires huge (and i mean huge) investment (read waste) of our money into tracking movements in vehicles when the existing fuel duty already does the job of pricing per mile covered. Does that stop the mileage being put on?
Why would a supposedly tax nuetral system of road pricing do that?
Or maybe there is another reason they want to track movement:
- they can track speed that we are going .... mmm who needs speed cameras
- they can pinpoint any of us on a map at any time .... mmm wonder what would happen if (read when) that info got into the wrong hands
oh and how long before a technowizard develops an illegal blocker for the p.a.y.g. system?
It rages me to think that we will stand by and watch this stealth tax and big brother invasion of civil liberties and spying get dressed up as a "green" bill for our own good.
Complete tosh - wake up people.
The solution is not enforcement - it is quite the contrary it is about education and incentivising people to be greener.
As I said, fuel charges have not dented the amount people drive, it has just raised revenue for some other labour back pocket scam.
What they havent answered with this is:
- will foreign cars be exempt? (hmmm ... i see a loophole)
- will hire cars be exempt? (another loophole waiting for exploitation)
- will uk cars registered to foreign nationals be exempt
- how will they then encourage people to make days trips to our failing tourist attractions? (they will fail and cause huge hikes in unemployment in old tourist areas like GY or Sunny Hunny etc)
- how they will ensure that people that havent paid their £200 to be in the scheme arent on the road? (another waste of time job for pc185 and his colleagues rather than catching proper criminals)
Maybe I am scare mongering and they will sign gtees that the data from the gps based tracking devices arent used for anything else, but I dont trust them as far I can throw them and if the technology is there it will get used to trap us "criminals" that might, where safe to do so, exceed a speed limit in a rural area or Motorway....
As the Bliar said, this is not the end, it is the beginning... (hmmm havent we heard that before ?) but they are already progressing several road pricing schemes in towns and cities around the country without public referendums which will, I am sure, have their boundaries extended like the Central London one has had this week until there are narrow corridors of motoring between them.
This isnt just about the private motorist, it will put many haulage, courier and transport related businesses in a seriously dire competitive position against european companies that will be able to muscle in to the country to offer those services without pay per mile charges.
Angry is an understatement from my point of view.
21 February 2007, 10:06 AM
#22
My solutions to congestion:
Free School buses (which I used to have to my high school 6 miles away, yet have now been scrapped after year 8 apparently) for say - children who live more than 2 miles away from school. Of course this won't stop the majority of bone idle parents and kids. I picked up my nephew from playschool the other week and was horrified to see that the bike sheds - that used to be overflowing whatever the weather when I was at first/middle school (I'm 28, so not THAT long ago), were practically empty.
Scrap Road Tax (As I'm not sure what it pays for anyhow - not the roads or transport it seems)
Increase Fuel Duty (There, a pay-as-you-drive without needing the expensive infrastructure).
Do more to encourage car share schemes and working from home.
Reverse the privatisation of the public transport system, actually run them as businesses by people who know what they're doing and plough that profit back into the infrastructure. Provide tax breaks for companies who use Rail frieight instead of road haulage; and reverse the general degradation of the national rail system thats been happening for the last 50 years.
Without giving people options and encouraging their use, it makes no difference how much they want to charge us to use our cars, we have no alternative but to use them. The Government is taking the "cheap" option that will have no affect at all on peoples transport choices. Of course I have to accept that in central london, people with massive choice of transport options still insist on driving - which in my opinion is grossly stupid and they deserve to pay through the nose for it. (Coming from someone who may be working in Central London from next year and who plans to leave his car in Norfolk and commute at weekends).
Free School buses (which I used to have to my high school 6 miles away, yet have now been scrapped after year 8 apparently) for say - children who live more than 2 miles away from school. Of course this won't stop the majority of bone idle parents and kids. I picked up my nephew from playschool the other week and was horrified to see that the bike sheds - that used to be overflowing whatever the weather when I was at first/middle school (I'm 28, so not THAT long ago), were practically empty.
Scrap Road Tax (As I'm not sure what it pays for anyhow - not the roads or transport it seems)
Increase Fuel Duty (There, a pay-as-you-drive without needing the expensive infrastructure).
Do more to encourage car share schemes and working from home.
Reverse the privatisation of the public transport system, actually run them as businesses by people who know what they're doing and plough that profit back into the infrastructure. Provide tax breaks for companies who use Rail frieight instead of road haulage; and reverse the general degradation of the national rail system thats been happening for the last 50 years.
Without giving people options and encouraging their use, it makes no difference how much they want to charge us to use our cars, we have no alternative but to use them. The Government is taking the "cheap" option that will have no affect at all on peoples transport choices. Of course I have to accept that in central london, people with massive choice of transport options still insist on driving - which in my opinion is grossly stupid and they deserve to pay through the nose for it. (Coming from someone who may be working in Central London from next year and who plans to leave his car in Norfolk and commute at weekends).
Last edited by Prasius; 21 February 2007 at 10:09 AM.
21 February 2007, 10:15 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stephen Ladyman, roads minister, is doing a webchat on the No10 website Thursday at 16:00. Its open for questions now, so i suggest you put yours to him.
Here's mine.
Hello Minister,
My question is this:
I commute to Heathrow airport every day, a round trip of 60 miles, using the M3 and M25 motorways. My car ( which I changed 13 months ago, to one that is more environmentally friendly ) does 60 mpg. My weekly fuel bill is less than £20 a week. I spend no more than 90 minutes, on a bad day, in the car. Normally its just over an hour.
Public transport would cost me a minimum of £40 a day, and would take me 3 hours for both trips. So, you can see why I choose to drive.
Even at 30p per mile, the true figure would be greater I suspect, bearing in mind we're talking about using 2 of the South East's busiest motorways, my weekly costs to get to work would be £90.
Why are you forcing me to give up my job? Because that is what a £360 per month congestion charge would mean to me, and many many others.
Think about it.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Rafano
Here's mine.
Hello Minister,
My question is this:
I commute to Heathrow airport every day, a round trip of 60 miles, using the M3 and M25 motorways. My car ( which I changed 13 months ago, to one that is more environmentally friendly ) does 60 mpg. My weekly fuel bill is less than £20 a week. I spend no more than 90 minutes, on a bad day, in the car. Normally its just over an hour.
Public transport would cost me a minimum of £40 a day, and would take me 3 hours for both trips. So, you can see why I choose to drive.
Even at 30p per mile, the true figure would be greater I suspect, bearing in mind we're talking about using 2 of the South East's busiest motorways, my weekly costs to get to work would be £90.
Why are you forcing me to give up my job? Because that is what a £360 per month congestion charge would mean to me, and many many others.
Think about it.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Rafano
21 February 2007, 10:33 AM
#24
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The petition was written by a comic/simpleton. The BBC commisioned a reporter to look into road pricing. Said reporter stuck his finger in the air, came up with a load of 'what ifs' and stuck it on BBC Breakfast.
Those with any spark who watched it dismissed it as ambiguous hypothesis but some plnkas took it as gospel and some conspiracy theorists got all tetchy about Big Brother issues...
Prior to the BBC report nothing had been decided, no figures had been given, it was just, as Bliar suggests an option for the distant future that should not be ruled out.
The petition became a glorified chain mail, like warning of a mysterious bug that will wipe your hard drive unless you send the warning on to 10 of your friends (if you get 10 replies your a special friend indeed).
People were signing it ***** nilly without investigating the available facts.
Then the media jumped on the bandwagon. It was a story that a wopping 2% of the population cared enough to sign a petition about, without the right facts which in my eyes made the whole thing worthless.
I hate Blair but I hate the public more for getting emotive about something they know nothing about.
When a petition comes out which states both sides of the facts based on the actual proposal for the road pricing then I may be the first in the queue to sign up (if the facts sway me that way)...
Those with any spark who watched it dismissed it as ambiguous hypothesis but some plnkas took it as gospel and some conspiracy theorists got all tetchy about Big Brother issues...
Prior to the BBC report nothing had been decided, no figures had been given, it was just, as Bliar suggests an option for the distant future that should not be ruled out.
The petition became a glorified chain mail, like warning of a mysterious bug that will wipe your hard drive unless you send the warning on to 10 of your friends (if you get 10 replies your a special friend indeed
). People were signing it ***** nilly without investigating the available facts.
Then the media jumped on the bandwagon. It was a story that a wopping 2% of the population cared enough to sign a petition about, without the right facts which in my eyes made the whole thing worthless.
I hate Blair but I hate the public more for getting emotive about something they know nothing about.
When a petition comes out which states both sides of the facts based on the actual proposal for the road pricing then I may be the first in the queue to sign up (if the facts sway me that way)...
However, to do so in this instance is to miss the point!
This idea IS being considered. That's a fact
It WOULD require a GPS system in each car to be effective. That's beyond despute. You can't charge people appropriately unless you know where they've been and when.
Some people fundamentally object to this irrepsective of the other pros and cons.
IIRC the PM's response did not address this issue at all.
Ns04
21 February 2007, 11:28 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple fact of the matter is that everyone has a part to play. Take your example of driving for pleasure - we're all guilty of it but we have to accept that we need to reduce the amount of driving we do.
In Olly's case, his company should provide showering facilities and once provided he should make the sacrifice and cycle to work - if not everyday at least a couple of times a week.
There are opportunities for parents to escort children to school rather than taking them by car - good for basic fitness and health plus dare I say it, help re-develop family values which seem to be missing in this country.
One of my objectives for this year is to seriously reduce my mileage this year, as even though I work from home I still manage to clock up 30k per annum. I'm going to reduce this to below 20k simply by managing a better journey plan and meeting ten clients spread over two days instead of four. It suits me because I'm sick of sitting in traffic jams and it keeps the miles off my car.
The Government has the biggest part to play but as usual all they can see are revenue scoring opportunities. They could quite easily encourage home networking by offering tax incentives to help cover the costs of doing so. A public transport system that was actually joined up would help linking bus, tram, train and air transport systems that integrated instead of working independantly of each other.
Of course, there will be a chorus of posts by people giving a multitude of reasons why they can't walk their kids to school, or cycle to work but these people are missing the point - you can if you try.
21 February 2007, 11:50 AM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the short term for congestion they need to;
a) cut out all the 'congestion producing' measures they have introduced. (Like reduced road space, bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic islands, reduced time on green, etc etc)
b) local 'fixes' to cut out congestion hotspots (one local example to me is J11 on the M4 - supposed to have been done years ago - 'no' money ... but they're happy enough to collect the extra fuel tax caused by people sitting in the jams!)
Just those two would make a big difference.
Dave
PS: oh, but it wouldn't create any revenue streams for the government to continue its social engineering programs. Forgot about that ....
a) cut out all the 'congestion producing' measures they have introduced. (Like reduced road space, bus lanes, cycle lanes, traffic islands, reduced time on green, etc etc)
b) local 'fixes' to cut out congestion hotspots (one local example to me is J11 on the M4 - supposed to have been done years ago - 'no' money ... but they're happy enough to collect the extra fuel tax caused by people sitting in the jams!)
Just those two would make a big difference.
Dave
PS: oh, but it wouldn't create any revenue streams for the government to continue its social engineering programs. Forgot about that ....
21 February 2007, 11:54 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: still behind twin turbos
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole petition thing is a waste of time, I shan't bother signing any more. The government has absolutely no intention of listening to peoples' opinions, it's just lip service. I doubt Blair has any idea what was in the emailed responses. He couldn't give a toss and will do whatever he likes
21 February 2007, 12:07 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by T.Bliar
... congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025 ...
I'm still firmly of the opinion that congestion is self-regulating. Let it build up, the train / bicycle / bus will become more attractive and congestion will stop increasing. Say your journey to work was 2 hours for 5 miles, then you would find an alternative. No-one is going to use public transport which is slower, less convenient, more expensive, etc.
21 February 2007, 12:10 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hunting for my next Impreza!
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 February 2007, 12:14 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hunting for my next Impreza!
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if they bring it in and it cost £500 a month to use your car...?
Will people stop using there car? or stop spending money in the high street stores? they start going down hill.. people losing jobs etc??
Oh well..... I love this c.untry!
Will people stop using there car? or stop spending money in the high street stores? they start going down hill.. people losing jobs etc??
Oh well..... I love this c.untry!