KnobbySP1

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

scoobyverysoon

iTrader: (1)

MrRA

Build more fecking roads then Tony

Rince

What a load!!!

If it was about tackling congestion, then how about making more roads. More lanes on busy stretches of motorway... Charging parents for running the kids to school that is 300 yards away rather than walking... Actually making changes that will ease congestion, not just tax everyone based on the size of the car they have.

That guy is a fooking ringnut!!!!!

Anyone that voted him in deserves to be skewered!

/endrant

JohnD

iTrader: (5)

Hit the nail on the head with words to the effect of - Tackling congestion by building and widening would be very expensive, road pricing would make us a fortune - end of story!
Subliminal slide into a "control is everything" state? I'm in my 7th decade and I can't remember feeling so frustrated with those who purport to run our lives.
JohnD

Rince

Yeah, and this is another thing - no-one that drives a car will like this... We have our say, that will then be ignored and they will do what they want anyway because they benefit.

Tw*t of the highest order!

KnobbySP1

I'm glad I posted it up so people know what's going on.

But - just realised that everytime someone quotes from the first post it looks like I'm saying those things - D'oh!

Martin2005

Since when has building more roads helped to solve congestion?

It's easy for us all to moan about it, but somebody has to fix the problem of our overcrowded roads.

However I'm no fan of road pricing schemes, mainly because a national system would cost an absolute fortune to set up

I think the most progressive solution is to increase fuel duty.

DeanF

iTrader: (1)

Why increase fuel Duty ?
Cast your Mind back 20 years, Most towns had there own rail link, You couuld jump on a train to almost anywhere. These links have long since been removed, Along with bus routes.
If public transport was more reliable, Of better quality & the public were better informed of times (especially on the Bus front) im sure it would be a winner, You could pedestrianise many towns & cities as people would not need to travel there in their cars. it is nice to leave the car at home, along with the stress, But you with your fuel duty increase will only penalise the penalised already.
Many people like myself have no access to public transport & rely soley on the car, We have no bus links through our village & no opportunity to work during Off Peak Hours.
Are these people just supposed to Pay & Shut Up !!??

I would glady jump on a bus, Keep my car nice & clean & treat myself to the Open Road for pleasure.

Imagine how you much more stressful & apprehensive you would be during & planning your Hols in Cornwall under the pay as you Drive Scheme, it would tarnish your Day trips, Your Holidays, Your Fun, Your Pleasure & most of all your well being.

Dean

jayltee1

Increasing fuel prices to ease congestion is a great idea!! Yeah right. No one does less miles than normal cos fuel is more expensive, they put the same amount in, pay more and have to buy less grub or other things for their families - this just hits the poor like any scheme.

DazW

iTrader: (1)

IMHO this has little to do with congestion & more to with what happens In 50 years time when goverments wont be able to 'tax' via fuel duty (It's already started with hybrids) hence why road pricing is backed cross party.

I dont actually mind how they collect either way ...as long as funds raised are only plowed into transport related costs

chippy17

agree building more roads is not the answer but nor is this facist/communist big brother idea, there are many other progressive things that can be done:

Tax incentives on car sharing/pooling
Turning roads back to more free flowing designs, eg no ridiculous M4 bus lane, no traffic calming etc
Better trains, have you ever used a train is say Switzerland, shows what can be done.
use trains (as they were orginally designed) ie carry more freight, take lorries off the road, the rivers could be used to carry freight as well

plus many more if we put our minds to it, but tracking you everywhere you go is worse than Stalin or Hitler ever did in terms of keeping tabs on the populace, it stinks

Rince

TB is up there with them!!!

chippy17

I think GB is not far behind either!