Prime Ministers response email on road pricing

[AbyssDJ]

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

[mike142sl]

What were the links?

[ChrisW]

Further information

Both the 10 Downing Street - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp - and Department for Transport - http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/debate - websites offer much more information about road pricing.

This includes a range of independent viewpoints - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page11031.asp - both for and against.

You can also read the Eddington Report - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10961.asp - in full.

You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10961.asp - 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.

[Bulli]

lets vote the idiots out at the next election. Not a stealth tax, yeah right!

People will still need to make journeys as the nature of modern life dictates, we will just end up paying more for it!

[mike142sl]

lets vote the idiots out at the next election. Not a stealth tax, yeah right!

And what do we get to replace them? :idea:

[Boggert]

I guess they are all as bad as each other?? but that e-mail is all about spin!

[datalas]

The key problem is that they are attempting to tackle what is quite rightly a serious issue using the only trick they actually know, which is taxation.

Charging people more for a service only works as a persuasive measure while there is a viable alternative, and that cost is the only factor involved.  

The principle question should be not how it is possible to tackle congestion by making driving more expensive, but instead to address the problem of why congestion occurs in the first place.   It is not simply a case of "driving is cheaper", since it arguably isn't anyhow, not to mention that no matter how much additional weight is placed on the cost factor people still do it.

Even if the intentions behind any such scheme are whiter than white, when it is always an "additional" charge, people are generally unable to see quite how it is to address a problem.  If the charges levied for driving down uncongested roads don't reduce (which they probably won't) then people will assume that it's just another get rich quick scheme.

[Range Rover Blues]

Well as I got the e-mail myself I follwed the link to Thursdays live debate, whilst we are all at work!

Quite frankly whilst the only tool the gov't uses is tax they will not solve the problem.  I don't see why more people can't work from home other than the bums on seats mentallity of manuy employers.

lundon congestion could be solved overnight by taxing businesses out of the city centre rather than hammering commuters for being unfortunate enough to have to work there.

But a pro-active approach to road congestion wouldn't pay for the war in Iraq would it :?

[Hammerman]

There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.


so that means that 6 million x £192 for car tax =£1152000000 taken last year then  :o  then theres the tax on the fuel! any one want to work that out then
 And thats for 1 year

[V8MoneyPit]

There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.


so that means that 6 million x £192 for car tax =£1152000000 taken last year then  :o  then theres the tax on the fuel! any one want to work that out then
 And thats for 1 year

You are not suggesting the government have a conflict of interests are you????  :roll:  :lol:

I do wonder about the costs the government quote. Can it really cost £30m to build 1 mile of motorway? Or is the governement being ripped off by the contractors? I know it used to happen in the civilian sector of military equipment design/manufacture. I would amazed if it didn't happen in other industries too.

[marjan]

Have you noticed how much quieter the roads are at rush hour when the kids are off school, what we need is a really good school bus service like the Americans have, this would take a load of cars off the road at the busiest times.

[V8MoneyPit]

Have you noticed how much quieter the roads are at rush hour when the kids are off school, what we need is a really good school bus service like the Americans have, this would take a load of cars off the road at the busiest times.

There was a pilot scheme in our area a while ago (might have been a wider area, not sure) where designated adults were allocated a group of kids to walk to school. We are talking villages here, so no more than a mile or so to walk. They were issued with reflective jackets, etc. The roads were so quiet. Very nearly like holidays.

Of course, it only lasted a week or so and then it quickly reverted to all the 7 seater poeple carriers with one driver and one child.  :roll:

[Evilgoat]

Have you noticed how much quieter the roads are at rush hour when the kids are off school, what we need is a really good school bus service like the Americans have, this would take a load of cars off the road at the busiest times.

Its amazing how many children apear to drive :S

How about some planning maybe? Rush hour and the school run co-incide. Start the schools half hour/hour early and by the time us lot set off for work the school run is done. Also makes life easier for parents who have to drop kids off and go to work.

[Bob696]

Notice the reduced traffic during school holidays ....your avin a larf!!!! I am normaly still in bed  :lol:

Start the schools half hour/hour early

That works to a certain degree. My sons junior school started at 8.25 and finished at 2.25 and I liked it but a lot of parents didnt for some reason. The school I work at is currently trying to find a system where they can cut the lunch time in half so the kids get to go home at 2.50. It is never going to work though as there isnt the facilities to get 1500 kids fed and watered in 25 minutes.

[Lee337]

Just a personal opinion but I commute almost every weekday between Kettering & Peterborough.

During school holidays it takes about 40 minutes. If I leave at 8.00 during term time, it takes me until about 9.30. If I leave at 8.30 it takes me until about 9.30.

The worst time to leave Peterborough is 3.30pm as I get stuck behind trucks all the way. It can take anything upto 1 hour 40 mins. Take tonight. Left at 3.00 followed one truck after another doing 40mph. Each time I turned off one road, I caught up with another. there was nearly always 10+ vehicles behind me and if a truck went past the other way, again there was a string of other vehicles following.

No schools, no trucks, travel time 40 min schools add 20 minutes rush hour 30 - 40 min, trucks upto an extra hour.

[hairyasswelder]

I don't see why more people can't work from home other than the bums on seats mentallity of manuy employers.

Little awkward for me  :lol: Weld spatter on the new carpet wouldnt go down well  :lol:
Seriously though I work 14 miles from home, I go 1 junction up the motorway (M1, J28-29) and into Hillstown/Bolsover.  I normally go in the Corsa which means I use 2/3 gallon petrol, £2 in tax? Car is taxed £60 for 6 months etc If I went in RR it would be 2 gal £6 tax? per day. £95 for 6 months.  Would every car be graded like this?
What about the foreign visitors? we pay tolls when we are abroad, how will they pay??  Lorries are registered in Holland to avoid road tax now, then fill up with cheaper fuel and come back with large second tank to keep them going till they can fill up in Holland again  :?
If the lorries have to pay then as a consumer we will pay again to compensate the transport co.
It to me seems far too complicated to impose
Steve

[marjan]

I don't see why more people can't work from home other than the bums on seats mentallity of many employers

Be a bit difficult for me as I can't see people bringing their central heating boilers to my house for repair & servicing  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

(Sorry I'm just being silly, I know!)

[Bob696]

I don't see why more people can't work from home other than the bums on seats mentallity of many employers

Be a bit difficult for me as I can't see people bringing their central heating boilers to my house for repair & servicing  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

(Sorry I'm just being silly, I know!)

n they can sod off if they think I am taking the 'little darlings' into my front room  :lol:

[datalas]

There are serious constraints with home working which aren't all as clear cut as you may think.

Assuming you can implicitly trust all your staff to be working (a tall order in some cases)  and that your staff are able to work from home in the first place,  then there is an issue with communication.   We've experimented with home workers and we abandoned the idea of perminent home workers,  it was difficult to keep tracks on exactly what they were doing, their hours tended to stray (with one guy essentially only working at night) and there were simply times when talking to them would have been far quicker and easier [1].



[1] yes, phones, I know .. but if you want to draw a picture then that's a bit harder...

[muddyjlx]

flexy time at work places would help.

definately change school opening and closing times.

i live between 2 schools and the road outside my house comes to a standstill at school times.
parents park anywhere and narrow the road down to 1 lane that lorrys have dificulty squesing through.

[Bulli]

Yes , yes there is a problem but hang on are we discussing the solution, which i think is another post, or the blairtant lies in the reply.

What would we get instead of NEW labour? Im not sure but maybe a little stir up would help give some of the elected officials food for though.

On a different note there is only 1 prime minister i have any respect for and sad to say that was Thatcher. Flame me if you want i dont really care. She was unpopular for more reasons than i care to list but she did 1 thing that Blair is incapable of....telling the truth. No matter how unpalatable it was she said it and then followed through.

Blair just tries to sugar coat a turd and bow down to whatever pressure group he thinks will win him votes!

i dont think another government would carry out this barmy plan, you never know it may be a vote winner but somehow i think not!

[SimonHarwood]

There is only one real solution... railways and buses.

Renationalise all of the railways, reopen all of the freight lines and reinstate a large proportion of the routes that Beeching(sp?) closed. Get all medium and long distance freight off the roads and make it viable for commuting by railway.
Buses should be improved as well. Only in the cities is there a decent bus service.
That way most of the traffic is local area only.
And the fuel for the buses should be bio-diesel.

If you could get there in a sensible time at a sensible cost by train and/or buses would you use them?

Unfortunately the government is too short-sighted and doesn't like to spend money on anything worthwhile.

[Bulli]

Simon, not according to the prime ministers reply.
they have spent billions of our money on rail infrastructure...to benefit private companies??
Why not run buses on Hydrogen like they do in Iceland? polution...water! thats a move forward that is worthy of investment.
Buses are not a move forward for pollution as they stand, major improvements would be required to gain any environmental benefit.

I live in Rotherham (a major town) and work in Sheffield (a large city) the bus service connecting the part of rotherham i live in with sheffield is laughable. 1 bus an hour that goes via a meadowhall and so takes twice as long as it needs to. I can make the journey in 20 mins in heavy traffic it takes up to 45 mins.
By bus its an hour and a half...sorry its just not an option. i would need to catch the 650 am out and cant get home till the 1750 bus so i wouldnt get home till arounf half past 7.
life i want one thanks not and endless round of work and buses!

[Range Rover Blues]

I don't see why more people can't work from home other than the bums on seats mentallity of many employers

Be a bit difficult for me as I can't see people bringing their central heating boilers to my house for repair & servicing  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

(Sorry I'm just being silly, I know!)

But if all the people who sat in traffic hams just to go sit in offices weren't there, you could get on with your job.

I know the arguaments against working from home, Julie keeps hearing them every time she gets approached for a job she is not prepared to travel to.

If you are employing someone you can't trust to do the work you are paying them for, you have a more serious problem than just being able to talk to them.  When Julie was contracting in Croyden, the first thing she had to do on a Monday morning was call her supervisor, who worked from home.  Now tell me she has to be there so people can talk to her!


Bottom line is, for a job in Leeds an employer will have to pay at least £10k more for a good programmer, that reflects the cost of either commuting or running a second dwelling.

The same programmer in lundon, before the millenium, could earn over £100 an hour as a contractor.