Email from the Prime Minister - Road Pricing

cwcw

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

Another of those "independent" reports. No chance at all then, that the "findings" would be that more taxes are needed?

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

Of course, there's already a pay per mile tax system in place that requires no technology at all - fuel duty. It doesn't allow the government to monitor our every move though, I grant you.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

Imposing stealth taxes? Big Brother surveillance? From New Labour? The thought never crossed my mind.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

If pricing isn't being "forced" on any area, I presume that any drivers in the chosen pilots are free to opt out and not pay the charges? If they aren't, then it's forced on them. If they are, then it renders the trial meaningless.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

I think we can all agree on that.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

6 million more vehicles in 10 years? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of that, e.g. what proportion of it is due to simply recognising more vehicles as being on the road ("DVLA computer"). How many are second/ "weekend" cars? What is it in terms of a percentage increase? I believe the current level is 33 million registered vehicles in the UK, which I make a 22% increase in a decade. Why 25% in the next 8 years? There's a finite limit on the number of cars on the road at any one time - start saying that there are 65 million cars on the road and it becomes clear how such a crude measure is meaningless.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

Improved public transport may well entice people from their cars. Sadly, the reality of the improvements of the services on offer do not tie in with the amount invested. Pouring money down a blackhole doesn't improve anything - something New Labour seem unable to realise. It's HOW money is spent, not how much is spent, that really matters.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

If I want to sit in a traffic jam in my car on the way home from work, it should be my free choice to do so. It shouldn't depend on the size of my income. I currently commute 13 miles each way, taking about 45 minutes each way, at peak rush hour. If I was to be "taxed off the road", it would take me around 1 and a half hours each way by public transport (and that's assuming I don't miss a bus/train switch, no buses/trains are late or AWOL, and on rainy days I'd get to work soaking wet).

Even a 100% increase in congestion would mean my journey by car would be preferable to public transport as it would still take the same length of time but would still be much more convenient.

I therefore cannot see how me, or most people I know, or even businesses people work for, would be any better off for people being taxed off the road and on to public transport. What you really mean is you want the roads to be clear for the very wealthy (and for those willing to spend all their money on driving) to drive freely and comfortably whilst everyone else packs themselves in like sardines on buses and trains. Public transport is a more efficient option in only a small minority of cases, and due to its inflexibility by nature, it can only ever be.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

How does building roads force more cars on to the road? I've never understood that argument. And remember, there's a finite upper limit to the number of cars on the road at any one time.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

And if Gordon told you that less than 14% of money generated from motorists is actually spent on the roads, YOU will have an idea of the sums that could and should be used.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

No, you're right, I always dream of new and innovative ways I could spend more money on tax until eventually I'm forced to double my commuting time using public transport.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

How about forcing more companies to offer flexible working hours? Or offering companies tax incentives to increase their number of home workers? How about offering free school buses? How much congestion is caused by people being forced into, but not needing or wanting to, work 9 til 5? How much is caused by parents driving their children the 500 yards to school? Judging by the half term break last week, I'd say the school run was responsible for a good 20% of my journey time. Why not spend some money on free school buses so that parents no longer feel the need to run their children to school?

Also, how about local authorities actually reviewing their transport policies? In Sheffield, for example, much of the congestion is self inflicted by a seemingly anti-car council. This includes excessive use of bus lanes (which reduce road capacity by 50% for the sake of a couple of buses every 15 minutes), deliberate congestion-inducing measures such as bus stops placed out in the way of traffic flow, chicanes, etc, bad traffic light timing (congestion EASES when they aren't working in this city!), badly planned one way systems, and converting perfectly good dual carriageways in the city centre into single lane carriageways with oversized pavements! I'm afraid this is the reality of much of the congestion, but then, if you create the justification, you can introduce the tax, right?

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

No, it's not a stealth tax, you're right. It's a very open tax. It is about tackling congestion - to enable the very rich to drive around on the roads free from peasants blocking their path, and forcing said peasants on to more time consuming and less convenient means of transport.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

There only COULD be a case for moving away from the current system? I thought this was one of the few carrots (albeit much smaller than the stick).

Rural roads would quickly become rat runs.

Yes, it's for the future - so just forget about it because you and your red tax army will be long gone in 2009 anyway.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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.

The public have had their say - you just didn't take any notice.

Tony_Blair wrote:

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

There's not much sincerity in anything I've read there. Just a weak justification of an ill thought "proposal" which will be a lucrative cash cow for the government.

livinginhope

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:
Well done,my thoughts exactly,just too angry at TB to post
LIH

saintjanet

Mine too,saved me some typing you have said it all!!

My mother asked me how tony could find time to send out so many e.mails,thought he did each one individually,perhaps she should join his think tank.

Hintza

Thought this article was quite interesting in relation to road pricing. You can just see how this is going to pan out. Remember the Dome, CSA, Scottish Parliament building etc etc...



Christopher Booker's notebook


By Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:17am GMT 19/02/2007




A fiasco on this scale could be seen from space
As the Downing Street petition saying "no to road charging" breaks all records by soaring past the 1.5 million mark, one crucial factor gets overlooked. Our Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander, may say he "welcomes a debate" on what, last May, he called his "personal priority", but he knows full well that in this respect we have little choice.
Regardless of how many people log on to the Downing Street website to say that they don't want it, we are committed to basing any road charging scheme on the EU's Galileo satellite system. The only trouble is that the EU is making such a shambles of it that it is highly unlikely to be in place before 2020, if they can get it to work at all.
advertisement

The reason that Mr Alexander describes charging motorists for using the roads (at up to £1.34 a mile) as his "personal priority" is that three years ago Brussels issued EC directive 2004/52 on "the interoperability of electronic toll collection systems", to ensure that all the EU's planned road charging schemes are similar. But herein lie two practical difficulties.
First, Brussels is committed to drawing up a "technical standard", to which all national systems must conform, and so far, due to the huge technical problems involved, there is no sign of it emerging. A second problem is that the EU scheme is to be based on Galileo, its rival satellite system to the US Navstar. And Galileo - to which UK taxpayers have already contributed £200 million in development costs - is itself a shambles.
Despite the fanfares which greeted the launch, courtesy of a Russian Soyuz rocket, of the EU's first trial satellite last year, it is now clear that Galileo's future is fraught with difficulty. Within a few years Russia and China will join the US in having their own global positioning satellite systems, free to users all over the world. Galileo alone will depend on charging users for an encrypted signal, and since Cornell University last year cracked its operating code, the commercial future of the system looks increasingly uncertain.
As Galileo's development bills soar, it cannot even be guaranteed to become operational, although Mr Alexander has already promised £2.5 billion to local authorities by 2015, under his Transport Innovation Fund, so long as they agree to charge for road use. Our Government is thus locked into a hugely unpopular and complex project which we cannot have any assurance will work.
Mr Alexander obviously cannot tell us this, because it would be too embarrassing. Instead he tells us we can have a "debate", to which he has absolutely no intention of listening. But the chances that we will get our EU road charging system even by 2020 (it was originally promised for 2012) become slimmer by the day. If it wasn't all so time-wasting and dishonest, it would be quite funny. As the Downing Street petition saying "no to road charging" breaks all records by soaring past the 1.5 million mark, one crucially important factor gets overlooked. Our Transport Secretary Alastair Darling may say he "welcomes a debate" on what he last May called his "personal priority", but he knows full well we have very little choice in the matter.
Regardless of how many people say on the Downing Street website they don't want it, under EU policy we are committed to setting up a satellite-based system for taxing motorists - the only trouble being that the EU is making such a shambles of it that it is highly unlikely to be in place before 2020, if they can get it to work at all.
The reason that Mr Darling describes charging motorists up to £1.34 a mile for using the roads as his "personal priority" is that three years ago Brussels issued EC directive 2004/52 on "the interoperability of electronic toll collection systems", to ensure that all the EU's planned road charging schemes are similar. But herein lie two practical problems.
First, Brussels is committed to drawing up a "technical standard", to which all national systems must conform, and so far, so huge are the technical problems involved, there is no sign of this emerging. A second problem is that the EU scheme is to be based on Galileo, its rival satellite system to the US Navstar. And Galileo - to which UK taxpayers have already contributed £200 million in development costs - is itself in a shambles.
Despite the fanfares which last year greeted the launch of the EU's first trial satellite last year, courtesy of a Russian Soyuz rocket, it is now clear that Galileo's future is fraught with difficulty. Within a few years the US, Russia and China will all have their own global positioning satellite systems, free to users all over the world, Galileo alone will be dependent for its viability on charging its users for using an encrypted signal, and since Cornell University last year cracked its operating code, the commercial future of the system looks increasingly uncertain. As its development bills soar, it cannot even be guaranteed ever to become operational, although Mr Alexander has already promised £2.5 billion to local authorities by 2015, under his Transport Innovation Fund, so long as they agree to charge for road use.
Our Government is thus locked into a hugely unpopular and complex project which we cannot have any assurance will work. Mr Alexander obviously cannot tell us this, because it would be too embarrassing. Instead he tells us we can have a "debate", to which he has absolutely no intention of listening. But the chances that we will get our EU road charging system even by 2020 (it was originally promised for 2012) become slimmer by the day. If it wasn't all so time-wasting and dishonest, it would be quite funny.

withabix

Everyone who received the email from the Prime Minister should report him to his ISP for spamming!

Hintza

How about completing the national motorway network?

No motorway from England into Scotland still a big stretch of A74/A6

The A1/A1M etc is a disgarce down the east coast.

Look at this page and it will show how badly off the UK is for motorways compared to the rest of Europe. Remember these figures are from 1999 and since then we have had virtually no more motorways built. Having been ti Italy last summer they are building vast stretches of new motorways through the mountains...very impressive!!

http://www.abd.org.uk/green_and_pleasant_land.htm

withabix

Hintza wrote:

How about completing the national motorway network?

No motorway from England into Scotland still a big stretch of A74/A6

You haven't been that way for a while have you???

They're in the process of building that section at the moment

angel

Is Tony Blair a member here?

hobo28

cwcw wrote:

The public have had their say - you just didn't take any notice.

Hear hear. 1.5 MILLLION people sign up. If thats not a clear sign I don't know what is!

Do we actually live in a democracy or is it all smoke and mirrors?

Optimist

hobo28 wrote:

Hear hear. 1.5 MILLLION people sign up. If thats not a clear sign I don't know what is!

Do we actually live in a democracy or is it all smoke and mirrors?

That means that 59 million didnt sign....

hobo28

Well of course we'd never get everyone to sign. A lot of people have no access to computers and/or hadn't heard about the petition.

It is however a very powerful message to the govt that the general public don't want it! Why? Partly cos its another IT shambles in the making but mainly cos we don't think its anything except another tax.

Given that they said they'd listen if enough people signed, i find it laughable that they just dismiss us like that.