Roadtax petition - PM's response

From: Radio21 Feb 2007 10:06
To: ALL1 of 45
Dunno if anyone else signed it, but I did and here's the email sent out this morning.
quote:
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 pr
…[Message Truncated] View full message.
From: JonCooper21 Feb 2007 10:23
To: Radio 2 of 45

I signed it

 

unfortunatly I don't belive a word Blair says (though I don't belive for a minute he wrote it)

EDITED: 21 Feb 2007 10:25 by JONCOOPER
From: THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)21 Feb 2007 11:44
To: Radio 3 of 45
quote:
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.

As if.
From: Kriv21 Feb 2007 11:49
To: Radio 4 of 45

But we're already taxed by the mile. Vat on fuel.

 

It's nothing to do with congestion (or environmental issues, the current buzz word politicians have hooked on to) it's revenue, plain and simple.

 

They should stop spending money on useless projects like the Millennium Dome and actually focus on the real problem, public transport, or the lack of it.

From: Radio21 Feb 2007 13:05
To: Kriv 5 of 45
quote:
They should stop spending money on useless projects like the Millennium Dome

Much as I agree with your sentiments, that particular example is now over 7 years old, so not really fair to use.

Its also a little unfair to blame them for trying to link things in with environmental issues. As part of their job they're supposed to be looking out for our best interests, and the environment is a big issue at the moment - if they didn't say they were doing things to try and tackle it then they'd be targeted even more by the tabloids. As it is, in the great utopian world where this scheme is successful at reducing congestion (or at least minimising the increase) then it will reduce environmental impact too.

quote:
But we're already taxed by the mile. Vat on fuel.

If you go along with the whole 'congestion' angle, then this is irrelevant, as the new system isn't so much taxing by the mile, but rather varying the tax per mile based on choice of road and time of day. The real problem is that this ignores the fact that different types of car (4x4's vs SMART cars for example) would be taxed the same amount for the same journey - which flies in the face of the whole environment angle.
From: JonCooper21 Feb 2007 13:23
To: ALL6 of 45
if you belive Tony, and accept that this is all about reducing congestion, then the ONLY way it can work is by making travelling at certain times and on certain roads more expensive

which means poorer people will have to plan and budget for every journey but richer people will be able to drive where they like when they like with less of the poor in the way

does he really think we are all on the road at 8am because we like participating in traffic jams?
From: Radio21 Feb 2007 13:26
To: JonCooper 7 of 45
That's the key point, assuming this is about congestion rather than revenue, he's expecting that the deterrent of paying extra will stop people making the journey - and if the congestion itself isn't enough of a deterrent, where's the evidence that extra money will be?
Message 31909.8 was deleted
From: Radio21 Feb 2007 13:46
To: Mr (M00RL0CK) 9 of 45
I live two miles from the nearest village, 10 miles from the nearest train station and there's 1 bus a day. I work 28 miles from where I live, and to move closer means that house prices go up by ten thousand pounds plus.
From: DrBoff (BOFF)21 Feb 2007 14:05
To: Mr (M00RL0CK) 10 of 45
I think cars should all be taxed to fuck.
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)21 Feb 2007 14:07
To: Radio 11 of 45
quote:
I live two miles from the nearest village, 10 miles from the nearest train station and there's 1 bus a day.


So presumably you're in the middle of nowhere and don't suffer from congestion so wouldn't pay much/any road tax?



-


[everyone saying about environment stuff]

If he considers environment important, why does it come third place to business interests?
quote:
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.

It's blatantly tacked on the end so they can claim to be looking out for the environment when they actually don't give a shit and are just using it to get votes.

Likewise, if they actually cared about congestion they'd do what people have said and [try to] improve public transport - rather than simply raising PT prices under the claim of improving it, but actually not doing very much at all.
From: THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)21 Feb 2007 14:24
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 12 of 45
quote:
So presumably you're in the middle of nowhere and don't suffer from congestion so wouldn't pay much/any road tax?

Have you met the Labour party?
From: Peter (BOUGHTONP)21 Feb 2007 14:38
To: THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE) 13 of 45
Sorry, should have specified - that bit was supposed to be continuing the "assuming this is about congestion rather than revenue" thing.
From: THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)21 Feb 2007 15:04
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 14 of 45
Fairy Nuff then. Personally I suspect that riding down a minor road at 2am on an electric bicycle will cost 10p per mile, and prices will increase from that level up to driving a 4.2l Jaguar along the Victoria Embankment at 9am, which will cost the tax-payer £88 per mile when John Prescott does it every morning.
From: Radio21 Feb 2007 15:31
To: Peter (BOUGHTONP) 15 of 45
Not really, there's a motorway half a mile away that I use regularly, and if motorways are taxed on a blanket-basis i.e. all the same, then I could be hit quite hard.
From: Dan (HERMAND)21 Feb 2007 17:51
To: Mr (M00RL0CK) 16 of 45

Those of us who work for a living often need a car. I, personally, couldn't physically do my job without a drivers license and I wouldn't be able to do extra stuff (Like drop by schools on the way home) without my own transport.

 

And fuck being out the house by 7:00 and home at 5:15 - I couldn't keep that up. Maybe it's different if you haven't had/got a car - but I simply couldn't live the life I do without one. And most of the people I know who can't/won't drive spend half their time getting lifts from those who can.

EDITED: 21 Feb 2007 17:52 by HERMAND
Message 31909.17 was deleted
From: koswix21 Feb 2007 18:58
To: Dan (HERMAND) 18 of 45
quote:
wouldn't be able to do extra stuff (Like drop by schools on the way home)


Where's John!? Filthy bastard!
From: johngti_mk-ii21 Feb 2007 20:03
To: koswix 19 of 45
I know I'll be keeping an eye out for a suspicious looking brum in a VW van outside school now :|
From: Manthorp21 Feb 2007 20:28
To: johngti_mk-ii 20 of 45
with early hippy hair and an eye for the laydeees