Road pricing

[j4bberw0ck]

Motorists face a potential bill of more than £600 to fit a black box needed to make a full pay-as-you-drive road pricing system (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/15/nroads15.xml) work, Whitehall documents have revealed.A blueprint drawn up by the Department for Transport showed it could cost £62 billion to set up and £8.6 billion a year to run.How much? :eek::eek: The lunatics really are running the asylum now. More >>>here<<< (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/19/nroads19.xml).

[Valerie Campbell]

I quite agree! Between road pricing and ID cards, we're footing the bill for things we don't actually want...

[johno]

we will just have to give this the same treatment that we gave the hated poll tax. boycott it [disgust]

[kwbrown111]

Reply received from No 10:E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister
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
Further information
Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.

This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.

You can also read the Eddington Report in full.

You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat 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.

If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk

[garycs]

We are now at the technological point where cameras able to read number plates are widely used for "average speed checks" through roadworks and other hazards. Why can't they be situated every km or so on the busier roads to introduce a more limited road charging scheme which doesn't require the installation of 32.9 million (vehicles on road according to Office of National Statistics) satellite tracking systems?

Personally the entire proposal is full of logistical holes anyway.

1. Is there any way a government department could organise this given their usual performance on new schemes?

2. Who will make the systems? It's a vast number with an overall value of at least £10 billion, I'd be willing to bet that whichever company gets the contract will have a few ex-ministers on its board in the not too distant future.

3. Who will fit them? They will have to be securely fitted into the car so bound to be a few hours for every single vehicle, and there are a limited number of auto electricians.

4. What happens when you sell a car, will you have to get tracking systems swapped over before a car can be used?

It could be that we would benefit from the scheme in this area and actually pay less tax on our motoring, but we would still have to pay for the tracking system up front and the majority of us would be paying out this money in the knowledge that in all liklihood the number of uninsured, untaxed, unMOT'd and untracked vehicles on the road is increasing.

[dozerboy]

Ding, ding - Looney Land City Centre - time to get off the bus!!

This IS the start of BIG BROTHER watching our every move, and would they not be better spending the billions that this will cost on a national integrated transport system? If the UK had a second to none public system/s, then most of us could leave wur cars at home anyway, and it would probable be cheaper to run, year on year than this hairbrained idea!!

If it does ever come into use, my daily commute of over 100 miles, would bankrupt me!!

[Rheghead]

I am very concerned about road pricing but I am not against it in principle. For instance, if it does come into force and then Scotland goes independent, then we would be in a fairly strange situation where freight would be travelling along English roads from the Continent which would not be contributing to an English economy. I could see a different tarriff on the roads for Scottish vehicles that would reflect this.

[peter macdonald]

Rheggers this happens all over Europe with transit goods and has done so for an awful long time !! eg Finnish china travels from Finland by ferry to Germany then across Germany to France where it is sold wholesale then retail !! If there are road tolls in the way then they have to be paid accordingly

[golach]

I am all for Road Pricing, and Congestion Charges in our Capital City. I dont drive, never have, never will.
The great and wonderful Scottish Executive gave me a Concessionary Bus pass, so I can travel free all over my home city and all over Scotland, therefore I do not need a car.
Another reason for me wanting to reduce the traffic on our roads and in our streets, is I suffer from Asthma, and the less vehicles,the less noxious fumes, and less costs to the NHS for my treatments for Asthma.
I say come on Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling (2 nice Scots lads) hit them hard.

[Angela]

[quote=golach;192818]The great and wonderful Scottish Executive gave me a Concessionary Bus pass, so I can travel free all over my home city and all over Scotland, therefore I do not need a car.
quote]

Wee while to go until I get the bus pass ;) , but like golach I don't need a car in Edinburgh - where I live it would be hard to park one within walking distance in any case. I sold mine when I moved back from living in the country.
Traditional tenements like mine were built when cars didn't exist. Each one can have 8 flats or more and there isn't the space outside for parking more than 2 or 3 cars at most.
IMO congestion charges in Edinburgh would be a very good thing. People here probably need to re-evaluate how they use their cars, and if they do actually need a car at all.
Entirely different living in the country though.

[JAWS]

So what does Tony's e-mail really say?

But let me be clear straight away
This translates exactly the same way as Harold Wilson’s, “You know it makes sense.” did many decades ago. It means, “If you are stupid enough to swallow this load of bunkum then I can make you believe anything!”


But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse.
I love that bit, he admits to spending six and a half billion pounds this year alone on buses and trains and tells us that it won’t change a single thing.
“Aren’t we wonderful, we’ve spent billions of pounds of your money in order to do absolutely nothing!”

So why will inventing a new ‘Punishment Tax’ solve anything. If people stop using their cars and can’t get to places because Public Transport won't be able to cope (remember, he admits improving it won’t do a thing to solve congestion problems) then how else are they meant to get anywhere? In most places the days of being able to walk round the corner to your place of work are long gone.

The only logic I can see where Congestion Tax would improve matters is it would put a stop all those people who wake up in a morning thinking. “I’ve got all today to myself, I wonder what I should do? I know, I’ll jump in my car and have an enjoyable day stuck in a traffic jam just to pass the time!” Such people are as common as those who decide to break their legs in order to enjoy a pleasant day in the local A&E.

There is nothing at all in the whole message which indicates how Congestion Tax will improve anything. The only thing the whole message says to me is that they have no idea how to solve the problem of Congestion so they might as well use it to as an excuse for grabbing more of our money which they can then boast about wasting.

Having quoted Harold Wilson I will quote another noteworthy statement by a Politician, “Tony, on Yer Bike!”

[Rheghead]

If the PM wants to relieve traffic congestion then a good idea, imo, will be for the Government to work closely with businesses ie tax incentives so that they can easily provide flexitime, incentives to work from home and creche facilities. He could do all this without laying a single brick or fitting a single nav-sat or even improving public transport.:confused

And the countryside won't get a road through it either. And I dare say carbon emissions wouldn't take a pounding as well.

[Whitewater]

Seems such a pity that the government is unable to spend the money it rips of the motorists on such transport related things like roads and puplic transport. I'm quite sure that if all the money stolen from motorist under one prertext or another were to be made available for public transport and roads only, then we would have one of the best systems in the world.

[dunderheed]

correct me if im wrong here-
wasn't there talk of scrapping road tax and feul duty if this scheme went ahead?
and wasnt it only going to be aimed at major motorways and A roads only?

surely for us living rural areas it would be a blessing in disguise???

[peter macdonald]

http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/02/21/road_tax_response.html

seems really bothered about rural communities in here aye right

Ah well at least he answered.....I see Jack McConnel did not appear with the rest of the Scottish Party leaders on Question time BBC 1 last night maybe has afraid he would get mangled in the debate by Salmon Goldie etc or maybe he just wanted to watch the football

[j4bberw0ck]

wasn't there talk of scrapping road tax and feul duty if this scheme went ahead?

Yes, but that means that big gas-guzzlers (so called) would be back on the agenda, unless yet another tax was introduced to discourage them. And when did you ever hear of this lot NOT increasing the taxation burden?


and wasnt it only going to be aimed at major motorways and A roads only?

If that were the case, you wouldn't need satellite tracking; just a network of receivers at the roadside for the roads affected. And of course, it would just transfer the congestion from main roads to back roads, bringing every city in the country to a grinding halt. Not really what they want to achieve...


surely for us living rural areas it would be a blessing in disguise???

Well, if it meant there was no reason why I couldn't have my much loved but very thirsty Land Rover back, yes! :lol:

[bky]

considering that folks in caithness are nearly 70 miles from the nearest real round-a-bout (they silly things in wick dont count) - 90 miles from the nearest dual carridgeway and 120 miles from the nearest traffic jam are we due a rebate?

[JAWS]

There was a suggestion as far back as, I think it was, the 1970s to scrap the Vehicle Excise Duty and replace the revenue by increasing the tax on fuel by an equivalent amount. There would of course, they insisted, need to be a small annual fee to cover the costs for keeping the records of "Change of Ownership".

Sounded a good idea until it was pointed out by certain organisations that the suggested increase in fuel tax was far in excess of that required to cover the loss of the Excise Duty and there could be little doubt that the "Small Charge" for record keeping would invariably be rapidly increased back to the old level of the then existing Excise Duty.

Only the excuses change, the greed remains the same. The only difference now is that they can foresee the opportunity of controlling you from the cradle to the grave simply because the technology is available for it to be done.

[j4bberw0ck]

Someone tell me again how road pricing instead of fuel duties and vehicle excise duty will make motoring cheaper in rural areas? :lol: (http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED05%20Mar%202007%2009%3A07%3A49%3A783)

[Rheghead]

Someone tell me again how road pricing instead of fuel duties and vehicle excise duty will make motoring cheaper in rural areas? :lol: (http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED05%20Mar%202007%2009%3A07%3A49%3A783)

What has that got to do with road pricing in rural areas??:confused

[j4bberw0ck]

Rheggers, sorry, thought it was fairly obvious: that somehow, somewhere, the government would find other ways of taxing motorists if they incorporated fuel and excise duties into a road-pricing scheme, so we'd end up paying more.

There was a view in here that road pricing in rural areas would be a Good Thing because we'd save a fortune.