Safe Speed Forums

Yes, junk - and a diatribe that further undermines Blair's own credibilty. What we have had is this:

• Reduced speed limits - more congestion because cars have to be on the road for longer to complete their journeys
• Speed cameras - people brake when they see one, often when they need not have done;
• No road building in 2001 thanks to the short sightedness of the then transport minister, Two Jags Prescott;
• Chicanes - to slow the traffic down
• "Build outs" - to slow the traffic down
• "Pinch points" - to slow the traffic down;
• A plethora of other Road Narrowing schemes, including fewer lanes on many roads;
• More road humps than ever before - to slow the traffic down
• Rephasing of traffic lights - to slow the traffic down;
• The "Blair Lane" on the M4 - a project that reduced the M4 from three lanes to two on the way into London, greatly adding to congestion at peak periods - not to mention the FIVE speed cameras between Heathrow and the elevated section at Brentford.

The above is not an exhaustive list. For example, what happened to Blair's brainchild, the Integrated Transport Policy?

Paul Roberts was right. How can Blair expect us to believe that he's concerned about, and committed to reducing, road congestion, when his government has for the last 10 years engaged in a campaign of making it worse?

Not always true as it spreads out the peak.



This one?

Nicycle, I used to drive to Chiswick every day along the M4 c1990-92. Of course there were sometimes problems at the elevated section. But now the speed limit has been reduced from 50 to 40, and the limit further out reduced from 70 to 60. Has this helped?

DM - I say it in jest, but the closer you look it could be true -your post outlines the "Integrated Transport Policy"----equalise all journey times ,and how - you listed some of the reasons

Yes, of course! Bring the speed of all traffic down to what it was in horse drawn days, so we can all be the same!

I've received a response. Why me ? It's guff but read and decide for yourselves.

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

_________________
"Experience isn't everything - but it's most of it".

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Blair's reply may have a soothing, silver-tongued sound to it, but in terms of the facts his arguments are deeply flawed.

Firstly, congestion is self regulating - no-one travels on gridlocked roads unless they absolutely have to. People find alternative routes, move closer to work, get a job closer to home, arrange flexible working hours with their employer or otherwise find their own way around the problem. Congestion itself has this effect - there is no need for Government intervention. Car use cannot possibly increase by 25% by 2015, as Blair claims, because there's simply no room for that many extra cars.

Secondly, the distribution of traffic across the UK road network exists in a delicate balance. Implementing Congestion Tax will upset this balance and could very well end up making the average level of congestion WORSE. Road Pricing is not a "quick fix" for congestion any more than speed cameras were a quick fix for road accidents. It has been proved time and time again that oversimplifying complex social problems is a very dangerous thing for Governments to do.

Blair claims that what Labour are proposing is the same as what is already being done in Italy, Norway & Singapore. It's not.

I'll use Norway as the example. The Norwegian Government tell the public that (say) a particular bridge needs replacing. They slap a toll on the existing bridge to help pay for the new one. It's common sense, and no-one argues. They also implement cordon-based inner city congestion charges in order to pay for specific public transport imporvements in that city. Again, the public know in advance what the money is going to be used for, and the Government stick to the agreement. Finally, all toll charges in Norway are handled by numberplate recognition cameras (just like London's CC) - "spy in the sky" satellite tracking is NOT used there.

We may see them try to implement road pricing at the local level and it will be down to the citizens of the towns & cities involved to oppose these schemes on an individual basis. But I've said it before and I'll say it again - Road pricing on a National level will never work.

So why are they persisiting with it? Because the CEOs of the IT companies involved in the project are writing themselves big fat cheques on the back of the Government's promises. Labour, in turn, are getting hefty kickbacks from these companies, and promises that jobs will be kept in the UK. Everyone is happy - who cares if the system never sees the light of day? Money makes the World go round.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

That's interesting. I've never been to Norway, but I have been to Italy (and Singapore, but 10 years ago). I drove a rental car for two weeks all around Tuscany in 2005, and to such cities as Florence, Pisa and Lucca. I do not recall having to pay any road pricing tolls, or tolls of any other kind for that matter.

Mmmmh, so 1 mile of motorway costs £30 million and you spend only £8 Billion of the £47 Billion collected in car related tax annually on roads...........



.................and just WHAT was the problem again Prime Minister?

I just looked up some info on the Italian road pricing system. Their system, called Telepass, applies to (some of?) the motorways only.

A private company are responsible for the upkeep of the motorways within the scheme. To pay for the upkeep, they run a pre-pay toll system for users of the motorways concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TELEPASS

- The only involvement from the Government is some legislation to enable the punishment of nonpayers. None of the toll money goes to central Government as far as I can tell - it all gets put back into road maintenance less whatever profit the operating company takes.

- The toll is usually a fixed one-off payment for use of the motorway. In some cases there is also a distance-based charge. The time of day is not taken into account. Lorries pay more than cars, cars more than motorcycles.

- The system uses a black box, but this only communicates with the electronic toll booths on the entrance & exit sliproads, at close range, as the vehicle passes them. There is no GPS tracking, and no central database of vehicle movements.

The only thing that it can be compared to here is the M6 toll. Since it takes no account of the time of day, it cannot be considered a congestion charge at all. It's certainly nothing like what Labour are planning.

It is not clear from the articles I read whether the Italian toll motorways were purpose-built additions to the road network (like the M6 toll) or existing motorways that used to be free but aren't any more. Maybe someone could clarify?

Singapore's system is confined to the inner city and is pretty much the same as the London CC, but has been in place for much longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing

Again, no GPS tracking.

Make no mistake, if we implement GPS & time based road pricing with National coverage, we will be the first.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

in his "debate " ladyman admits "but I can tell you that the taxes motorists pay have not been ring fenced for transport since 1937. They are part of the exchequer's general revenue and they pay for schools, hospitals, police etc and if we didn't have that revenue then other taxes like income tax and VAT would have to go up."

Like a sign i saw in a local shop -

"STOP THEFT - HMG DON'T LIKE COMPETITION"