Road Pricing petition

[AlanHo]

Are you going to sign the petition? I do hope so. You have until midnight tomorrow 20th February.

If you sign it - you will shortly receive and Email from Tony to thank you for your concern and tell you how he will respond to us 1.6 million petitioners.

Click here

[trackrat]

I have already done this petition, but if it makes any difference to another stealth tax being levied on motorists I will be very suprised

[Gandalph]

I have already done this petition, but if it makes any difference to another stealth tax being levied on motorists I will be very suprised

Ditto.

[catgate]

Me too.

I have just received an email, from the Dear Leader, in response to my reply to my vote in the ID card petition. He is telling me how wonderful and necessary ID cards are and how little they will really cost and how great a service it will be to world peace and how many lives will be saved and how wonderful he is and....stuff him.

[AlanHo]

Me too.

I have just received an email, from the Dear Leader, in response to my reply to my vote in the ID card petition. He is telling me how wonderful and necessary ID cards are and how little they will really cost and how great a service it will be to world peace and how many lives will be saved and how wonderful he is and....stuff him.

You really are an old cynic. It seems that no matter how hard our great leader tries, and no matter how successful he is, there are always people reluctant to express their appreciation of his endeavours. Name any other of our leaders who have gone to the trouble of opening up their web site to critics and then sending them personal messages to explain their policies. Baldwin didn't do it, Churchill didn't do it and even Thatcher didn't do it. Shame on you and a plague on your pubic patch.

[catgate]

You really are an old cynic........ Name any other of our leaders who have gone to the trouble of opening up their web site to critics and then sending them personal messages to explain their policies.

When you put it like that I really do feel ashamed. I had never looked at it in that light before. It really is very selfish of me to not realise he is doing all this for the likes of sad, pitiful me. Oh woe Oh woe.

[andsome]

Already signed, not that it will make any difference. They have to get the money from somewhere to plug Comrade Gordon's hole. Take that in any way you like. :D

[Thos]

I haven't signed it because I am not sure yet whether it is a "good thing" or not or the extent to which it may apply. Like everyone else, I have read the stories of being charged exhorbitant amounts for every road mile with no corresponding reduction in other forms of road taxation but in principle, if road pricing can be done fairly and effectively, it is worth considering.

Thos.

[gordythegouge]

From someone who travels 50 miles a day to work, in a rural situation, over roads whose surface would best be described as challenging, you're darn tooting I've signed the petition!

[AlanHo]

I feel that the fairest way of charging road users would be to eliminate road fund duty and increase fuel tax. That way - the biggest vehicles and highest mileage drivers would pay more and us low mileage pensioners would pay less. This, coupled with proper support of public transport funded by fuel tax, should ease road congestion.

This should be accompanied by a road charge for foreign vehicles upon entry at the port - at present they pay zero to use our roads and carry enough fuel to avoid buying it here.

We could also put a high tax on shoe leather, bicycle tyres, pogo stick foot rubbers and kids buggies to tax other forms of transport fairly.

[Irene]

This should be accompanied by a road charge for foreign vehicles upon entry at the port - at present they pay zero to use our roads and carry enough fuel to avoid buying it here.

Here, here! Thumping great long vehicles, and with trailers!!

We could also put a high tax on shoe leather, bicycle tyres, pogo stick foot rubbers and kids buggies to tax other forms of transport fairly.

:lol: :lol:

[catgate]

What about a pavement congestion charge. Most city and town centres are chock full of pedestrians brought in by park and ride etc., and if public transport is eventually used as its proponents envisage, this can only get worse. Surely these need taxing, and also need licensing. There should be walking tests, carried out by qualified idiots, and these tests should be undergone every ten years. There should also be checks for physical defects every year, and stickers should be placed conspicuously upon the pedestrian to indicate the compliance with the above.

[Tankus]

This should be accompanied by a road charge for foreign vehicles upon entry at the port - at present they pay zero to use our roads and carry enough fuel to avoid buying it here

I have heard that some arctics carry more than enough fuel........ and flogit from syphon's in the odd motorway car park to the needy and wanting ...EU free trade at its best ...!

incidentally ,Kensington,Chelsea and Westminster went on the congestion charge lastnight...... £8 perday ..Greenwich are also going to do their own .......another decade ant it will be inside all the M25 methinks

[AlanHo]

Very slightly off topic - but to do with driving and congestion is that attention needs to be given to blue badge (disabled) holders.

At present parking places are located as close as possible to the cinema, shop, supermarket or whatever they serve. These are the most desirable places and a tempting target for unscrupulous, selfish non-badge holders who illegally park there.

My solution is to move the disabled parking spaces as far from the shop as possible - right to the back of the car park - where they are most likely to ignored by the selfish parkers and be available at all times to blue badge holders.

Following on from the post by tankus - I can see lots of merit in extending the congestion charge area to the districts surrounded by the M25 because it would more clearly define the boundary and embrace the areas populated by the more wealthy. Why should Mr Brown have to wait for them to snuff it so he can get his grubby hands on their inheritance when they can be fleeced now.

[Thos]

Very slightly off topic - but to do with driving and congestion is that attention needs to be given to blue badge (disabled) holders.

At present parking places are located as close as possible to the cinema, shop, supermarket or whatever they serve. These are the most desirable places and a tempting target for unscrupulous, selfish non-badge holders who illegally park there.

My solution is to move the disabled parking spaces as far from the shop as possible - right to the back of the car park - where they are most likely to ignored by the selfish parkers and be available at all times to blue badge holders.

Following on from the post by tankus - I can see lots of merit in extending the congestion charge area to the districts surrounded by the M25 because it would more clearly define the boundary and embrace the areas populated by the more wealthy. Why should Mr Brown have to wait for them to snuff it so he can get his grubby hands on their inheritance when they can be fleeced now.

Do you have a space in front of your house for the men in white coats? They can't be long before they come now. :D :D :D

Thos.

[catgate]

ALANHO FOR PRESIDENT RAH RAH RAH

[rong]

Their is a bright side to the extension of the congestion charge apparently the people in the new bit can now use their cars without paying.

[Thos]

ALANHO FOR PRESIDENT RAH RAH RAH

The white coat men won't be long for you either!

:D

Thos.

[AlanHo]

The great man has replied as follows...:-

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

[-pops-]

Apparently (according to the Today programme) a lot of the emails from the dear leader are going directly into the recipient's spam catcher.

[andsome]

I haven't signed it because I am not sure yet whether it is a "good thing" or not or the extent to which it may apply. Like everyone else, I have read the stories of being charged exhorbitant amounts for every road mile with no corresponding reduction in other forms of road taxation but in principle, if road pricing can be done fairly and effectively, it is worth considering.

Thos.

The whole point is, whether or not you trust this lot to apply any charges in the fair way that you advocate. We have had too much experience of Brown's stealth taxes in the past. Do you honestly believe that such a charge applied by Messrs Brown and B'liar will not cause an overall increase in the amount of taxation? That would be the biggest surprise of the century.

[AlanHo]

Apparently (according to the Today programme) a lot of the emails from the dear leader are going directly into the recipient's spam catcher.

Mine did - because the spam filter traps any Emails sent to a large number of bcc recipients. I saw it lying there and dug it out.

[andsome]

Received my reply.

[catgate]

If the reduction of congestion is their only aim there are ways of doing it without putting up taxes still further. If the reduction in the consumption of fossil fuel is their aim (or part of it) this can be done with out putting up taxes. The whole thing is another great con. They are have just found another "problem" on which to use their "universal solution".

[Thos]

The whole point is, whether or not you trust this lot to apply any charges in the fair way that you advocate. We have had too much experience of Brown's stealth taxes in the past. Do you honestly believe that such a charge applied by Messrs Brown and B'liar will not cause an overall increase in the amount of taxation? That would be the biggest surprise of the century.

This is a long term thing, far longer than the term of this or indeed the next parliament. Perhaps there will be someone you can trust in power then. though I guess we may not be here either.

Thos.