Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

for those that did not recieve it

On 21 Feb 2007 at 6:29pm Me wrote:
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
On 22 Feb 2007 at 5:12pm catty bitch wrote:
have u nothing better to do with your time
On 22 Feb 2007 at 7:06pm me wrote:
Thats what I like. uneducated people posting. If you had any inkling as to what is going on in the real world, you would have seen and read all the stuff about the prime minister replying to all those people that signed the petition against road pricing. thats his reply! thought you might like to read it. Apologies to those still stuck on the village with 3 corners, rather like MS Bitch above.
On 23 Feb 2007 at 5:23am SHS wrote:
For the record catty b, that post will have taken two keystrokes and 2 seconds to paste in. Thanks me, nice to see that TB still thinks the entire electorate are stupid. We need Chris Eubank's lorry to do a demolition job on nbr 10, with the words 'Public Transport' on the back.
On 23 Feb 2007 at 8:45am Mark Rolfe wrote:
Something needs to be done,but this petitio is useless.
Tony and his cronies are so out of touch with the real world and never listen to the voice of the people.
On 23 Feb 2007 at 11:07am The Super K wrote:
Yes something does need to be done but if its introduced is anyone willing to go and protest like the french do and get the government to back down?
I have some sheep we could burn!
On 25 Feb 2007 at 10:11am MC wrote:
We all known that the Government pays lip sdervice to consulation. With this Government it's all about appearances. The peolple appear to be consulted but ar then always ignored. Witness the largest marck in the history of the Union, agianst the Iraq war.. well over a million people.. completely ignored. Blair took us into this (now proven beyond the shadow of a doubt) disastrous war anyway.
This principle reaches down even as far as parking scehems. Consult and then ignore the results... exactly what happened in the Queens Park area of Brighton (I moved from Queens Park to Barcombe on the day the unwanted scheme was introduced).
The travel duties are just a way to screw even more money out of the over-taxed British people (who also pay the highest price for cosumer goods in the world!). This rubbish Goverment has has well over a decade to design an integrated transport policy and totally failed to do anything about it (John Prescott as Transport minister... c'mon, what a joke!).
I voted aginst the tax and will continue to do so. We need good public transport but what have these idiots done, sod all... they are not having any more of my money to waste on stodgy beaurocracy, fake consultancy, placebo schemes and inflated salaries for non-entities.
They need to prove thay can use my money efficiently first... and they've so far failed to do this... in spades. We have had some very good times in the last 20 years or so.. the Govt coffers have been bolstered hugely... great things could have been done with this money... but I'm afraid it's all been almost totally wasted (witness National Health).
On 27 Feb 2007 at 4:26pm MC wrote:
i before e except after c
On 27 Feb 2007 at 6:14pm me wrote:
Bugger missed that thanx MC!
On 12 Mar 2007 at 1:38am tpsvcl wcofuki wrote:
uvwtexhyp omyjbr ykswvol ukpnbe uqxmt qoyailpxg kwtmsvla
On 12 Mar 2007 at 1:38am pcvxna dcbpvs wrote:
joiel dkzlve xyoq rqlxogtzi eaqihc qyurw qrjmfx
On 12 Mar 2007 at 5:14am matjq poxnd wrote:
boeiucmsf srbcfeagl cfzvaihs dkocuq qnhcbatk cgtzhbfpk elzwoj

25 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Cliffe Tableau Sepp Blatter 26:132
Cliffe Tableau Sepp Blatter

Get a cat? more
If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington