Woohoo, I've had an email from Tony Blair.

[Kopite]

Originally Posted by 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

People power at work?

[Dirk]

He got it wrong, though. My biggest worry wasn't the tax. It was the big brother aspect of it. I agree with hammering drivers with tax but I don't agree with the way they were/are seeking to impose that tax. Road pollution is more harmful than cigarette smoke so, to be honest, I'm not too arsed if drivers are to be taxed further for killing people.

[Strontium Dog]

Quite.

[cochcaer]

Wonder how many emails 'bounced'.

[Scouse Missionary]

Originally Posted by Dirk He got it wrong, though. My biggest worry wasn't the tax. It was the big brother aspect of it. I agree with hammering drivers with tax but I don't agree with the way they were/are seeking to impose that tax. Road pollution is more harmful than cigarette smoke so, to be honest, I'm not too arsed if drivers are to be taxed further for killing people.

Seconded.

[G Richards]

I agree that the method of collecting new revenue leaves a lot to be desired, but I want to make a different point, in defence of the driver.

I think drivers are already taxed out of all proportion. The amount of tax drivers contribute compared to the amount of income the Government spends on roads/transport is already very unbalanced. To continue to hit drivers in the pocket, especially when public transport has been allowed to run down, is out of order IMO.

I think a 10-15 year pact is called for, whereby a promise is made to plough all taxation income derived from drivers back into public transport in a huge scheme to improve all of that. This should be a cross-party agreement so that it survives no matter who is in governement over the next decade.

Once public transport is significantly improved, I think the government then has a better basis for considering such draconian measures as the so called 'Big Brother' one.

Another radical measure might be to limit cars to one per family/household. Again, it's not a solution that would be easily accepted, but it might be a way forward.

But before we implement any of these measures I'd like to see huge investment in public transport and ALL the money collected from drivers going to that end for a good few years to come.

[Slam Daniels]

I saw this on Newsnight last night. How ace that a forumite is in touch with the government. Start lobbying them for free beer for all forumites.

I notice that Mr Blair signed off with 'Yours sincerely'... surely if it wasn't a personal letter to yourself it should have been 'Yours faithfully'?

I'm sure Paul will back me up on this one and join my call for a PM who knows how to write a letter.

[Michael Howard]

I have got a Mersey Tunnel Tag so big brother can tell how often and when i have been through the Mersey Tunnel. Congestion charging will be same sort of thing. Can't say I lie awake at night worrying about the erosion of my civil liberties. Saves me 20pence each crossing and avoids me having to queue for change.

At the end of the day we are going to end up with a beefed up version of this sort of thing. I don;t think that such schemes are inherently bad or a devious big brother device to keep tabs on our whereabouts. You just can;t have cash toll booths eveywhere. Tags allow the traffic to keep moving while clocking up the charges to your account.

There are too many cars on the road. We all want to drive and want everyone else to get public transport so we are not stuck in traffic. Something drastic has got to happen and I think road pricing type schemes are the only viable way forward. Granted public transport still needs massive massive improvement before they force us all out of our cars.

[TK421]

Originally Posted by G Richards I think a 10-15 year pact is called for, whereby a promise is made to plough all taxation income derived from drivers back into public transport in a huge scheme to improve all of that. This should be a cross-party agreement so that it survives no matter who is in governement over the next decade.

I think that would break constitutional laws, something about entrenchment and Parliament not being allowed to bind its successors.

[Michael Howard]

Originally Posted by TK421 I think that would break constitutional laws, something about entrenchment and Parliament not being allowed to bind its successors.

Oooooo get you constitutional law expert. Who do you think you are Vernon Bognador? Don't forget the implications of Factortame. eh? can you smell fish ?

[Kopite]

Hammer drivers who make unnecessary journeys by all means, but at least give everybody the option of reliable, affordable public transport.

Sadly for many there is no alternative to car use, yet the government can't/won't accept this.

[TK421]

Originally Posted by Michael Howard Don't forget the implications of Factortame. eh? can you smell fish ?

It's all a bit sketchy. Factortame, now there's a word I haven't heard for a long time. A long time.

[Michael Howard]

Originally Posted by TK421 It's all a bit sketchy. Factortame, now there's a word I haven't heard for a long time. A long time.

It was sketchy 1991-94. It is none existant now. The F word. Europe. Sovereignty. Fish. That's it. That is all I can rememer.

[TK421]

Originally Posted by Michael Howard It was sketchy 1991-94. It is none existant now. The F word. Europe. Sovereignty. Fish. That's it. That is all I can rememer.

Truefan999 could help us, he knows all the things I was too lazy to learn or too thick to understand.

[G Richards]

Originally Posted by TK421 I think that would break constitutional laws, something about entrenchment and Parliament not being allowed to bind its successors.

I didn't realise that. Thanks.