this awaitied me this morning.

No doubt others will get it later.

"

[FONT=vera,verdana]Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]"[/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana] [/FONT]
[FONT=vera,verdana]Dan[/FONT]

The letter is exactly why he has been so succesful as our PM, as much as people would question that as being true, even if it is all just words.

This amuses me:

"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."

How come that every other European country can? In Ireland for example there is a massive amount of road building going on at the minute and it IS relieving the congestion, especially around Dublin. If the roads in the UK were maintained to an acceptable level and weren't stricken with road works constantly then that would certainly help ease congestion. The email says everything and nothing, it's just a series of words...

while i dont disagree with what is said in the letter, it does show how short sighted govt policy making can be. they're taking a 'problem solving' approach to this. accepting that congestion is a problem and there must be a solution.

thats not realisitic. congestion is not the problem, congestion is simply one of the many symptoms of a shortage of infrastructure and services.

almost all the big issues that the govt try to tackle are due to only 1 problem. our population can not be serviced adequately by our infrastructure. i consider policy on roads, hospitals, schools, housing, employment, benefits, pensions, law enforcement and emergency services all to be inadequate. there are many more areas where the same is true.

the fact that our demands exceed available services does not mean we need to increase the supply of services. even a gcse economics student knows that in the long term that will simply worsen the problem. the PM's letter recognises that if you double the roads today you will double the traffic tomorrow. that is a proven problem.

so what is the solution? well according to economic theory it is simply a case of controlling demand. how do you reduce demand for our infrastructure and services overall? you need to reduce the population, or at least reduce the growth rate so that our rate of increasing demand is under control and managable in line with our available services and infrastructure.

but how do you do that? well there is no point considering short term policy. it is important that a long term workable social change is implemented. the most successful example of such a policy is china's one-child policy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy). its controversial, but it works, and it works well. in china the benefits are already widely known and in hindsight it is accepted that they did the right thing. i dont expect the people of britain to think it is feasible, nevermind fair, but thats what they said in china, and now they're laughing. if we had the same policy in britain, 50 years from now we'd witness vast improvments.

i'm well aware of the problems a one-child policy creates. my own chinese step-mother has suffered because of that policy. she has a daughter from a previous marriage, and the father will not allow her to see her daughter (despite a chinese court's ruling that she should have access). my step-mother can not have another child, even in a new marriage, and if she does she will have to pay for it both financially and socially. thats not fair, but its a small price to pay for long term economic and social control. uncontrolled growth is a burden on the economy, and the bigger the burden the worse our problems will become. especially when it is the poor and badly educated who breed in higher numbers. over time the number of people who contribute to the state is outgrown by the number who depend on it. this is not a situation that we can realistically manage in the long term.

but whilst britain continues to open its doors to so many immigrants coming in then controling the birthrate wont make any difference as those spaces are being filled straight away.

Steve said:

How come that every other European country can? In Ireland for example there is a massive amount of road building going on at the minute and it IS relieving the congestion, especially around Dublin. If the roads in the UK were maintained to an acceptable level and weren't stricken with road works constantly then that would certainly help ease congestion. The email says everything and nothing, it's just a series of words...

Click to expand...

its accepted by economists that increasing roads will only increase traffic. it has been proven time and time again all over the world. never has it reduced congestion in the medium or long term. it just digs a deeper hole.

GhostWKD said:

but whilst britain continues to open its doors to so many immigrants coming in then controling the birthrate wont make any difference as those spaces are being filled straight away.

Click to expand...

i agree, immigration requires strict control. few other countries on earth are so lax with immigration as the uk, however improvements have been made, and we should not prevent the movement of skilled labour into the uk.

Steve said:

This amuses me:

"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."

How come that every other European country can? In Ireland for example there is a massive amount of road building going on at the minute and it IS relieving the congestion, especially around Dublin. If the roads in the UK were maintained to an acceptable level and weren't stricken with road works constantly then that would certainly help ease congestion. The email says everything and nothing, it's just a series of words...

Click to expand...

But that's why he is a genius

The problem is that unlike the rest of continental Europe, England at least simply doesn't have the space. For example, leaving Manchester to Sheffield requires the M62 (decent road) and then Tintwhistle, a tiny little village which has hundreds of cars an hour passing through it. Result? An hour to get out of Manchester EVERY rush hour, a journey which when free-flowing would take maybe 4-5 minutes. So what do you do? Well you could make a by pass to go around the bottle necks which would just push the bottle neck further into the peak district as it's still a 1 lane road through most of the moors, at some points it's 3 lanes to allow over-taking. Or build a complete new dual carriage way from Manchester to Sheffield which would cut the journey down from 1-2 hours at rush hour to around 30 minutes!

It would need a proper road cutting through some of our best countryside in the country, is it worth it?

We simply don't have the area left to just put in roads, places are either built up or a small area left for its nice scenery. I am sure that using a map of the UK and a pencil I could fix much of the major congestion in a few weeks, at the expense of countryside and many people's homes.

GhostWKD said:

but whilst britain continues to open its doors to so many immigrants coming in then controling the birthrate wont make any difference as those spaces are being filled straight away.

Click to expand...

Immigrants are the least of the countries worries. It's the chav scum breeding faster than rabbits, living off the working who are destroying this country. Immigrants are just easier to pick on.

p.s. Paul can you please stop licking TB's ass? It's making me queezy. :yuck:

edit: Forgot the smilie

The Negotiator said:

The problem is that unlike the rest of continental Europe, England at least simply doesn't have the space.

Click to expand...

its not about space, even if we did have the space, more roads makes congestion worse. that is proven.

That's only because it's never done in an intelligent way, congestion only happens due to bottle necks and accidents, remove bottle necks and fix the number of cars on the road to within a few million and you will not have increased congestion.

TB is a tit, he did many things during his time that were wrong, but overall he has done a very reasonable job, there's no denying that. He also invited my daddy around for dinner which was nice of him.

hmmm.. what a load of tosh.... basically they should ban everyone of "pensioner" age becasue they stand in line for a free buss pass.. that would get a load of the congestion problems out of the way and sort out the sunday drivers lol..




-----------

they dont seem to be looking at this in a wide enough perspective, they seem to be following the problem approach rather than a resolutional approach in my opinion.

The Negotiator said:

fix the number of cars on the road to within a few million

Click to expand...

fixing the number would work, but what do you tell the people who need to drive to work and arent allowed? how do you decide who gets a license? a uk license lottery wouldnt be very popular.

its easier to fix the number of people.

ChristieCruiser said:

hmmm.. what a load of tosh.... basically they should ban everyone of "pensioner" age becasue they stand in line for a free buss pass.. that would get a load of the congestion problems out of the way and sort out the sunday drivers lol..

Click to expand...

pensioners dont cause all the traffic when i'm getting to work. its workers who cause congestion, and toursits in summer months.

They do it elsewhere, notably in France. However, we have what, 22 million cars on the road? That's a lot. Easiest way is obviously to increase road tax and make it impossible for more than a set number of people to afford cars

The Negotiator said:

Easiest way is obviously to increase road tax and make it impossible for more than a set number of people to afford cars

Click to expand...

aah- price people out the market. many people think thats unfair, but i'm a traditional conservative at heart so i still believe if you cant afford something its your fault and you should work harder.
but these days you need to consider the needs of peasants as well. if labour stay in power they're more likely to increase road tax for the rich and make it free for the unemployed. bloody robin hood politics. why are they still called labour if they benefit the unemployed so much?

Well it won't matter to me, I should be wealthy enough so bugger 'em

In all seriousness, isn't that what congestion charging and road charging will do? I know the idealistic view is that it will spread out congestion over different times, but realistically it will just price a number of people out of driving.

The Negotiator said:

Well it won't matter to me, I should be wealthy enough so bugger 'em

In all seriousness, isn't that what congestion charging and road charging will do? I know the idealistic view is that it will spread out congestion over different times, but realistically it will just price a number of people out of driving.

Click to expand...

Exactly.. which is why it's a bad idea.

Is it really?

The Negotiator said:

Well it won't matter to me, I should be wealthy enough so bugger 'em

In all seriousness, isn't that what congestion charging and road charging will do? I know the idealistic view is that it will spread out congestion over different times, but realistically it will just price a number of people out of driving.

Click to expand...

well hasnt it already started with gordon browns new road tax, i was being penlised for driving a greener but slightly older car than someone pumping out more CO2 in a slightly newer one