It's bad news for Government and IT outsourcing companies hoping to earn £millions from the introduction of road pricing schemes.
Increases in the fairest and cheapest road pricing scheme possible, petrol and diesel prices, have reduced road congestion as the invisible hand of the free market works it's magic again!
Showing posts with label Road Pricing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Road Pricing. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
English road pricing
Will Scottish MPs be abstaining from today's Parliamentary debate on allowing English councils to introduce road pricing?
If they claim that the Local Council Bill also includes Scottish items so they can vote, then the Bill should have been split nationally!
If they claim that the Local Council Bill also includes Scottish items so they can vote, then the Bill should have been split nationally!
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Easy motoring penalties
If a third of all motorists caught speeding in London avoid prosecution because they are untraceable, how will road pricing work?
How are Police tracking this most dangerous one third of all drivers down!?!
The figures are evidence of a wider problem that speed cameras can only catch people who are basically law-abiding. - Kevin Delaney, former head of the Met's traffic police.
How are Police tracking this most dangerous one third of all drivers down!?!
The figures are evidence of a wider problem that speed cameras can only catch people who are basically law-abiding. - Kevin Delaney, former head of the Met's traffic police.
Monday, April 16, 2007
What Price Road Rage!?!
If motorists taking part in road-pricing experiements will be able to see the true cost of their journey mounting up as they sat behind the wheel whilst sitting in congestion, will this reduce stress levels or lead to dangerous driving!?!
Thursday, March 01, 2007
New Road Congestion Scheme?
Is contaminated petrol a secret Government experiment to get more car drivers off the road and onto public transport!?!
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tony Blair's road pricing email - A response.
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 10 years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible [I wash my hands of this problem]. 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 e-mail 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 [Such as Ken Livingstone’s excellent idea to offer half price bus travel to those on income support].
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, congestion, congestion” - Tony Blair,1997!].
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015 [by the same team that predicted the Millennium Dome would be a great success]. This is being driven by economic prosperity [and a lack of any Government policy on population growth]. There are six million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue [as Government is unable to remove the two million uninsured vehicles on Britain’s roads]. 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 £2.5bn this year on buses and over £4bn on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. [Increasing levels of traffic congestion does not automatically make more people use the trains and buses!]. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140bn of investment planned between now and 2015 [which is really good news for train drivers and train guards as they will be looking forward to striking for more pay again this summer]. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1,000 Highways Agency traffic officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving [off-peak]. 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. [France, Germany, Italy, the United States, Canada, Japan, Spain etc. aren’t!]. 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 [More people might use trains or buses instead], and be less reliable [road congestion would directly penalise those people travelling at peak times!]. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals [the Treasury] and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could [but then again could not] cost an extra £22bn in wasted time in England [what about the rest of the UK?] by 2025, of which £10bn to £12bn 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. [People are flexible enough to choose their optimal travel plan given cost and time constraints]. Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, [funding the European Union, incapacity benefits, unemployment benefits, MPs pensions, Scotland, Wales and Quangos], or increases in taxes [again!]. 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. [It could even dent the net £40bn taken from motorists each year!]. 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. [Making England’s roads a more attractive means of getting to work!]. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. [The Government guarantees your privacy, just ask DWP staff whose details have never been compromised or the 25,000 pensioners whose bank account details were not sent to the wrong addresses!]. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes [and petrol tax], 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 [thanks to Labour!], 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 [It will be a "visible" tax!]. 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 [just don't bet on it!].
Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more [Only those driving to work would be caught in the scheme, as they all enjoy being stuck in traffic!]. 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 [have faith in Government IT projects!]. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair [to the Treasury].
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
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 10 years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible [I wash my hands of this problem]. 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 e-mail 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 [Such as Ken Livingstone’s excellent idea to offer half price bus travel to those on income support].
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, congestion, congestion” - Tony Blair,1997!].
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015 [by the same team that predicted the Millennium Dome would be a great success]. This is being driven by economic prosperity [and a lack of any Government policy on population growth]. There are six million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue [as Government is unable to remove the two million uninsured vehicles on Britain’s roads]. 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 £2.5bn this year on buses and over £4bn on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. [Increasing levels of traffic congestion does not automatically make more people use the trains and buses!]. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140bn of investment planned between now and 2015 [which is really good news for train drivers and train guards as they will be looking forward to striking for more pay again this summer]. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1,000 Highways Agency traffic officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving [off-peak]. 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. [France, Germany, Italy, the United States, Canada, Japan, Spain etc. aren’t!]. 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 [More people might use trains or buses instead], and be less reliable [road congestion would directly penalise those people travelling at peak times!]. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals [the Treasury] and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could [but then again could not] cost an extra £22bn in wasted time in England [what about the rest of the UK?] by 2025, of which £10bn to £12bn 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. [People are flexible enough to choose their optimal travel plan given cost and time constraints]. Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, [funding the European Union, incapacity benefits, unemployment benefits, MPs pensions, Scotland, Wales and Quangos], or increases in taxes [again!]. 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. [It could even dent the net £40bn taken from motorists each year!]. 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. [Making England’s roads a more attractive means of getting to work!]. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. [The Government guarantees your privacy, just ask DWP staff whose details have never been compromised or the 25,000 pensioners whose bank account details were not sent to the wrong addresses!]. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes [and petrol tax], 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 [thanks to Labour!], 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 [It will be a "visible" tax!]. 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 [just don't bet on it!].
Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more [Only those driving to work would be caught in the scheme, as they all enjoy being stuck in traffic!]. 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 [have faith in Government IT projects!]. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair [to the Treasury].
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
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The vicious circle of road pricing!
If road pricing succeeds in cutting road congestion by 10%, will clearer roads and shorter journey times make car travel a more attractive option for getting to work!?!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
MPs on road pricing!
Would road congestion fall significantly if MPs were priced off the road?
MPs spent £2m on car travel last year!
MPs spent £2m on car travel last year!
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Reducing traffic congestion
Would traffic congestion be cut by 10% if the estimated 1.4m uninsured drivers were forced off Britain's roads?
Uninsured drivers are typically young males living in an urban environment where traffic congestion is particularly bad...
How would road pricing be enforced for these drivers!?!
Uninsured drivers are typically young males living in an urban environment where traffic congestion is particularly bad...
How would road pricing be enforced for these drivers!?!
Friday, December 01, 2006
Motorists 'must pay for road use'
Are ministers the only road users who do not pay to use the road network as their fuel and road tax can be reclaimed as expenses!?!
Every other motorist already pays more the further they drive!
Last year, I posted an article at 'Oncemore' on road pricing that tragically seems just as relevant now...
Every other motorist already pays more the further they drive!
Last year, I posted an article at 'Oncemore' on road pricing that tragically seems just as relevant now...
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Inflation busting rail fares
How will increasing rail fares above the rate of inflation encourage more car drivers off the roads and onto the railways?
Can it be long before railway workers strike to get their share of the increases?
Can it be long before railway workers strike to get their share of the increases?
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Traffic congestion is good for your health
Transport authorities will no doubt seize on the news that road traffic deaths are at an historic low to justify their increasing reliance on speed cameras. Is this deserved? Speed cameras no doubt reduce average speeds in their immediate vicinity but I suspect there are two other factors at play. Improved car designs increase your crash survivability whilst increased traffic congestion, in city centres and motorways, leads to fewer crashes at high speed as you get fewer chances to speed!!
There are some people alive today who would be dead but for traffic congestion. Who says traffic congestion is only ever bad for you?
Are more deaths the cost of free flowing traffic?
There are some people alive today who would be dead but for traffic congestion. Who says traffic congestion is only ever bad for you?
Are more deaths the cost of free flowing traffic?
Monday, November 29, 2004
Traffic Congestion
Wouldn't it be great if there was no traffic congestion? Everyone could travel wherever they wished with no fear of getting caught in a traffic jam. This must seems to be the Utopia and certainly a noble goal that Ministers, and their electorate, the great travelling masses dream of whilst stuck on the M25 on a Monday morning.
It strikes me that no matter what Minsters do, whether it is building more roads, road pricing, multiple occupancy lanes or one of numerous other solutions, traffic congestion is something that will never go away. It will never improve overall but then, it will never worsen significantly either.
Every couple of months, some think tank will produce "shocking" research that if traffic growth continues at it's current rate then London, for example, will grind to a halt within five years. This is nonsense. People do have alternative means of transport and can make sensible!?! choices. These choices may be "sticky" in the short term ie unable to take the train to work or can only drive to work. In the longer term though, you can possibly relocate to be closer to your workplace, change your job so that you do not have to commute as far or chnage your mode of transport. I cannot ever see the time when I would willingly drive to work across London if traffic is not flowing at all!!
The typical response from all shades of government is to restrict traffic growth by increasing petrol and diesel prices with a nod and a wink to the green lobby. The most significant transport cost for me is the car purchase price and annual costs such as Insurance, Vehicle Excise Duty, Car service and MOT. As these are all significant costs in their own right, it unfortunately becomes the case that the more I use my car, the cheaper the average cost per mile becomes!! Perverse logic I know, but there we are, get out and drive!!
It strikes me that no matter what Minsters do, whether it is building more roads, road pricing, multiple occupancy lanes or one of numerous other solutions, traffic congestion is something that will never go away. It will never improve overall but then, it will never worsen significantly either.
Every couple of months, some think tank will produce "shocking" research that if traffic growth continues at it's current rate then London, for example, will grind to a halt within five years. This is nonsense. People do have alternative means of transport and can make sensible!?! choices. These choices may be "sticky" in the short term ie unable to take the train to work or can only drive to work. In the longer term though, you can possibly relocate to be closer to your workplace, change your job so that you do not have to commute as far or chnage your mode of transport. I cannot ever see the time when I would willingly drive to work across London if traffic is not flowing at all!!
The typical response from all shades of government is to restrict traffic growth by increasing petrol and diesel prices with a nod and a wink to the green lobby. The most significant transport cost for me is the car purchase price and annual costs such as Insurance, Vehicle Excise Duty, Car service and MOT. As these are all significant costs in their own right, it unfortunately becomes the case that the more I use my car, the cheaper the average cost per mile becomes!! Perverse logic I know, but there we are, get out and drive!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
