The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to
"Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now
closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road
pricing on the
This petition was posted shortly before we published the
Eddington Study, an independent review of
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
Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for
Transport websites offer much more information about road
pricing.
This includes a range of independent viewpoints,
both for and against.
You can also read the Eddington Report
in full.
You can reply to this email by posting a
question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10
website this Thursday.
There will be further opportunities in the
coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail
from
If you would like to opt out of receiving
further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk