Womens Fashion By Joanne Louise

WWW.J-LOU.COM

I signed the pay as you go road tax policy and here is the responce for the petition.

>From: 10 Downing Street <pmreply@petitions.pm.gov.uk> 
>To: e-petition signatories <pmreply@petitions.pm.gov.uk> 
>Subject: E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister 
>Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:10:42 +0000 
> 
>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 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 
> 
> 
>Further information 
> 
>Both the 10 Downing Street - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp - and >Department for Transport - >http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/roadpricing/debate - websites offer much >more information about road pricing. 
> 
>This includes a range of independent viewpoints - >http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page11031.asp - both for and against. 
> 
>You can also read the Eddington Report - >http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10961.asp - in full. 
> 
>You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. >Stephen Ladyman in a webchat - http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10961.asp - >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 Downing Street to update >you in due course. 
> 
>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