Safe Speed Forums

Revealed: Deliberate Traffic Jam Plan"

Autocar has uncovered shock evidence that the DfT is pushing local councils to adopt polices designed to lengthen journey times and reduce the amount of road space available to cars

Urban Safety management Guidelines - Road Safety Strategies for Urban Communities is a 30 page colour guide promoted by the DfT, the TRL and Institute of Highways and Transportation.

The guide lays out a detailed formula for what it claims will be "much improved road safety.. using Gloucester as an example - which includes deliberately inducing congestion

Local councils are urged to "lenghten journey times on local distributor and residential roads by reducing the speed of traffic mainly through traffic calming on reidential roads and by "taking space from car traffic by installing central refuges and hatching, bus and cycle lanes

Fitting bus- priority receivers to traffic lights and giving less time at traffic signals to traffic (including CYCLISTS!!!!!!!! on disributor and residential roads is also on the agenda

The Urban Safety Management Guide seeks to divide up the roads in a particular town into a hierachy giving priority to to pedestrians and cyclists and publuc transport on so-called district distributor roads.

It goes on to promote speed management by "road narrowing using gateways, cycle lanes and central refuges." Complete road closures are also encouraged

Recognising thaat this is "controversial".. the guide suggests "cultivation of the local media"

and convincing local politicians that to support this is "time welll spent"

A DfT spokesman defended this document.. claiming that "not every town is the same as Gloucester"

with duty currently charged on CO2 and fuel .. the most polluting people are already paying more than anyone else

So it's a little suspicious wht the government's motives reallyare - civil liberties and revenue raising come to mind

On roads which are subject to congestion charging.. the cyclist may be compelled to use inappropriate cycling lanes

It's a genuinely moronic idea! Cyclists should sign up against it even if it mean siding with the petrolheads!

Mr Alexander states this would not happen. He neglects to to put fears to rest by explaining that current legislation should prevent this.]
He should have said that motorists will be protected by the Data Protection Act.. which would oblige those collating this data to ensure that the data is adequate, relevant and not exccsieve for the purposes it is required for,

In short, unless the government breaks its own laws, data collected to implement congestion charges cannot be lawfully used to convict of other offences or to keep tabs on where folk are. And cannot thus be used to clock speed

the feasabilty study pointed out that for the poorest of us.. this charging would take up a quarter of their disposable income..

They claim these people would find it easy to find public transport ..

But Bolton IAM chairman (pro scams by the way ) believes that the public transport infrastructure could not cope with the volumes of extra
users.

He says "Our bus service is really very poor. There are convoys of three empty buses every hour or so along Blackburn Road. Different companies.. never integrated..

The Bolton Town Centre manager Cathy Savage .. agrees.

"We have to think green.. but we must do something about improving the public transport in this area first"

The social impact of all this highlighted the plight of those livingin rural pockets (Rvington comes to mind) .. the poor.. the elderly who already pay higher insurance rates

Town centre retailers also fear for their businesses.

But none of these featured in Mr Alexander's speech.

There has been no mention of reducing VED/fuel taxes to balance and offest .. nor any mention of how to implement in any so-called trial of this scheme

ONE LANE ROAD PLAN IS BRANDED RIDICULOUS

Row over Crompton Way Move

A decision to reduce Crompton Way from two lanes to one has been branded "ridiculous".

COUNCIL OFFICIALS want to cut the road - one of Bolton's busiest - down to one lane in both directions for a half mile stretch between Tonge Moor Road and Thicketford Road junctions

The axed lane will be replaced with a cycle lane

on-street parking bays and pedestrian refuges.

The speed limit will be cut from 40 mph to 30 mph

The proposal has been opposed by the Conservative councillors who sya this £55,000 scheme will create more congestion misery for motorists

They have demanded a review of the decision by John Byrne (Bolton Council's exeuctive member for environmental services to review the scheme.

He was acting on the advice of council highways officers who said there were concerns over speed and volume of traffic

The Bolton press reports that there were 19 incidents on this road between 2003 and 2006 - resulting in 27 casualties, seven serious and three children.

Of the 140 residents asked for an opinion .. 89 apparently gave support, 35 opposed and the rest had no firm view.

The scheme is ridiculous It is another example of Labour's anti-motorist policy.

They say it will not reduce journey times significantly, but that will only be because people will start rat-running the locla residential roads - which will only result in more accidents.

It would be better to re-engineer the junctions where these accidents occur.

This scheme will damage Bolton's economy because it will make it difficult for the businesses to transport goods from one place to another. It is not a great advert to encourage people to invest here.

The Conservatives have nothing to do with this ward

There is considerable support from local people

Analysis of Moss Bank Way scheme shows a reduction of accidents and no impact on journey times

E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister
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 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 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

We need to nail the lie that it's all about getting the the motorist to pay rather than the 'taxpayer', implying they are different. The motorist is now in an absolute majority in this country, both male and female, and therefore it would be the motorist who paid for the bulk of all road improvements whether through motoring or any other kind of tax.

I think I already pay quite enough to drive around already, Thank You, Mr Blair, although I'm not opposed to public transport. It has been governments since the 40s who have relentlessly removed all decent public transport. Just look at German cities. The Germans are hardly anti-car, they have over double the motorway mileage per square mile of land, but maintain electric light rail systems in EVERY major city. I
believe Germans can also claim tax-relief on season tickets for getting to work, and a general subsidy is paid for all city transport systems. If this government want to encourage us all to use public transport to get to work, they could copy this and let us all voluntarily decide what to do. I think they might be surprised at the results. Congestion is really only a city problem.

I have to say that I also support toll motorways if only to avoid the trucks !! The M6 Toll is like going back 40 years

dancing to the tune played by central government without thinking of the consequences for Bolton and Manchester alike. Does Cllr Morris really think that in addition for sky high parking charges, people will actually pay for the honour of visiting these towns. Who is he kidding?

Congestion charging would be the finish of shopping and business in these towns.

AGMA state that no such scheme would be introduced until a reliable and integrated public transport system was in place .. which would be a real alternative to the car

Had Cllr Morris not been reading local press recently? Numerous bus services have been cut because they are not viable .. and those that are are subject to bus company "wars" which cause congestion

Is the Cllr going to frogmarch everyone to these buses so that they become "viable" after all?

Our MPS are adding to the carbon emissions by DRIVING, claiming that the train is "expensive and unreliable"

What a condemnation of their Government's Tranpsort policy

Could it be that the 40p or so per mile they can claim is far more than they actually spend and thus influences their choice?

BLAIR'S ROAD TAX LIES EXPOSED
25/02/07
EXCLUSIVE

By Jason Groves

MILLIONS of motorists will pay more under Labour’s road charging scheme – despite Tony Blair’s claim that it is not a new “stealth tax”.

Official guidance to local authorities rules out cutting other motoring taxes when new road charges are brought in. Drivers will simply pay more.

In an email to 1.8 million protesters last week, the Prime Minister insisted that the charges were designed to cut congestion, not to raise tax.

“I know many people’s biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a ‘stealth tax’ on motorists,” said Mr Blair. “It won’t – road pricing is about tackling
congestion.”

But guidance issued by the Department for Transport makes it clear that there will be no reduction in motoring taxes as new charges are rolled out across huge areas, including the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Bristol and Newcastle upon Tyne.

Brian Gregory, of the Association of British Drivers, which helped to organise a petition against road pricing, said the guidance revealed the Government’s true intentions.

He said: “It looks like the Prime Minister has been economical with the truth again. If anybody did believe that road pricing was not going to be an extra tax on motorists they will certainly not believe it now. When has a tax levied on road users not been an extra charge?

“The only way this scheme can work is to price some people off the roads. We already have a perfectly progressive form of taxation called fuel duty – the further you drive, the more you pay. Motorists will not accept another tax on top.”

A study by Professor Stephen Glaister, of Imperial College London, found that a national road pricing scheme could cost Britain’s 42 million motorists £16billion a year on top of the £47billion they already pay in taxes like fuel and excise duty.

The guidance was issued to local authorities bidding for hundreds of millions of pounds of Government cash to set up road pricing and congestion charging pilot schemes.

The Department for Transport insists it would be inappropriate to return cash to motorists because the schemes are “relatively small scale” and the final national scheme could be run differently.

But the pilot projects will cover vast swathes of the country and affect millions of motorists as they are rolled out over the next five years.

Ministers have already provided “pump-priming” funding to develop schemes covering Greater Manchester, the West Midlands conurbation, Bristol, Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Tyne and Wear, Durham, Reading, Shrewsbury, Norwich and Cambridgeshire.

Dozens of other councils are hoping to impose road pricing, and campaigners fear these are a step towards a national system costing drivers billions of pounds.

Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Alistair Carmichael said: “If Gordon Brown gave a guarantee that the money raised from a national scheme would be instead of fuel duty and road tax, and not on top of them, a lot of the concern would be allayed immediately.

“The fact that he is not is bound to fuel suspicions that millions of people are going to be paying more.”

Shadow Roads Minister Owen Paterson said local authorities were being “bribed” by the Government to impose road charging schemes. Manchester, for
example, was warned it would not get funding to extend its tram system unless it did so.

Money from local schemes must by law be spent on other transport projects. But the Transport Department is asking councils if they would like more “flexibility” in how they use the cash.

Central government stands to make a huge windfall, since money raised from the strategic road network will go to the Department.

I know many people’s biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a ‘stealth tax’ on motorists,” said Mr Blair. “It won’t – road pricing is about tackling
congestion.”

This is a textbook example of how to lie with spin. The reader comes away with the impression that a promise has been made not to raise the overall amount of tax. However, on closer inspection, no such claim is explicitly made.