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

Democracy is very overrated - it gives twats a voice.

I'm sorry but there's times when the public needs to be forced into stuff it doesn't want for the greater good. If the public are left to their own devices we'd all die horribly whilst shovelling shit food into our mouthes and watching reality TV. Joe public and Jeremy Fucking Clarkson can fuck off and die if they think that driving their sports cars and 4x4s is more important than than the future of my children.

Maybe this will give the lazy Arsenal Supporters that drive to the shops for a paper on a Sunday morning a reason to get off their fat lazy arses and walk there instead. It may also force paranoid parents to make their littles darling get some exercise by walking or cycling to school instead of delaying everyone trying to get to work.

See we can all go a bit 'Daily Mail' when we need to.............

What makes me fucking howl here is that all you green warriors wanting a better life for your kiddies are all sat there saying

"oh yes let's have a system that charges per mile which will deter drivers"

it won't - they'll just pay it. The people who can't afford to pay will just buy chipped or modified tracking systems that don't report their mileage properly or something similar.

What are the chances of being caught if your gps module doesn't work? Considering the number of untaxted, unmoted illegally driven cars in the country - how does this affect them? It doesn't.

Finally we're at the crux of the problem - Petrol is bad mmkay? Our reliance on oil is unabated despite having a plethora of alternative cheap more bio friendly fuels available.

The crux of everyone's argument here is "Oh it will help my kids" and "clarkson is a twat"

Good fucking game - Cop yourselves on you plebs.

What happens every time the government 'invests' in business. That money will go into a company and at least 50% of it will disappear. You won't see ANY improvement in public transportation because (and I've said this before) it's not in those companies interests.

If I used the bus to get to work every day it would cost me £2.40 a day, for a cramped, filthy, slow, unreliable shit service. I'd rather walk and if I miss my lift with lenka I do walk.

I'd be happy for a government to look at this if I had any gut feel that they'd actually do what they claim to want to do. At the end of the day some services are strategic and should be free from party interference. They should be managed by all party steering groups formed from people with experience of the situation. Not based on a half arsed report by some fucktard with a vested interest.

Before any of you Arsenal Supporters mention global fucking warming , here's a few facts for you, from someone whose actually seen the reports and understands the fuckers.

Firstly - There are no 'independant' researches. They're all funded either by the green party who hate cars or by the Oil companies who don't give a fuck about the environment.

Secondly - there's no reliable climate data past 100 years. Climate change is so slow and prone to blips that last centuries that it's very difficult to base anything factual upon these reports

Thirdly - there's still no climate model which accurately models the global weather system. There's too many unknowns.

Yes there probably is some form of global warming. There's also huge fucking holes in the ozone layer but I don't hear anyone moaning about that. At present there's nothing to say we won't have problems from global warming shortly . There is however shit loads of stuff about people getting skin cancer in areas of low ozone - but that's not as sexy as "OMFG THE WORLDS GOING TO END OH NOES"

Show me a decent plan to limit cars on our roads, back it up with fucking superb public services that are easy and affordable, Take control of these strategic functions back from self-serving corporate Arsenal Supporters who should be in jail after recent accidents due to negligence and I might be willing to say yeah - let's pay as we go.

If you expect me to agree with me paying more tax and that being given to the same Arsenal Supporters who currently run our public transport system then you are sorely mistaken



M

Firstly - There are no 'independant' researches. They're all funded either by the green party who hate cars or by the Oil companies who don't give a fuck about the environment.

Secondly - there's no reliable climate data past 100 years. Climate change is so slow and prone to blips that last centuries that it's very difficult to base anything factual upon these reports

Thirdly - there's still no climate model which accurately models the global weather system. There's too many unknowns.