Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Executive 'must examine use of road tolling'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
19 February 2007
ENVIRONMENTALISTS today urged Scotland's political leaders to explore the use of congestion charging to tackle Scotland's transport problems.
Friends of the Earth said Scotland now needs to look at introducing road-user or congestion charging.

Duncan McLaren, Friends of the Earth's chief executive, said: "Building new roads and bridges is not the answer. They will simply lead to more t
raffic and more congestion. We need a package of measures to get people out of their cars and on to safe, convenient and affordable alternatives. This means greater investment in public transport, safer streets for cycling and walking, better land-use planning, and a fair system of road-user or congestion charging."

An Executive study concluded last year that road tolling was unlikely to be introduced in the near future.

Researchers said that a previous "no" vote on congestion charging in Edinburgh and the time and money that would be required to develop a workable national congestion charging scheme suggested that such schemes are only a distant possibility.

Mr McLaren said: "Those parties who opposed the congestion scheme proposed for Edinburgh said the scheme was not the right one.

"Well, now is the time for those parties to get out of the policy slow lane and set out what the right scheme would be - not just for Edinburgh, but for other locations suffering from congestion and pollution."

The call follows proposals from the Liberal Democrats to cut motoring taxes in Scotland to speed up the introduction of pay-as-you drive road charging north of the Border if the scheme is delayed in England.

The move would involve an attempt to wrest control of vehicle tax - which could be abolished - and fuel duty - which might be reduced - from Westminster.

It follows Tavish Scott, the Scottish Executive's Lib Dem transport minister, criticising the "glacial" progress of road charging and calling for faster progress in Scotland.

Mr Scott was yesterday reported as saying he expected a consensus in favour of such a tax switch among MSPs after the May election. He said charging should leave drivers no worse off - by having improved public transport alternatives in urban areas, and cheaper motoring in the countryside.

However, the tax move was ridiculed yesterday, with observers suggesting it could trigger hordes of English motorists crossing the Border to refuel.

The Scottish Executive said it backed a UK-wide charging scheme - which is expected to be proposed for the middle of the next decade - but has no plans to go it alone.

Drivers would be charged depending on the type of roads they used, congestion levels and the time of day, with an expected consequent cut in motoring taxes. The plans are at an early stage, with the government seeking pilot projects in English cities such as Manchester or Birmingham.

The Executive's national transport strategy includes consideration of a pilot study in a "medium-size urban area" to see how road charging might work in Scotland.

However, Mr Scott downplayed the likelihood of such an experiment when he launched the strategy in December. He said: "Our judgment is a UK scheme is what is most likely to happen."

Plans to charge motorists £2 a day to drive into Edinburgh were emphatically defeated in a referendum in 2005.

PM TO E-MAIL A MILLION ROAD TOLL OPPONENTS


TONY Blair is to send an e-mail to the million-plus people who signed an online petition against road pricing, telling them it is "surely part of the answer".

Mr Blair admitted he did not expect to win over critics of road pricing immediately, but said that the petition - on the 10 Downing Street website - had provoked a useful debate.

The strength of feeling against road charging plans reached such levels that, at one point, it crashed the PM's internet site. The petition calls the policy "sinister and wrong" and warns the charge would be unfair to those living away from their families and poorer people.

Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, has accused its organisers of spreading "myths" and pledged to press ahead with plans to pilot the scheme.

Peter Roberts, 46, an account manager from Telford who started the petition, said he was "staggered" by the response and called for a meeting with government officials.

The petition appears on a section of Downing Street's website designed to allow anyone to address and deliver a petition directly to Mr Blair.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Androsthenes,

EDINBURGH 19/02/2007 01:19:37

Having already said 'NO' to congestion charging in Edinburgh, what makes these people think we're going to allow road tolls in the whole of Scotland?

2

plord,

edinburgh 19/02/2007 01:26:48

Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, has accused its organisers of spreading "myths" and pledged to press ahead with plans to pilot the scheme.

over a million of us sign a petition and Douglas Alexander starts with myths and says he will ignore the petition, sounds like a government that doesn't give a sh!t about the people who elected them. what a worm. lets get rid of him.

3

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

19/02/2007 02:01:09

Comment@1 Androsthenes, hi mate......they don't listen to us.....but they DO believe if you say a lie long enough.....we will.....its called propaganda :)

4

Statsman,

19/02/2007 02:29:25

The Executive and the useless councils can't even deliver roads free of potholes. What's all the revenue for roads going on just now? Junkets and new windows for the badly designed parliament?

The sooner we see the back of this idiotic mob, the better. That goes for that Commie Reds disguised in green too.

5

Jozef Goj,

Colo Heights NSW Australia 19/02/2007 05:46:47

Taxing for the benefit of whom?

OH NO, Not the motorist again. Just look at all the benefits we have?

When will governmant realise that the roads infrastructure has been wrong for over 80 years.

This is supposed to be World's best Practice.
So how come there are jams and gridlock and congestion every day?

If the road infrastructure cannot achieve free and uninterrupted vehicle flows no technology will help!

The solution to traffic jams is not the size of the road but the ability of an intersection to work correctly.
Traffic lights just stop traffic, roundabouts are for light traffic and freeway intersections are fundamentally flawed. They fail under heavy traffic as they also only work with light traffic,they were designed to.

At www.ubtsc.com.au we have models of intersections that work.

They allow all vehicles entering an intersection to exit that intersection left, right or ahead without stopping all day every day without fail.

We also have a number of other transportation solutions that are environmentally zero polluting.
None of this is worth anything if government at all levels dismisses it!
Think outside the square for solutions and look for the positives of what this means.

Imagine being able to cross town in peak hour traffic without stopping at a single intersection.

Dr Stephen Ladyman has been informed of these solutions. Jozef Goj, CEO, UBTSC Pty Ltd

6

RCG,

Falkirk 19/02/2007 06:35:48

Leave all his for a better place
www.youscotland.com

It's where it's happening, now!

7

Pete39,

Tassy 19/02/2007 06:53:02

I do not know what the problem is, if you believe you cannot afford the road tolls why do you not take a tram to work. Oh, you do not have trams and even if you did you would not believe in them. Hold on, some problems are a wee bit more difficult to work out than others.

8

SouthernSkye,

Currently Köln 19/02/2007 07:31:59

#7
Pete39.
Nope, no trams at home for me, nor any trains and, in winter, virtually no busses. In fact, not much by way of choice of roads or routes either!

9

Scaramouche,

19/02/2007 07:52:13

Jeremy Clarkson brought this up in Top Gear last night. And dealt with it like we all should. Refuse! Sign the petition to get shot of it.

10

Calum Mcleod,

19/02/2007 08:14:56

The trouble with the argument for road toll charges or congestion charges is that it is based entirely on someone's ability to pay to use a road. If everyone has that ability, then pollution isn't altered one bit. If they are really committed to reducing pollution then prevention of use is the only viable solution with viable alternatives in public transport like electric buses, trains etc..
I'm not advocating eithyer but the environmentalists, UK and Scottish Governments and particularly Edinburgh City Council seem to have the lost the purpose of reducing traffic on roads in their arguments.

11

paulr,

19/02/2007 08:32:53

"Those parties who opposed the congestion scheme proposed for Edinburgh said the scheme was not the right one"

The people of edinburgh said NO to congestion charging, it had nothing to do with the scheme being the right or wrong one!!!

12

JJ52,

19/02/2007 08:41:54

Polution and congestion could be halved if they used the tram money to convert busses to lpg and subsidise fares.

13

Edward,

19/02/2007 08:54:33

Friends of the Earth should keep there noses out of Scotland. There not doing themeselves any favours with this kind of crap.
The road charging scheme by Labour is purely about raising yet more revenue and has nothing in the slightest to do with co2 emmissions
But in case F of the E, are not convinced, the UK as a whole is about 20th in the world as far as CO2 emmissions per head. If you can consider Scotland on its own, the rate of CO2 is not worth the hassle, considering that Scotland has a lower population , which is concentrated around the central belt (not much polution in the highlands, aprt from what the sheep and cattle give off) Scotland has no heavy engineering (thanks to the Thatcher years)
So please get real

14

Mine's an 80 bob,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 08:57:51

What gets me about all these people who want to get rid of cars and spend lots of money on public transport schemes is they dont ever seem to look at what has happened in other places.
Amsterdam is a short flight from here, or you can get the ferry, and when you get there you will find a city about the size of Edinburgh, with possibly one of the best integrated public transport systems you will, find. Trams to everywhere (not just one line), buses, ferries and a metro (that cost a fortune to put in), all linked together, dirt cheap to use, and guess what the place is still full of cars, why, because people prefer to use them.

15

jim lad,

the capital 19/02/2007 09:01:16

Could someone explain the difference between road toll charges, and congestion charges if there is a differece.

16

Edward,

19/02/2007 09:04:58

Tavish Scott of the not so democratic LibDems, spouted out in the Scotland on Sunday that he would reduce excise on fuel, when road charging is introduced, unfortunately he doesnt relaise that the Scottish Executive cant do that as its not in there powers, so it was another lie from the Libdems.
And as it is stated here 'observers suggesting it could trigger hordes of English motorists crossing the Border to refuel'
'The Scottish Executive said it backed a UK-wide charging scheme - which is expected to be proposed for the middle of the next decade - but has no plans to go it alone' Can Scottish Labour and the undemocratic Libdems not do something that is for Scotland, based on Scotlands needs and requirements, instead of having to do what Westminster tell them, perhaps we should call them the Rubber Stamp parties, as all they seem to want to do is Rubber Stamp what Westminster tell them

17

Jack the lad,

19/02/2007 09:13:34

All this just a week after it has been proven the London 'congestion’ charging isn't working as congestion is as bad as it was before it was introduced. Ken Livingston’s answer - more taxation, just put the prices up.

1. Now over 1,500,000 signatures on that petition, sign now at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax. I’m sure Friends of the Earth would be delighted if any UK campaign they ran attracted so many and such publicity.

2. Edinburgh democratically votes and says no to congestion charging.

3. Some fool in the south west [allegedly] sending letter bombs to offices where driving stealth taxes are administered.

4. In the Scottish Borders CCTV cameras are looking at speed cameras because they are being vandalised and burnt to the ground.

5. The fuel protests a couple of years ago.

6. I'm sure folk can think of many more around the UK.

And these environmentalists types will already know that the UK is doing very well, doing what’s its already doing, in the reduction of pollution. China and the USA on the other hand produce 98% of all the worlds pollution.

Methinks they should prioritise their campaigning in countries where its going to make most difference rather than those with 'sympathetic' governments who hijack the ideals to impose higher taxes.

And as Douglas Alexander and his "myths", everyone who signed up was free to read all the bumph that goes with it. I suppose he might be suggesting myth in the same way political parties manifestoes are always honest and truthful.

When are the Government going to pay attention?

When they are in opposition!

18

Biker,

Ayr 19/02/2007 09:55:37

No 7 The problem is that for many of us public transport is not the answer. Many people live in isolated areas where public transport does not exist, so what do you suggest for them. My special case is that I am the area manager for a company who require me to travel all over the place, my tax burden is enormouse already. Perhaps another couple of grand a year to the public purse. Not bloody likely. I was one of the million and a half people who signed the petition and will fight to see some common sense put back. Vote this bunch of idiots out

19

Alexander,

edinburgh 19/02/2007 10:03:08

"Duncan McLaren, Friends of the Earth's chief executive, said: "Building new roads and bridges is not the answer. They will simply lead to more traffic and more congestion."
Obviously the answer to cure congestion is to close the bridges and reduce every carriageway to a single lane.
How daft can we get. Successive governments have cut back on road building to such an extent that the few new roads or improvements are so overdue that they are almost immediately overloaded when they are opened.
What would Musselburgh be like now if the bypass had not been built? Yes, it is congested again. I suppose our resident FOE idiot will say that congestion in Musselburgh was ONLY cured for 15 years. In any sane persons book that is surely a success.

20

JayJay,

Glasgow - ish 19/02/2007 10:19:18

Those in power must believe the electorate to be severely mentally impaired.
First we have the usual shock horror stories across all the newspapers, in best Private Fraser fashion, telling us "we're all doooooomed". Then plenty of terrifying images of ice falling into the water with earnest looking presenters telling us about the "very real evidence" of global warming. Next, after some wholly inconvenient stuff about MPs/MSPs overuse of planes, cars and such like, we get a raft of new "green" taxes either introduced retrospectively, in the case of air taxes, or planned for some date in the future.
I am at best unconvinced about the motives of "scientists" on just about any issue. Given all the claims and counter claims, I think anyone has every right to be either convinced or sceptical. Sceptical or otherwise, I just don't believe that (a) any taxes raised will go anywhere other than into a giant pot, to be used on absurd government projects, (b) public transport will get any better or cheaper as a consequence and (c) in net terms we will end up paying less in transport related taxes.
With no-one in Government prepared to explain why, with the highest tax take on record, they still can't make ends meet, it seems perfectly clear to anyone with half a brain that this is just another effort to empty our pockets.

21

ScottyEdi,

19/02/2007 10:21:43

Here's a scenario, I live in a rural area because that's where I can afford to buy a home, I drive into the city to work so that I can pay for that home. If I used public transport it would take 3 extra hours a day, hours I'd rather spend with my family. So, if I'm going to be charged to drive to work I might be forced to find work where I'm not charged to get there which might lead to me moving out of Scotland. OK... now multiply that by the number of people who would rather not pay the charge and find work elsewhere. It would seem to me that if enough people were forced to take other measures businesses in the city might suffer. If enough businesses suffered the entire city would suffer. When cities suffer economically they generally end up attracting people with lower and lower incomes and there goes the neighborhood as some would say. Most people who live and work near the city are just barely making it anyway because it's so expensive to live there to begin with. Only the wealthy can afford to move into the city now and landlords who are finding out their property is worth more now are forcing tenants out and selling or charging higher rent, so it will either become a city of the very rich, who will continue to drive because they can afford to or a city of students and the not so wealthy who don't have cars to begin with *(who wouldn't be affected by the charge) and sorry to say only contribute a very small percentage of income to the city. Say goodbye to Edniburgh as we know it folks.

22

td,

Highlands 19/02/2007 10:26:10

Yesterday we saw the Prime Minister end his chat on the Sunday AM programme on the BBC by saying," the tecnology is available therfore we must use it ".

What an apalling excuse for law making. He was, apparently refering to the questioning on both the Identity card scheme and the use of Road charging.

If any Government wished to reduce the traffic congestion three measures are all that is required.

One: Increase the charge for vehicle ownership for all those whose principal residence ( the one they live in most of the year ) is in urban areas, by the use of variable rates of ownership duty. Through the use of banded excise duty a government could make it increasing expensive to own a car in congested areas, and also they could tax the second and third vehicles in any household more highly.

Two: They could Enforce variable rates of duty for every type of car in line with engine size, fuel consumption, and -most importantly- its emissions. (This is being done already in parts of Europe.)

Three: Reduce car ownership charges for those in rural areas, which would over the long term encourage people to relocate their place of work away from the congested areas. ( This has already been done for sveral decades in the Netherlands.)

But we all know that what I write here will never happen in the UK because most voters live in the cities, and metropolitan areas . There are no votes in proper measures ..so politicians will use the big brother approach instead., and blame the machines for the unpopular side of this policy.

23

ScottyEdi,

19/02/2007 10:26:26

Oh, my daughter reminds me, another issue is that if we have more people using public transportation where the h**l are they going to put more buses. The roads are littered with them already. Have you been on the bridges or Princes St lately? AND, what about the taxis, will they be charged? Most of them are privately owned and I know they're used for personal use(my neighbour uses his all the time) so how would 'they' know if the taxi is on a shopping trip or doing business????

24

dylan2,

peterhead 19/02/2007 10:39:41

if bus operators had no subsidised support from the goverment, how deer would bus travel be?? is not us the tax payer that pays these subsides??
its cheeper for me in every respect for using a car or even a motorcycle.as for congestion well with bus lanes it is designed to compound the issue of congestion.In my area I see on a regular basis of 2 maybe 8 in a bus during of peak times(is public transport going to be hit with carbon tax emition?;more burden on the tax payer!!)
At the end of the day its the goverment not got the bottle to stuff the greens.

25

Antonine Plato,

Glasgow 19/02/2007 10:40:59

http://platosway.blogspot.com

It's no secret that the public aren't going to like any congestion solutions that the government come up with.

It does seem though that on every occasion they fail to listen to the public.....

SORT OUT PUBLIC TRANSPORT BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE!!!!

26

Neil,

9% Growth Party 19/02/2007 10:42:24

When somebody does not have a Phd in a hard environmental subject such as mathematical ecology I think the press should put the description "environmentalist" or "ecologist" in quotation marks. Being in favour of covering the countryside with 300 foot windmills is a sign of Ludditism not concern for the environment.

I would consider it improper to claim to be a "nuclear physicist" even in quotation marks though I support nuclear power.

27

Chris seeing red,

19/02/2007 10:42:59

21 & 22 seem to have it right. I've been away in the netherlands actually and they also have it right. More right than our government will ever have it. They see the long range outcome of all their decisions not just the now consequenses. They've learnt to plan for the future not wait until the future catches up with them and bites them in the butt then make knee jerk decisions to get them out of the problem of the day.

Having certain technology does not mean we have to use it just because we can. Having technology requires responsibility to all people involved. When our government becomes a responsibile government then a comment such at that will be easier to swallow.

Some may say we have the technology to make nuclear weapons but does that mean we should? We have the technology to clone humans, so should we? We have the technology to make this a REAL big brother state, does that make it right to use it? That kind of technology in a simple sense simply takes away the freedom of every single person who is forced to use it. We become slaves to our government. Our government becomes a dictatorship and where does that leave our Queen? Which brings up another question, will she have to pay the charge when she comes to Holyrood or is it only the peasants who pay?

Why not build a few really good car parks outside the city and shuttle people in? Charge a monthly parking fee and I'll bet people will pay it. It seems to me that might just keep the city center a little clearer of congestion. More so than a new super Hotel which will only mean more people both local and travelling.

What I'm saying is there are other answers besides having our every move "WATCHED"

28

allytdogmaster,

livingston 19/02/2007 10:53:10

im a driver myself and voted against the edinburgh congestion charge only because of the way they where going top set it up, letting people of Currie and Balerno to enter the city centre without having to pay because edinburgh council said they already pay edinburgh council tax was just stupid, people from currie and balerno should pay more if they used there cars they have a perfectly good bus service with lothian regional transport (LRT) while im stuck in livingston with FIRST BUS which is close to useless. Congestion charges do work just aslong as its done right, Durham City looks amazing without all the busy traffic heading down the main road.

29

Alex.,

19/02/2007 10:53:45

Here are three suggestions which will alleviate rush hour congestion that will not cost a penny and no one will have to pay additional tax.

1. Stop dustbin lorries collecting on arterial road between 7.00 am and 10.00 am. They can concentrate on the side streets and come back after 10.00. Likewise with delivery vans.

2. Employers at places such as Edinburgh Park should allow their staff flexi time. The same volume of traffic spread over three hours makes a big, big difference. Employers you have to trust your staff. I've worked with flexi for over 25 years and believe it or not, it works in your favour.

3. Stop stupid people doing stupid things. One of the worst traffic jams I was in was because of traffic wardens practising points duty during the rush hour at Gillespie Crossroads. Traffic stretched through Juniper Green......Currie......Balerno......... Thank God for the Policeman on the motorbike who stopped this stupidity!

30

GrahamH,

19/02/2007 11:10:31

Genius by Labour to allow their lib dem poodle partners to have Tavish Scott in charge of transport. Then whip up the most unpopular policy of taxing the motorist, will be more unpopular than the poll tax and have Lib Dem splashed all over as the responsible party just before elections.

On a selfish note, I drive 50,000 miles a year on business, much in rural areas so not slightest chance of public transport as sometimes visit 3 or 4 places a day. I drive against the traffic from city centre so not a major congestion contributor and I use 100% bio diesel so am 100% carbon friendly and no negative green effect.

With hydrogen cars here in next year or so, with no negative environment impact, with bio diesel here now that any diesel car can run, the environmental lobby is trying to tax cars off the road before the environmental argument dissapears.

31

Edward,

19/02/2007 11:27:53

The answer is very simple, in 73 days time just dont vote for either Labour or the undemocratic LibDems, that way Scotland can put an end to this stupidity

32

ScotsLass58,

Red Kens Toon 19/02/2007 11:38:46

#12 Edward stated
"But in case F of the E, are not convinced, the UK as a whole is about 20th in the world as far as CO2 emmissions per head. If you can consider Scotland on its own, the rate of CO2 is not worth the hassle, considering that Scotland has a lower population , which is concentrated around the central belt (not much polution in the highlands, aprt from what the sheep and cattle give off) Scotland has no heavy engineering (thanks to the Thatcher years)"

Based on this information that has obviously been conveniently hidden from the Scottish population, most probably through the numpties overruling the freedom of information act, then surely Scotland should ( now here is a novel idea ) consider the possibility of one of its political parties fighting for independence. OOPS! sorry I have just realized there is a party thinking just that. Now if we could only achieve independence then with the miniscule level of CO2 emmissions generated in Scotland we would not have any requirement for a numpty goverment to force underhand tax raising ideas like poll, sorry road, taxing onto the population of Scotland.

33

I'm no really here,

19/02/2007 11:49:17

1.5 million people told the No.10 website they were opposed to road tolling. So Blair is going to send an email to each one telling them they are wrong and why he is going to ignore them.

The solution to the problem is to get FEWER cars on the road, to fill up empty buses, to have more buses a peak times if needed. What effect does charging road users have, unless the charge is so high only the rich and politicians can drive.

You have Road Tax so that you may use the roads, now they want to tax you BECAUSE you use the roads. Crazy!!

You need a more efficient public transport system. What the F*** will a new tax achieve?????

This is typical of this and many other governments who can only think in terms of controlling the population through rules and regulation, instead of trying to fix the underlying problems.

34

petrol head,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 12:17:19

Duncan McLaren is limited in intelligence and should not be taken seriously. To do so would be very dangerous indeed. I have heard this man make various statements which prove beyond all doubt that he does not understand what he is talking about and this is another example.

He effectively says that building bridges and roads will add to congestion. Eh?? You give traffic more room and somehow that leads to congestion? If McLaren really believes that then he needs his bumps felt. More likely this is just another load of anti-car spin.

Don't forget that this is the same man who wants us to stop using fossil fuels for power generation but also doesn't want us to use nuclear power stations because "...they are simply bombs waiting for an excuse to go off..." and also "...we can't allow all countries around the world to have nuclear weapons..." Clearly a man who knows what he is talking about and I don't think. Ignore him. He is a fool.

35

petrol head,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 12:25:15

So Blair is going to send out spam to 1.5 million people then is he? I don't recall giving him permission to use my email address in this way.

This is a typical example of trying to push through something that is patently not wanted by the British public and to try to prevent that idiot Alexander from looking more stupid than he already does.

Mr Blair. If we thought that road pricing was "surely part of the answer" then do you think we would have signed the petition? For once use your brains for a change and stop treating us like idiots. over 1.5 million people have just told you that they don't want road pricing. That doesn't mean that "MAYBE they don't want it" it means THEY DON'T WANT IT.

Sack Alexander. And whilst you're at it, sack yourself and go to the country.

36

kt,

Portugal 19/02/2007 12:45:09

Toll road are over here and spain. They work. If you want to use the busy congested routes then you can do so, if not the toll road is available, usually congestion free and no potholes!!!

Toll roads for the town centres???? Now thats a different story.....

37

IainA,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 12:46:43

What on earth is wrong with Duncan McLaren? "building new roads and bridges is not the answer".

Depends on what the question is doesn't it? If it's "Do you want a modern mobile society with good trade and infrastructure links"? then building new bridges and roads is the answer.

Unfortunately the likes of Mr McLaren aren't actually very green, despite the name of his party. He isn't looking reality in the face and trying to tackle these problems realistically and in an environmentally supportive way.

He's another of that breed who would see us punished for being human beings. Not building new roads and bridges will not reduce the volume of traffic one jot, not will road tolling. It will allow the government to screw more money out of the motorist though. Road tax is fixed, road tolling, while it may initially be set to cost the same or less than a years road tax, can be increased exponentially in "hot spots" to whatever sum the government of the day sees fit, thus increasing tax revenues.

What is Mr Mclaren doing to advocate greener motoring? to sponsor the use of alternate fuels? to cut the environmental cost of having and using a car? I'll tell you, bugger all. He'd rather punish us for our sinfulness than actually address the problem.

The motor car is evil, therefore so must those who use it be, therefore they deserve to be punished, tolled and taxed until they recant and start using the bike like a decent human being.

So Tony is going to email everyone who signed the online road pricing petition is he? This will be to tell us why we're wrong, don't understand the big picture and that's why he's going to ignore us. I suspect there will also be the usual labour party trick, of assuming that everyone who hasn't voted "against", can be counted as a vote "for" - allowing labour to vote the silent majority in their favour.

I bet his reply to: email address will automatical

38

Jack the lad,

19/02/2007 12:51:40

Fewer people able to drive might help a bit. I think its a nonsense that people can sit their driving test again and again and again and again and again.

Pass first time ("as I did" he says smugly) OK.

Sit it twice thats only a 50/50 chance of being good enough to drive but not bad given nerves and the like.

Third time the odds are now nowhere near in favour of the person being a good diver and after that downright dangerous. Stop these people driving for at least a 5, or so, year break between the third test and the next lot of tests.

39

Stephen B,

Confused 19/02/2007 13:12:43

Isn't it time yet to re-impose tolls on the Skye Bridge? I seem to recall that this was proven method of cutting down traffic there and so must be of benefit to the world in preventing the killing of innocent children etc etc etc.

I'm also confused about which areas should or shouldn't get road pricing. The Lib Dems support it now for Scotland but were against it for Edinburgh city centre, their Highland electoral heartlands and I seem to recall that they won the Dunfermline by-election on the issue of raised tolls for the Forth Road Bridge. Were they wrong then and if so will they admit it?

40

petrol head,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 13:16:04

#38: Agree with Jack. If you can't pass after two attempts then you really should have serious thoughts as ot whether or not you are cut out for driving.

Driving is a very complex process and not all people are cut out for it. In the same way that not all people are cut out for acturial mathematics or computer programming. There's no shame in it. It doesn't make you any less of a human being because you can't drive properly and therefore don't bother.

It does however make you a danger if you persist in attempting to do something that you clearly cannot master... but that's another story.

I've always advocated a far more demanding test, together with tiered licences. All drivers (and motorcyclists) should have a sound knowledge of the basic physics of car (or motorcycle) control and at least a rudimentary knowledge of mechanics.

That would be a far more effective way of stopping blood being spilt than "speed kills" and traffic calming.

41

Alexander,

edinburgh 19/02/2007 13:18:38

Maggie Thatcher is the architect of this problem. She encouraged all those pensioners and working class types to use cars.
Thank goodness the LABOUR government is taking action to price the lower orders out of their cars. We need the roads to be clear for our betters to go about their business of controlling our lives in a proper manner.

42

Unknown Masses,

19/02/2007 13:19:39

Increase the frequency of police patrols to catch drink drivers, at say, early friday and saturday morning.

Then if someone tests over the limit. Ban them for life, none of this three month p#sh. That will get some drivers off the roads and reduce congestion.

43

Stephen B,

Confused 19/02/2007 13:27:12

41 - LOL

44

IainA,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 13:29:43

#42 Not sure that a lifetime ban will work.

These days if someones stupid enough to drink drive - after years of campaigning and education, I can't see a lifetime ban stopping them from climbing back into a car - plus of course, if they do it would have to be uninsured and untaxed.

45

IainA,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 13:31:09

#41 Right enough, we plebs have gotten ideas far above our station - we'll be thinking we have rights next! It's a step too far.

46

TheGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 13:33:45

Who are these idiots that think taxing motorists is the answer? All this means is that the rich get the roads to themselves. With all due respect, f ck that!

Fair enough it they wanted to bring is legislation that allowed only one car per household, or they wanted to limit the engine size to 1.3L across the whole country.

Rich or poor, it's everyone's rpoblems.

In fact, when you actually think about it, the rich with their gas guzzlers pollute more than anybody else. Let's ban the rich from having cars.

47

MoragtheToerag,

Embra 19/02/2007 13:49:37

Talk about using an axe to remove a fly from your friend's forehead.

High house prices mean MANY, more and more each year, cannot afford to live near places of work - and that includes renters, of course.

Yet the public transport system fails to keep pace with increasing demand - expensive, unreliable, never enough carriages, etc.

So we solve the problem by punishing those who can least afford it.

Instead of a) compelling more employers to offer staggered work times or work from home options b) investing more into public transport to make it a REAL, viable and cost-efficient alternative.

How hard is that to puzzle out?

Another reason to start looking to emigrate.

48

Stephen B,

Confused 19/02/2007 13:51:48

And while we're at it lets really implement the principle of 'the polluter pays.'

I seem to recall that cars in the past were much worse for pollution and so it seems logical that pensioners should be forced to cough up extra reparations to the untold millions whose future they have so heinously blighted driving inefficient old bangers in the 1950s etc etc etc.

49

Edward,

19/02/2007 14:37:26

#32 Scotslass58
you can get all the facts on emmissions, plus other stuff from website http://earthtrends.wri.org/
well worth going through on a rainy afternoon or having problems sleeping..lol
Its interesting that the latest figures which are from 2002 show for the whole of the UK total CO2 emissions amounted to 540,805,300 kgs, which equates to 9.15 kgs per Person
For Scotland only the figure is 16,600,000 kgs total co2 emmissions, which works out as 3 kgs per person.
With the increase use of renewable energy (ie wind and wave power) the figure for Scotland will drop
Because the bulk of wind farms are being placed in Scotland (Union dividend anyone?) means that Scotland is the leading European producer of renewable energy
So the next time some F of the E or any undemocratic LibDem or Labour twat starts lecturing Scotland on being eco responsible, I hope the resipiant of thos spoutings tells them where to get off

50

TheGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 14:47:11

#49 Edward - excellent stats! Cheers.

51

andy48,

duddigston 19/02/2007 14:59:40

There is far too much levity on this subject!
Government has to take the hard decisions.
Therefore the the poorer element of the population must be forced out of their cars. Many of them may be Labour voters but we (the government) know most of them are so dim they will still vote for anyone(or thing) with a Labour sticker.

52

Edward,

19/02/2007 15:00:15

#50 Very Welcome TheGlaswegian

By the way, I signed the e-petition last week and according to the press, Tony Blair is going to e-mail all who signed...Im still waiting

I hope Labour and there not very democratic Libdem chums get there com upance in May and get kicked out of office
Scotland needs government that works for the people and will fight for the people of Scotland
That is something that neither Labour and there not very democratic Libdem colleagues have been capable of doing for the last 5 years. Case in point is this with Roadchargeing, with the excuse of tackling climate change and congestion, which in reality is more relevent in London, not the Highlands of Scotland. We have instances on a regular basis of Westminster sidestepping and ignoring Holyrood on matters pertaining to Scotland in the EU (Labour have the brass of blaming the EU of ignoring Scotland, when in fact the EU have never actually received any approaches on Scotland only matters, so are not aware)
If there is anything that Scotland can do, that will be to change the government in Scotland, which will lead to independence and wipe the smile of the faces of Blair, Brown, Reid, Darling , Alexander (brother and Sister) and McConnell as well as there undomcratic LibDem chums

53

Edward,

19/02/2007 15:08:31

#51 Eddie D
Totally agree with you there
The toll plaza at the Forth Road Bridge was designed in the 60's, based on traffic flows of the late 50's/early 60's, in addition the approach to the Toll plaza, the bridge itself and on the north side is only a 2 lane dual carriageway.
Now compare that with a bridge like the Vasco de Gama in Lisbon, which has similar traffic levels, it has 3 lane motorway on either side of the bridge as well as the bridge itself, the toll plaza is wider , not by much though, what makes it flow better is the Via Verde lanes they have in Portugal, which means that a driver can obtain a small matchbox sized box that identifies him (its attached to the inside of the windscreen), he just drives straight through without stopping, so cuts down on any likely congestion, even at peak times. They have had that for a few years now. It doesnt track the car, it just identifies, when passing through the sensors in the toll plaza. Its something that could be easily be adopted in Scotland , its existing technology and is cheap

54

JG,

Fife 19/02/2007 16:06:55

I also signed the e-petition. What is Tony Blair going to tell me? He is the Prime Minister and must be right? My opinion (and the other 1.5 million citizens) must be wrong because we are plebs and therefor so stupid we didn't understand what this "road tolling" business really means? What about the other people in the country who also disagree with this cr@p but don't have a computer to log their protest?

I am not a political person, but even I can see that these people are committing political suicide. Who is going to vote for a bunch of morons like this? I will vote for whoever ISN'T going to impose such stupid, ill thought out plans like this.

55

ScottyEdi,

19/02/2007 16:08:13

I totally agree with 51 & 54. The toll plaza does slow down traffic. It's not the toll that stops congestion, people still need to get where they're going so one way or another they'll be on the street.

I agree with the idea of opening up the bridge barriers though and testing the traffic flow then. My guess is it would move a bit more smoothly.

It's time to wake this government up. They've been alseep for so long they don't even realise how far behind the rest of the 'civilized' world we are. They're really good at waiting till the crisis hits then spinning their wheels to come up with some sort of a last minute scheme (usually involving us paying more to them), Not so good at forseeing problems and avoiding them.

56

W Smith,

Middle East 19/02/2007 16:21:19

More taxes - this time for the motorists.

According to one recent article in an English newspaper, Gordon Brown has spent £4,000 billion since becoming Chancer...I mean Chancellor.

(Still, there is concern over the 'cost' of a new Forth crossing and, of course, there isn't enough money for a two to three lane motorway for the Perth to Inverness road - this would just be a 'waste of money').

57

Edward,

19/02/2007 16:56:28

#57 W Smith

I agree Brown and the rest of them are a bunch of chancers.
Scotland need a government that works for the people and lookas after there interests.
It beggers belief that Jack McConnell's proposal for the Forth crossing is costed at £ 1 Billion, for that kind of monet would expect to have gold plated bridge or tunnel. Does a crossing cost this amount? Only it appears in Scotland., Bridges of similar size, if not bigger are built in mainland europe at about half the cost, those bridges have 6 lanes. If they can do it there, why cant it be done here or is it a case that uk builders see UK projects as a cash cow and that they can charge anything they like as it will be a government budget.
Scotland got royally ripped off with the current Forth Road Bridge, only lasting 40 odd years, where as other bridges built around the same time are expected to go on for another 130 years, with traffic that would make the Forth Bridge wobble!

58

livilion,

livingston 19/02/2007 17:33:45

Poorly laid out junctions are what contribute most in my experience to congestion.

A8000, the linkroad to the Kincardine bridge, Edinburgh City Bypass at the Gyle or the A7/A68 turn off, the M8 at the Sprinburn gasometers, or the GRI.
Raith Interchange.
Traffic tootles along fine until someone tries to leave the main road and ends up parked on the carriageway and no-one can get by.

Wider roads? Faster traffic comes along and cuts in in front of the inside lanes.
We've all fumed as the joker fires up the empty lane up to 'the cones' and skips in at the front, any more do it and the inside lane stops dead.

Getting rid of the roundabout south of Cumbernauld and improving that junction removed a bottleneck that had been there since I learned to drive.

Also can we put this idea that roads produce cars?

It is utter tosh, and yet we never hear it challenged.
The population is dropping in Scotland.
I drive 30,000+ miles a year, but even I can only drive one vehicle at a time.

Heading up from London on the M6 north of Manchester the traffic starts to thin out.
Surely if this idea was correct then 3 lanes would be just as busy all the way to the border.
The traffic only gets busier when the motorway ends at Ironbridge and the road narrows.

Gretna and the traffic thins out as we get back to 3 lanes.
Next choke point? Raith interchange and that series of roundabouts not controlled very well by traffic lights.

Never mind road charging, that just deters poor people, road widening only shortens traffic queues by making them wider.

Redesign junctions at the few choke points on the network to permit free access and exit from the main road and you've cracked it.

59

livilion,

livingston 19/02/2007 17:45:28

Am I the only one that realises that drivers are also voters?

How many voters are not drivers or have a 'significant other' who is?

If Tony is so well off he feels he can let Wendy Alexander's wee brother mess with them then Hell mend him.


But wait a wee minute, Tony's not going to be there when we give our reaction, is he?

Maybe he's setting up Broon with a poison chalice for his efforts in getting him bumped from No10.

I'm also looking forward to my email from the PM.

60

Edward,

19/02/2007 18:35:06

#60 livilion
Your right there, drivers, and by all acounts there are many of them, also have a vote this coming May
It would be justice, to have Wendy Alexander turfed out of Holyrood, come May, that would be sweet justice, if that happened you can imagine what she would say to brother Douglas, probably not printable

61

ThePeter,

Glasgae 19/02/2007 18:59:09

why not get the environmentalists all together and get them to talk?
The amount of hot air generated when linked to a turbine means we can totally stop any other form of electric transmission
Emissions etc saved, means that the "carbon balance" can then be used to let us motorists get from A-B without feeling patronised or over-taxed by a bunch of soap-dodgers.

62

SouthernSkye,

Currently Cologne 19/02/2007 19:06:29

TONY BLAIR.....
So, he's going to email everyone who signed the petition and explain things to them.
So, when these 1.5 million+ emails have been sent, let us examine it and, if needs be, start another petition against Govt SPAM !

63

One-man-bucket's older twin,

19/02/2007 19:48:56

#35 Petrolhead I've heard disturbing rumours that people have been marking Bliar's response as SPAM.

This is very irresponsible and if enough people have done this, the no. 10 address could be 'black'-listed.

In this event, people would be denied the opportunity of reading his comments.

64

fimo,

In the bedroom 19/02/2007 19:49:01

It hasn’t taken long for the UK to evolve into a car dependent society. The comments make for interesting reading, and I can understand why people want to protect their way of life. However, there are some people seem to believe that driving is a god given right and that no one should stand in the way of this. Road traffic in the UK has increased from 3.5 million in 1959 to 30 million in 2005, and it continues to increase. Take a look around you - residential estates that used to have one car in the drive now have 2 or 3; industry has been replaced with high density flats that have turned the cities streets into car parks. The towns in the central are homes to the huge number of commuters who work in the larger towns and cities – few people work locally.

Out of town retail parks have been designed to appeal to the car owner, and the once thriving town centres have been decimated by these large retail centres. In the meantime the rural town centres die, forcing people to travel further a field to do their shopping.

More and more people commute considerable distances to work, creating congestion and high levels of pollution along the main access routes that lead in and out of the cities. This has resulted in areas where pollution is above EU recommended levels for health. And building more roads could result in more congestion – think of the congestion that already exists as you enter the towns and cities. Imagine what it would be like with even more cars reaching the same point at the same time.

We are all a victim of the Government’s and the Councils’ inability to take a step back and look at the problem from a strategic point of view (something we (the public) cannot do); and it looks like WE are going to be punished for their mistakes. I agree that something certainly needs to be done, but financial penalty is not the answer, as this will merely clear the roads for the Range Rovers, BMWs and Porches etc. The government should also

65

James Moore,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 20:00:15

The answer is simple, WE ALL HAVE TO GET OUT THERE AND PROTEST ON THE STREETS! Rather than just moaning on similar web sites like this! Time for direct action!

66

One-man-bucket's older twin,

19/02/2007 20:01:00

Aux armes, citoyens! (Et campagnards aussi!)

67

James Moore,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 20:06:00

Furthermore isn't it ironic that it is SCOTTISH POLITICANS who are creating all these new stealth taxes!

68

Joppie,

Dundee 19/02/2007 21:12:23

Can't see the reasoning behind the fallacy that public transport is safer and cleaner. I certainly don't want to sit on a bus beside someone who has a heavy cold or stand for x number of minutes waiting on a bus when it is raining horizontally. Or how about getting to tesco's or asda's with 7 or 8 bags of shopping? Nah the car is too convenient and gives me time to do other things.
Incidentally we keep getting told that building more bridges, roads etc increases congestion. Can someone point out where the evidence is?

69

Keke,

Peterhead 19/02/2007 22:10:24

On the one hand : Like it or not, one bus can take the place of up to 90 cars if it's full. What would you rather try and overtake?
On the other : Road charges are a tax, people who can't afford to pay will drive anyway, and don't expect a guy to walk past his £10,000 car on a cold February morning and stand in the pouring rain freezing his ass off at a bus stop waiting for a bus that doesn't turn up.

70

Unbeliever,

19/02/2007 22:49:30

69

Don't need no evidence. It's a green issue.

71

Marianne,

Linlithgow 19/02/2007 22:58:08

#14. - "Amsterdam is a short flight from here, or you can get the ferry, and when you get there you will find a city about the size of Edinburgh..."

Except Amsterdam has about 730,000 inhabitants (1.3 million in metropolitan area), is the country's largest city, isn't the seat of government - which is in the small tourist city of Den Hague - and is the major city of the Netherlands.

So it is much more comparable with Glasgow than (Den Hague) Edinburgh.

72

IainA,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 23:17:06

Just saw Newsnight on BBC2, which was all about this very topic.

The government and CBI representatives were unconvincing, the Daily mail columnist supposedly representing the views of motorists was paranoid, hysterical and rude.

The woman "affected" by the new increased congestion charge in London was too middle class to be other than annoying in her condescension.

And there was another person there - I'm not quite clear what she was representing, who appeared to be a beautiful sea-green in her credentials - again, advocating public transport and bicycles. Quite how that was to be achieved with a bus and rail network creaking at the seams from years of underinvestment I'm not quite clear.

Cycling too - great if you're not overweight, or ill or unhealthy. I wonder how many bike-induced coronaries it will take before the Government starts refusing medical treatment to cyclists on NHS cost grounds.

But then, perhaps, like the nice government spokesman said, I'm just falling for the misrepresentation of the anti-toll lobby.

73

Mine's an 80 bob,

Edinburgh 19/02/2007 23:31:35

#72 Marianne

Thankyou for nailing the size thing right down, yes there is a discrepancy, not that great and not if you count the number of commuters in from fife and the lothians(metropolitian area).
It still doesn't change the fact that with some of the best and cheapest integrated public transport around people still use there cars, because it's still better, more convenient, and easier to do so.

74

fimo,

At work 20/02/2007 08:25:31

Joppie #69: "Incidentally we keep getting told that building more bridges, roads etc increases congestion. Can someone point out where the evidence is?"

Come on down to Edinburgh or Glasgow during the peak traffic flows. Or look around you when you are driving around Dundee. Or if you don't want to travel so far - try the main routes into Perth. All those cars that have travelled from the outlying areas stuck in queues - it is called congestion.

Cars are free moving in the rural areas and motorways, but as soon as they hit a bottleneck - like a city - the huge volume of vehicles results in congestion.

There's plenty of evidence - just open your eyes.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.