Crn
Page 34
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ig NNT■Evirci_
Hauliers have become increasingly angry at the high toll charges levied at some bridges. How are these charges justified— and how did they come about in the first place?
iI n the King's name, a toll to pass this way" The cry was common enough in the late 17th and 18th centuries, but as the Government struggles with the timing of its announcement for a general charge on motorway use—and perhaps the introduction of urban road pricing—the principle of a charge on the individual user of the Queen's highway is once more being given serious consideration. Nor can the process have been made any easier by the continuing row over the toll charges levied at the Humber, the Severn and at Skye.
Indeed the savage cuts to the road building programme last year, coupled with other aspects of government policy including the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and the new, 'greener', approach to the environment, point to a fundamental shift in thinking as regards the construction and maintenance of the various crossing& But while many hauliers would concede that private finance is an essential part of the process of providing a better road network, there are those who express concern about allowing market forces to dictate the toll charges that can be levied at some crossings.
At the moment the choice of whether to use a toll route applies, principally, to estuarial crossings but with the expansion of the design, build, finance and operate (DBFO) principle and the possible introduction of road pricing, that choice may be considerably reduced.
It is against this background that the objections of hauliers should be seen.
There is no universal condemnation of the principle of having to pay for a facility that did not already exist, and for most hauliers there is a compelling economic case for using a tolled crossing rather than attempting the alternative. But there is a limit and the wide variations in the charges which, superficially at least, seem difficult to justify are made no easier to bear by the attitude of politicians who claim the matter is one of commercial judgement not public policy There are 23 tolled estuarial crossings in the UK. Of these, 13, are privately owned and 10 set their tolls according to the rules of the marketplace. The privately owned crossings at Skye, Dartford and the Severn have their tolls reguLat ecl by law: they can only rise in line with inflation. The others, including the Humber, are in the hands of local authorities; the Transport Secretary must approve toll increases, if necessary following a public enquiry.
But even where charges are controlled by statute, there is apt to be fierce criticism. Before 1992 the Severn Bridge was administered by the Department of Transport—hauliers were offered a 10% discount for bulk purchased tickets. By October 1993, the new owner, Severn River Crossings (SRC) had increased the HGV toll to £8.40 for a return journey and introduced an electronic tagging system to LGV replace the tickets. It also withdrew the discount, angering local hauliers.
"The bone of contention is that as we are paying DO for an electronic tag for each of our vehicles and also paying the toll charge in advance, we should have a discount," says Gill Sheddick, joint managing director of Sheddick Transport in Newport.
The problem faced by SRC and several other operators, is that it has a statutory obligation to run its concessions without the public purse and must, at the end of the concessionary period, return them to public ownership free of all debts. This left it with little choice but to raise the tolls substantially. Critics argue that a 10% discount at the Severn would not lose revenue as it would attract back many of the 1,000 trucks a day which are running via Gloucestershire.
The position with the Humber crossing is even more depressing. The tolls, which were last raised in August 1989, are insufficient even to pay off the interest on the original loan and in recent years the national taxpayer has been contributing £40m a year, The Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill is currently going through Parliament to write off at least part of the loan.
None of this cuts any ice with the hauliers in the area, most of whom think the tolls are too high. Keith Ream, logistics manager of Croda Paints in Hull, finds it is cheaper to send vehicles the extra 50 miles via the M62, a journey of less than an hour, than to
pay the £11.60 each There are signs of a major change Government is not
prepared to foot the way
However, the in Government policy as the Scottish Office begin discussions with Lothian and Fe Regional Councils about the possibility of
bill for the Humber
crossing indefinitely hypothecating bridge toll revenues and wants the to pay for other transport needs. income from toils to Until now the Government has be high enough to insisted that all taxes should go maintain the bridge into the central Treasury pot. and start repaying that part of the loan Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth that is not to be writhas animated a joint working ten off. A public party to consider implementation enquiry, due later of short-tern measures. this year, will recom
mend on the propos
al by The Humber Forth road bridge is built. Bridge Board to
increase the tolls by 32.5%.
Given the attitude of local hauliers to the current charges, the proposal is likely to present Sir George Young with something of a dilemma. In the House of Commons on 20 December 1995, his Minister, John Watts, said: "I would not seek, nor would the board promote, a level of tolls that would reduce the traffic and the revenue. That would be counter productive."
Although extreme, the position of the Humber Bridge Board, is not unique. In the latest review of the financial position of such crossings in the UK, the Transport Select Committee of 1983/84 found that only three of the 11 major estuarial crossings—the Forth, Tamar and Tay—were in a position to meet their interest and capital repayment charges. The remaining eight were borrowing to meet the charges, leading to a continuing and ever rising burden on the taxpayer.
But at £25 for a one-way crossing, and with no alternative route, hauliers heading for Skye must feel that they have drawn the short straw.
As soon as the bridge opened, the long-serving state-owned ferry service was withdrawn on the instructions of the Scottish Office, leaving those who lived, worked or had business on the island with no choice but to use the bridge. But the presence of the bridge has considerably reduced the time taken to make the crossing. The toll level formed part of the competitive bidding process to build the bridge." says the Scottish Office. "There was also the feeling that it should be corn
parable to the ferry charge that it replaced. There is no reason in principle why a private ferry operator should not provide a service."
Leith's (Scotland) of Edinburgh operates a marble quarry on the island and makes regular trips to the mainland. It is paying £1,000 a week to use the bridge; £300 a week more than it used to pay in ferry charges, brought about by a difference in toll calculations and the absence of (reclaimable) VAT for the bridge toll. The ferry charged by length; the bridge charges according to the number of axles,
"I have to pay the same for my four-axle 30.49tonne lorries as I do for my four-axle 38-tanners," says a spokesman for Leith's. "They have missed out a category of HGV but no-one in authority will listen. Neither can I pass the cost on to my customers, although I have tried."
It seems that tolls are here to stay. That said, PFI was the product of the Thatcher years and it is possible that a change of administration would kill off the initiative. If that were to happen the decision would have to be made about whether the public purse should assume the cost of providing estuarial crossings. It is highly unlikely that any future Labour government would wish to go down that road. In fact the opposite is more likely, with road users being asked to share a greater part of the financial burden of transport. [1 by Patrick Hook