The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4. Future Management Options

4.1 Number of Written Responses Received

Number of Responses per Question

The five specific management options posed in questions 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 each elicited between 24 and 36 responses, with an average of 31.6 responses per question.

The Executive/National Transport Agency option generated the most responses (36), followed by: the Regional Transport Partnerships option (35 responses), the Single Tolled Bridges Authority option (33 responses), the Forth Estuary Transport Authority model (30 responses) and the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board model (24 responses).

Eight respondents commented on the form, powers and function of a Single Tolled Bridges Authority (question 19) and three respondents offered other options for the future management of the tolled bridges (question 20). Twenty-eight respondents commented on de-trunking the Erskine Bridge (question 15).

4.2 Findings

4.2.1 Scottish Executive/National Transport Agency Option

Question 13: What advantages and disadvantages do you see if any or all of the tolled bridges were to be managed by the Scottish Executive or the national transport agency?

The number of responses received to question 13 by respondent type is as follows:

Of the 36 respondents, around one-third perceived only advantages, another one-third perceived only disadvantages and the other one-third perceived both advantages and disadvantages. Each of the following points was made to a greater or lesser extent for individual bridges. Quantitative data on a bridge-by-bridge basis is not provided as the applicability of certain comments to certain bridges was not always evident.

Perceived advantages were mainly:

• Recognition of the strategic role of Scotland's tolled bridges
• Accountability at national level
• Promotion of 'joined up' transport
• Development of a common set of policies and consistent implementation
• Consistency of charging
• Savings through efficiency and rationalisation
• Better forward planning through greater consistency and recognition of wider issues
• Opportunity to establish a central body for registering exemptions

Perceived disadvantages were mainly:

• The local and strategic significance of each bridge is different
• The unique circumstances of each bridge are not suitable for central management
• Potential conflict with Regional Transport and Planning Partnership Authorities' functions
• Competition for funding, legislative and regulatory requirements
• Operational management does not accord with the National Transport Authority's remit as set out in the 2004 Transport White Paper
• Disruption of existing management structures
• Difficulties in sourcing the necessary specialist skills and knowledge

Loss of local voice/accountability in planning and decision-making in addressing the non-strategic nature of the majority of Tay Road Bridge traffic and its significant impact on Dundee City centre was seen as a particular disadvantage of this option.

A number of respondents who were expressly not in favour of this option commented on the appropriate role of the Scottish Executive/National Transport Agency with respect to the tolled bridges should another management option be chosen. Views ranged from responsibility for strategy, over-arching policy and guidance to responsibility for maintenance, with policies set at the local or regional level.

One respondent said that under this option there would be a need for transparent accounting of tolling revenues by the Executive/ NTA, with bridge maintenance a priority.

Respondents associated both advantages and disadvantages with this option. Tensions between local and strategic issues, and between unique circumstances and a desire for consistency were evident.

4.2.2 Regional Transport Partnerships OptionQuestion 14: Should we consider transferring some or all of the powers and functions of current bridge authorities to Regional Transport Partnerships ( RTPs) in future?

The number of responses received to question 14 by respondent type is as follows:

Although question 14 is a closed question, quantitative data is not presented as most responses were heavily qualified and the applicability of many responses to certain bridges was not always evident.Just under half of question 14 respondents are receptive to future consideration of this option for one or more of the bridges, and the remainder are not in favour or are uncertain of the benefits. The main comments from those who are receptive to this idea were:As major transport assets, the bridges could be an important constituent in the RTPs' integrated regional transport strategies

• RTPs should have responsibility for transportation strategy and implementation of initiatives, with maintenance functions resting with the trunk road authority
• RTPs should evolve and gain additional functions as they develop and mature and should assume such powers and functions on a case-by-case basis

The main comments from those who are not receptive to this idea were:

• Funding provision could be put at risk by competing demands
• Bridge management should either be a national or local issue
• There is no obvious advantage in adding a third network to the existing trunk and local road networks
• RTPs will be concerned with high level policy & strategy, not operational matters
• RTPs lack the necessary specialist knowledge/experience to manage the bridges
• The current approach at Forth and Tay balances strategic and local trips well
• Existing authorities could co-operate fully with RTPs, possibly as members, without the need for transfer of powers
• Unnecessary involvement of Local Authorities with no direct transport interest in the bridge
• Disruption of existing management structures

The appropriateness of this option for the Tay Road Bridge was questioned in particular by a number of respondents who noted its position on the boundary between two RTPs. Specific concerns included consequences for the desired regional emphasis and difficulties in transferring powers. One suggestion was to have TRBJB as a non-voting member of both RTPs, another was to have TRBJB and the RTPs as mutual statutory consultees.

Respondents associated both advantages and disadvantages with this option and were almost equally divided on whether powers and functions of current bridge authorities should be transferred to RTPs in future. Uncertainty was expressed at whether operational and maintenance functions would sit well with the RTPs' function. The location of the Tay Road Bridge on the boundary between two RTPs presents particular challenges for this option.

Question 15: As the Erskine Bridge functions as a key national and strategic link for the West of Scotland as well as an important local link for communities north and south of the River Clyde, do you see any argument for de-trunking it so that it could become the responsibility of the RTP for the West of Scotland?

The number of responses received to question 15 by respondent type is as follows:

Comments from those in favour included:

• As the majority of usage is for trips within the West of Scotland, de-trunking would assist better integration of regional transport and planning in the west

Comments from those not in favour included:

• Erskine Bridge can exercise a regional and local function with central control

Qualified comments included:

• Central management adds no value but a better alternative is not obvious
• A regional focus may conflict with Erskine Bridge's national and strategic role
• Makes sense only if tolling is to continue and if consistency is a goal

Few respondents were in favour of de-trunking the Erskine Bridge so that it could become the responsibility of the RTP for the West of Scotland.

4.2.3 Forth Estuary Transport Authority ( FETA) Model

Question 16: Do you have any views on the advantages or disadvantages of the FETA model, for any or all of the bridges?

The number of responses received to question 16 by respondent type is as follows:

Most respondents commented favourably on the FETA model, although around one-quarter of respondents discussed this model only in relation to the Forth Road Bridge.

Few respondents said that the FETA model is the best option for all three bridges. Those that did felt that its powers with respect to application of tolling revenue is a particular advantage.

Some respondents felt that the Tay Road Bridge's direct relationship with Dundee City centre traffic meant that the FETA model would be advantageous. Others said that the FETA model is not suitable for the Tay Road Bridge in particular. Reasons were primarily the Joint Board's lack of available funding for wider transportation initiatives and the more local nature of its issues, which are already the subject of a Local Transport Strategy.

A few respondents said that the FETA model is not suitable for the Erskine Bridge in particular. Reasons were primarily its trunk road status and the fact that it operates below its capacity which does not necessitate the need for wider transportation initiatives to help manage demand on the bridge.

Around 30% of respondents were not in favour of the FETA model for any of the bridges. Reasons given included:

• No advantage in the additional layer of transport planning to that at local and regional levels
• The FETA model has led to an excessive focus on enhanced road bridge capacity rather than on efforts to enhance modal shift and demand management
• The extent of FETA's remit is necessary to ensure tolls/charges are set in an appropriate regional policy context but this remit should lie with the RTPs
• Constituent councils often have conflicting views and actions depend on who holds the chair (also reported for TRBJB model)

Most respondents saw mainly advantages in the FETA model for the Forth Road Bridge but fewer were convinced about the suitability of this model for the Tay Road Bridge, mainly because of its lack of available funding for transport initiatives, or the Erskine Bridge, mainly because demand management measures are not required there. Around 30% of respondents do not think the FETA model is appropriate for any of Scotland's three tolled bridges.

4.2.4 Tay Road Bridge Joint Board Model

Question 17: Do you have any views on the advantages or disadvantages of the TRBJB model, for any or all of the bridges?

The number of responses received to question 17 by respondent type is as follows:

Just over half of the responses to question 17 said that the TRBJB model is too restricted in its remit and powers with regards to application of tolling revenue.

A small number of respondents felt the TRBJB model is the right model for the Tay Road Bridge. However there was no support for extending this model to either Erskine Bridge or the Forth Road Bridge.

There was no support for the TRBJB management model for the Forth Road Bridge or the Erskine Bridge, and only a small number of respondents believed it to be the best model for the Tay Road Bridge. Just over half of the respondents said that this model is too restricted in its remit and powers with regards to application of tolling revenue although noted that its present financial commitments would limit its ability to provide for wider transportation initiatives.

4.2.5 Single Tolled Bridges Authority Option

Question 18: Do you think there would be any merit in having a single body responsible for operating and managing all tolled bridges in Scotland?

The number of responses received to question 18 by respondent type is as follows:

Despite quantitative results, there were slightly fewer respondents overall who were receptive to consideration of this option than those who were not. Most responses for and against this option duplicate comments made in response to question 13 (the Scottish Executive/National Transport Agency option) and it appears that a number of respondents did not envisage a body separate from the SE/ NTA when responding to question 18. However, comments specific to a Single Tolled Bridges Authority option included:

• Creation of yet another body would add further confusion and fragmentation to public service provision in Scotland
• Has the disadvantages of the question 13 option without any of the advantages
• This option could work if its remit was operations and maintenance, with wider transportation powers resting with the RTP or Bridge Authority

One respondent questioned whether tolling income from each bridge would be ring-fenced or whether it would/should be available for cross-subsidisation.

Many respondents believed this option to have merit. However most respondents appeared to associate a Single Tolled Bridge Authority with the Scottish Executive or National Transport Agency option. As a result most comments were identical to those made in response to that question 13.

Question 19: If you think all bridges should be run by one body what form, powers and functions should this body have?

The number of responses to question 19 by respondent type in respect of the powers and functions of a single body other than the Scottish Executive/National Transport Agency is as follows:

The powers and functions suggested were:

• All powers needed to run a commercial operation
• Powers to manage the strategy and over-arching policy of tolled bridges
• Powers which support national objectives
• Powers to operate and manage the bridges as part of the national network
• Maintenance and essential development of the bridges

One respondent commented that any powers granted must be subject to the final authority of the Executive to protect users or particular groups of users.

The powers and functions suggested for a STBA were largely those that would be expected under the central SE/ NTA management option.

4.2.6 Other Management Options

Question 20: Are there any other management options that you would like to suggest?

The number of responses by respondent type received to question 20 that are not covered by options posed in questions 13 to 19 is as follows:

The other management options suggested were:

• A combined Forth and Tay Board or Transport Authority, particularly if tolls end at Erskine
• Experience outside the UK shows private companies can successfully run tolled infrastructure
• Co-opt stakeholder representatives onto chosen management body

In addition, the appointment of the Minister for Transport as Chair of the FETA model was suggested at a consultation meeting.

Four additional management options were suggested: a combined Forth and Tay Board or Transport Authority, private sector management, a greater role for stakeholders within the chosen management structure, and Ministerial Chairmanship of the FETA model.

4.3 Other Comments Received

A number of respondents did not favour one future management option over another but emphasised the need for the chosen body or bodies to work in partnership with stakeholders of all types and at all levels, to be publicly accountable and to provide transparent information. Some respondents further commented that different models need not to be mutually exclusive e.g. it should be possible for the National Transport Agency to manage any or all of the tolled bridges with substantial RTP involvement.

A number of respondents said that there is a balance to be struck between the responsibility of the government to maintain the strategic transport network, and the application of tolling revenues. The weight of local, regional and strategic issues varies from bridge to bridge and respondents perceive advantages and disadvantages in all bridge management options as a result. Bridge maintenance costs and demand management policies and strategies are regarded by some respondents as separate matters which need not necessarily be the responsibility of the same management body.

All options requiring the direct involvement of Local Authorities in the west of Scotland in the management of the Erskine Bridge were felt to be unacceptable to a number of these particular respondents. For this reason, the FETA, TRBJB, and the RTP models were all felt by these respondents to be probably unachievable for Erskine Bridge.

The main concern of some respondents was that the chosen body/bodies be publicly accountable and work in partnership with all stakeholders to ensure local, regional and national issues and plans are identified and integrated. Bridge maintenance costs and demand management policies and strategies need not necessarily be the responsibility of the same management body. Options requiring the direct involvement of Local Authorities ( LAs) in the west of Scotland in the management of the Erskine Bridge lack support by those LAs.

« Previous | Contents | Next »