The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2. A strategy for tolling

The terms of reference for Phase Two required a consideration of whether there is a case for applying a consistent set of principles on every tolled bridge in Scotland, and if so, what these principles might be. This chapter discusses the Executive's past and future strategy for tolling on Scotland's bridges, including the historical reasons for levying tolls, and the scope for using tolls or charges to address the growing problem of congestion, where that is required.

2.1 The public perception of tolling

Bridge and road tolls can be controversial, and Scotland's tolled bridges are no exception to this. Supporters cite reasons to do with managing traffic demand, environmental concerns and a 'user pays' approach, while objectors cite issues around fairness, taxation on motorists, and that bridges should be paid for simply as part of the road network. The debate, though, is not always simply about whether tolls should be charged at all. For example, some will support the concept of tolls but argue that particular groups of vehicles or people should be exempt.

When decisions are made about whether to toll or not, or whether there should be a significant change in a tolling regime, a number of issues must be weighed up, and public opinion may be a significant factor in this consideration. An active campaign (either in support of or opposing a tolling regime) can result in regular and perhaps intense media coverage, or frequent letters to Scottish Ministers and questions in the Parliament. Organisations and campaign groups can use these avenues to get their messages out into the public domain.

However, campaigns may not reflect the majority view. A recent example was the increase in the Forth Road Bridge toll from 80p to £1 for cars and light goods vehicles. Despite the enormous numbers of bridge users, the proposed increase resulted in just two formal objections, only one of which triggered the Local Inquiry.

While there will always be some who object to paying tolls, some level of public acceptability is important for a tolling regime to work. The Executive carried out two consultations, on tackling congestion in July 1999 ², and on integrated transport ³ in February 2000, which informed the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Although the views expressed in response to those consultations concerned wider road user charging, not bridge tolls, they are pertinent to this Review and some similar comments have been received in response to the Tolled Bridges Review consultation.

Those consultations revealed that if motorists are to accept road user charges, they expect:

• that the net revenue gained will be ring-fenced for local transport purposes
• that charging revenue will result in genuinely additional expenditure on transport
• that motorists and businesses will be able to see where their money is going through transparent annual reporting and accounting arrangements
• that there is fair treatment - both in terms of those paying, and those benefiting
• that public transport improvements should be in place before charging, with further improvements to follow.

The Phase Two consultation sought views on the more complex issues around tolling, rather than simply whether or not the bridges should be tolled. For example, there have been calls to end tolls at the Forth Road Bridge, but modelling from Phase One of the Review indicated that if the tolls were removed, traffic would increase in an already heavily congested area, resulting in more delays and associated economic costs. It is not always clear whether those who wish to remove the tolls from the Forth accept this as an inevitable outcome, dispute this outcome, or think there is an alternative traffic management solution.

However, a significant number of respondents to the Phase Two consultation volunteered objections to the continuation of tolling at one or more of Scotland's three tolled bridges. About half of these objections related specifically to the Erskine Bridge tolls, and the others related to tolling more generally.

While public perception is one important factor in the success of any tolling regime, this must be weighed against the other factors explored in this chapter. Where a tolling regime does exist, it must be clear what that regime will achieve; proper communication of the objectives of the tolling regime to those paying tolls is key to building public acceptance of that regime.

Summary

Bridge and road tolls are always controversial. Any debate around tolls, whether it be to remove them, increase them, or change aspects of the tolling regime (for example exemptions, or charging different tolls at different times of the day), needs to be properly informed. People need to understand the full implications of any change - not just for themselves but for other bridge users, the local and strategic transport network, the environment and the economy.

We know, both anecdotally and from research on road pricing and bridge tolls, that a perception of fairness is very important. If people have to pay a toll, they want to know how the revenue will be spent, and how they will benefit. They also want to know there are public transport options or other alternatives. This puts a major responsibility on the tolling authority to consider how it will communicate with, inform and consult with bridge users and other interested groups.

2.2 Principles and Objectives for tolling

In this section we discuss the background to bridge tolls in Scotland, whether the historical reasons for imposing tolls remain relevant, and how tolls could help meet our four main objectives of addressing access, managing demand, ensuring efficient use of the associated transport networks and funding the ongoing maintenance requirements of the bridge.

In the Framework for Economic Development in Scotland⁴, Ministers have emphasised the importance of good business and transport links to secure the greatest economic return for Scotland. In responses to the consultation paper, and in other meetings and correspondence, it has been said that bridge tolls can act as a barrier to economic development. This case has been made particularly for the Erskine Bridge tolls. While those respondents and others have argued that the removal of tolls could contribute to better flow of employment opportunities and improve connectivity, which ultimately could be the catalyst to stimulate the economy on either side of the bridges, we are not aware of any commissioned research specifically examining local economic impacts of the bridge tolls, or of their removal.

2.2.1 Funding construction, maintenance and operational costs

Historically, the principal reason for establishing the tolling regimes at the three tolled bridges in Scotland was to pay for the construction of that piece of infrastructure, to make provision for the ongoing maintenance of each bridge, and to pay for the operational costs of the tolling regime. Without a tolling regime in place, none of the bridges would have been built, and each was built and legislated for on the understanding that it would be paid for by users. In most cases, the original legislation set a time limit to the period over which tolls could be collected, as well as setting limitations on the uses to which the revenue could be put.

The effect of this has been somewhat different at each of the bridges:

• The Erskine Bridge was funded from the then Scottish Office transport programme, and there has never been any outstanding debt on the Bridge as such. Tolls were to be collected to recover those costs over time, and to make provision for ongoing maintenance, administration and related costs. Toll income is credited to the Executive's transport programme, which funds the ongoing costs of maintenance, upgrading and operations at the Bridge from year to year. The original tolling period has been extended on several occasions to help meet this expenditure, with the current period expiring in July 2006;
• Tolling income at the Forth Road Bridge repaid construction costs and all debts in 1993. To date, ongoing costs have been met from toll revenue and reserves. However, for 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Scottish Executive has agreed to provide grant funding of £2m per annum to support the Forth Estuary Transport Authority's ( FETA) investment programme. In addition, Ministers have committed up to £24m funding over three years to underwrite the upgrading of the A8000/M9 Spur approach route to the Bridge. The tolling period has again been extended, with the present period expiring in March 2006. FETA's recently-approved Local Transport Strategy ( LTS) ⁵ sets out a significant investment plan for the period between 2006-07 and 2020-21, which amounts to some £141m, £113m of which is directly related to maintenance of the bridge;
• The capital costs of the Tay Road Bridge have not yet been recovered. Tay Road Bridge Joint Board ( TRBJB) has outstanding debts (currently around £13m) which, under the terms of the legislation, must be repaid by 2016. Some 50% of the tolling revenues go to repay capital and interest on the outstanding loans, with the remainder being used to meet ongoing maintenance and other costs. TRBJB's 20 year programme to 2024 runs to some £55m. The Scottish Executive also provides grant funding to the Board to support its planned maintenance and upgrading programme. The approved capital grant for 2004-05 to 2007-08 is £2.3m per annum.

Where tolls were set up to pay for the provision of the bridge itself and those costs have not yet been met, there is a strong case for users continuing to pay tolls which contribute to the outstanding costs - this was the understanding on which the bridges were built and for which legislation was made, although significant changes to wider economic, environmental or social circumstances may require reconsideration. While those costs have already been recovered at Erskine and Forth, this remains a compelling reason for tolling at Tay. At Erskine and Forth, tolls are being used for other purposes, namely funding maintenance and operational costs and, in the case of Forth, associated transport projects. However, maintenance costs for other, non-tolled, bridges are not met by tolls. This apparent anomaly, while justified historically by the policy of the time, is now difficult for some sectors of the public to accept. Continued tolling on these bridges would, therefore, probably need stronger justification than the historical case, to show why there is good reason for these bridges to be managed in a different way from the rest of the network.

Summary

Where tolls were set up to pay for the construction of a bridge, and these costs have not yet been met, there is a strong case for users to continue to pay tolls which contribute to outstanding costs. Without a tolling regime in place, the bridge would not have been constructed; each was built on the understanding that it would be paid for by users. This may be reconsidered for specific bridges if there are significant economic, environmental or social reasons for doing otherwise.

Where the construction costs have already been met, using tolls to fund maintenance and operational costs is not in itself a compelling reason to keep the tolls unless this has been made clear from the outset - this is inconsistent with other parts of the road network and is perceived as unfair.

2.2.2 Managing traffic demand

Although the tolling regimes were not designed for this purpose when the bridges were built and opened, one of the aims now for the tolled bridges is to manage demand, where this is required. This section of the Review focuses on the relationship between demand management and bridge tolls.

We need to consider demand management when the following issues directly or indirectly relate to the use of the tolled bridge ⁶:

• congestion and its associated delays, journey unpredictability, and economic impacts - congestion indicates that a part of the network is not operating efficiently
• the Executive's traffic stabilisation target
• local air quality problems stemming from traffic (Phase One found that tolls can have a positive environmental impact if they decrease the number of vehicle kilometres travelled, divert traffic away from areas of poor air quality, encourage the use of more environmentally-friendly modes of travel or reduce congestion)
• CO2 emissions ⁷.

The Executive has set an aspirational target of stabilising road traffic at 2001 levels by 2021, to limit road traffic's impact on the environment and to help reduce congestion. To work towards this objective, the Executive supports modal shift from private car to walking, cycling and public transport, as well as seeking ways to increase vehicle occupancy rates where appropriate. The Executive is also committed to helping local transport authorities reduce traffic levels.

Many people appear to be tolerating significant levels of congestion without changing their travel behaviour ⁸. While some individuals may be willing or compelled to accept such congestion levels, we must not overlook the consequential societal costs. As one of the aims for the tolled bridges is the efficient use of the surrounding network, we must consider how a tolling regime can be used to minimise congestion problems.

Modelling from Phase One indicated that traffic levels on the tolled bridges and their approach roads are growing at a faster rate than elsewhere on the road networks. Bridge tolling regimes, like other forms of road pricing, have the potential to be used as price signals to bridge users to more accurately reflect the true costs of their journeys (for example, wear and tear on the bridge fabric, congestion, environmental costs). If a bridge user has to pay or contribute to these costs, they can judge whether their journey choice is the most efficient. They may find that that an alternative mode, time or route is cheaper and change their journey. Alternatively, they may still choose to travel in that way and pay the full cost, perhaps sharing it with someone else through car pooling.

If designed appropriately, tolling regimes and tariffs can help to reduce congestion and/or traffic volumes by spreading the traffic more evenly over time and place, or by reducing overall traffic levels through modal shift and removing some unnecessary journeys. In each of these cases, the tolled bridge cannot be managed in isolation from the remainder of the transport network; policy decisions need to integrate all relevant modes, including car, bus, rail and ferries. The question is whether, as part of that integrated package, we should seek to use tolls to manage demand.

If we are to use tolls in this way, a balance needs to be found in designing an effective tolling regime that complements other measures to reduce congestion and promote more effective use of the bridges and the surrounding networks. For example, tolls may form part of a package aimed at reducing congestion at peak times and spreading traffic more evenly over time. Such a regime might have higher charges at peak times and lower charges outside those times. If single occupancy vehicles ( SOVs) are a major contributor to the congestion problem, tolls for a multiple occupancy vehicle ( MOV) might be cheaper than for a SOV. This type of tolling regime could be linked to park and ride or park and choose facilities, and/or improved public transport alternatives.

The toll booths themselves may have an impact on traffic flows. Vehicles have to slow down or stop to pass through the toll barrier, and queues at the toll plaza can form more quickly than at the bridgeheads of an untolled bridge. But the effect of the toll booths on congestion varies between the bridges: at Forth, at peak times, the toll plaza has a higher capacity than the bridge itself - more vehicles can be processed through the toll booths each hour than can cross the bridge, so the toll plaza does not add to congestion; at Tay, the main congestion issue is the relationship between traffic waiting in Dundee city centre to cross the bridge, and other city centre traffic; and at Erskine, the toll booths can have a measurable impact on the flow of traffic.

In responses to the consultation paper, most respondents perceived tolls to be capable of playing a role in demand management, and most supported the use of tolls to encourage modal shift. A significant number of respondents felt that this should be considered on a bridge-by-bridge basis in recognition of the different circumstances at each bridge. Most respondents felt that the provision of sufficient public transport alternatives was also key to this issue.

Many respondents further recognised that differential tolling at peak times would have some degree of success; however, only a small number gave unqualified support to the idea. The main reasons for opposition were a lack of suitable public transport alternatives, and the (perceived) limited flexibility of many commuters to change their mode or time of travel. Most respondents were in favour of providing incentives for MOVs - for example, by offering discounts or prioritisation through the toll booths - but there was opposition to the use of higher or penalty charges being imposed for SOVs.

The following sections explore the issues to be considered at each of the bridges. We do not, here, seek to set precise toll levels at any of the bridges - that will be a matter for the relevant bridge authority. Rather, the following discussion seeks to determine whether those bridge authorities should seek to use tolls to help manage traffic demand, among other policy objectives.

Erskine Bridge

Traffic modelling undertaken during Phase One confirmed that there are no significant congestion problems on the Erskine Bridge ⁹. That modelling also indicated that Erskine Bridge has the capacity to accommodate more traffic before congestion becomes an issue ¹⁰. This spare capacity is important when viewed against the position at the Clyde Tunnel, the Kingston Bridge and the Clydeside Expressway / Great Western Road, all of which suffer serious congestion problems. The modelling further indicated that, given the proximity of these alternative routes to Erskine, any increase in bridge tolls would be likely to shift traffic from the Erskine Bridge onto those alternatives. Conversely, reducing or removing the tolls at the Erskine Bridge would have the opposite effect, attracting traffic to the Bridge. This would reduce congestion on the alternative routes, improving journey times and reliability for many users.

Further modelling work on the implications of removing tolls at the Erskine Bridge has been carried out in Phase Two ¹¹ and confirms the findings of the Phase One modelling in more detail. The methodology for, and a fuller technical report of, the traffic modelling is set out at Appendix B; results are indicative of changes to current trips and may not reflect changes to traffic flows caused by induced or removed trips. If tolls are removed from the Erskine Bridge, there is a large increase in traffic flow in both directions across the bridge itself, which may result in some increase in delay on or around the bridge, at either bridgehead. However, traffic modelling to 2011 indicates that the bridge has capacity to deal with those increased flows.

The "new" traffic is predominantly re-routed from the Clyde Tunnel, with a marginal traffic effect on the Kingston Bridge ¹². Congestion through the Clyde Tunnel and on its approaches is currently a major concern. The reduced peak hour traffic flows in the modelling indicate that traffic would flow freely through the tunnel throughout the day in this scenario, addressing the existing concerns. The modelling also indicates that removal of the tolls on the Erskine Bridge will eliminate almost all long distance traffic use of the Clyde Tunnel.

The modelling further indicates that traffic congestion would be reduced at most points along the Clydeside Expressway. If tolls are removed, a higher percentage of traffic using the Erskine Bridge terminates in Glasgow - this means that traffic swaps its route choice from the north bank corridor of the Clyde (the A82, A814 etc) to the south bank corridor (the M8 / A8 etc). This provides a degree of congestion relief around the north bank corridor. It does, however, increase traffic flows on the south bank corridor, and some further micro-simulation work, together with traffic monitoring along this part of the network in the months following any removal of tolls, would be necessary to understand the re-routing effect on the main trunk road flow to determine whether further tactical traffic management measures - e.g. ramp metering of particular junctions - would be necessary.

Glasgow City Council has declared an Air Quality Management Area ( AQMA) covering the city centre, based on transport related NOx emissions, and has produced an action plan outlining how it intends to reduce NOx levels. Glasgow's Director of Environmental Protection Services has recently reported that the 2010 annual mean objectives for PM10 and NO2 are unlikely to be met at a number of sites in the city including Charing Cross, North Street, Dumbarton Road and Crow Road. The reductions in traffic using these roads predicted as a result of removal of tolls would have a beneficial impact on air quality at those sites. There would be a reduction in air quality at the Bridge itself and the area surrounding the bridgeheads but this is not substantial.

The congestion benefits elsewhere in Glasgow if the tolls are removed would require to be "locked in" to ensure that the "space" created on the roads is not filled with new traffic. Glasgow City Council is working on a package of measures that would assist in locking in the benefits, including the progressive introduction of parking controls. This should be accompanied by improvements in public transport. The additional capacity created on the city's roads by the diversion of through traffic over the Erskine Bridge would facilitate the introduction of additional bus priority measures. Glasgow City Council is also currently embarking on a major review of direction signing in the light of substantial motorway construction and the introduction of Quality Bus Corridors. A proposed review and update of traffic management in Glasgow City Centre is expected to further reduce the opportunities for through traffic movements, which would also lock in the reductions in Heavy Goods Vehicle ( HGV) traffic predicted for the city centre if tolls are removed.

Forth Road Bridge

The Forth Road Bridge runs at, or near, capacity (approximately 3,500 - 3,600 vehicles per hour) between 6am and 9am on the southbound carriageway, and between 5pm and 6.30pm on the northbound carriageway on most weekdays (for longer on Friday afternoons). As a result, any additional growth in commuter traffic will lead to peak time spreading. This is already the case as both AM and PM peaks are perceived to be starting earlier and finishing later year on year ¹³. Traffic modelling indicates that the existing congestion problems on the Forth would be exacerbated without tolls, whereas increased tolls could help to ease congestion problems. No one during the consultation process identified any practical, cost effective method of reducing the congestion without a tolling regime in place ¹⁴.

Both FETA, through its LTS¹⁵, and South East Scotland Transport Partnership ( SESTRAN), through its Queensferry Cross Forth Corridor Study ¹⁶, have recognised the role of tolls in tackling demand issues. FETA is moving towards implementing a Road User Charging ( RUC) scheme, to replace the existing tolling regime, under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. The Act provides the framework for local traffic authorities to bring forward local charging schemes to tackle congestion, noise and emission problems. FETA submitted to Ministers in November an application for "Approval in Principle" of its proposed road user charging scheme and associated package of transport improvements; given the timing of this Review, Ministers' decisions on the Application are not included here. The proposed charges differentiate by time of day and occupancy of vehicle to address congestion issues on the Bridge; and target HGV's for the wear and tear that they cause to the Bridge. Proposed charges include an increase to £4 for single occupancy vehicles at peak times with 50% discounts for multiple occupancy. HGV charges would increase to reflect damage to bridge.

Congestion problems on the Bridge are exacerbated by the high volume of SOV traffic, which can exceed 70% of all traffic at peak times ¹⁷. Accordingly, a strategy which encourages a shift from SOV traffic to MOV journeys on the bridge and/or increases public transport usage, particularly at peak periods, seems the most likely solution to address the delays and congestion experienced by Forth Road Bridge users. Such strategies are already used elsewhere in the world and include MOV lanes, or differential tolls which offer financial incentives for increased car occupancy.

A study was carried out on behalf of the Executive into MOV solutions used elsewhere in the world ¹⁸ and related research and analysis. Most examples come from the USA or Canada. Bridges with a traffic demand that is similar to the Forth Road Bridge have either two lanes in each direction with an additional reversible median MOV lane, or three lanes in each direction one of which is dedicated solely to MOVs. The Forth Road Bridge is limited to two lanes in each direction, with no hard shoulder.

To develop a MOV facility on the Forth Road Bridge, either (at least) one additional lane would have to be constructed as a median lane, or consideration given to running vehicles on the side access routes. However, the opening of a fifth lane on the Forth Road Bridge would not be a cost effective solution, nor would it be technically viable as the bridge structure could not support the additional loading ¹⁹. Although one of the existing general purpose lanes in each direction could be turned into a MOV lane, traffic modelling undertaken during Phase One indicates that even with a 50% increase in MOVs using a dedicated lane, the diversion of SOV traffic to the (single) all-purpose lane would generate queues in excess of 7 km. Given this, MOV lanes on the bridge itself are not believed to be a practical option for Forth. However, SESTRAN's Integrated Transport Study of the Queensferry - Cross Forth Corridor has recommended a new southbound MOV lane between Halbeath and the northern bridgehead at an estimated cost of £12.6m, although it is not yet clear how this would be regulated.

High occupancy toll ( HOT) lanes combine MOV and pricing strategies by allowing vehicles that do not meet passenger occupancy requirements to gain access to MOV lanes by paying a toll. By using variable pricing and occupancy restrictions to manage the number of vehicles travelling on HOT and other lanes, such schemes aim to tackle congestion and eliminate the "unused lane syndrome" normally associated with MOV schemes. The variable, real time lane-pricing characteristic of HOT schemes relies on electronic toll collection and clear and early display of variable message signs on the approach to the toll collection points.

HOT lane schemes have been developed in the USA, but there are no HOT lanes currently operating on the UK road network. According to a recent report published by the US Department of Transportation, the HOT lane concept is relatively new and has not yet been widely deployed, but they are most effective for high density corridors, newly created MOV facilities, congested MOV facilities and under utilised facilities. The report concludes that while it is possible to allow limited scale HOT lane use on single-lane MOV facilities, it is preferable to implement HOT operations on facilities providing more than one MOV travel lane per direction.

Tay Road Bridge

Congestion levels at the Tay Road Bridge are not as severe as those at the Forth Road Bridge. Modelling in Phase One indicated that, in general, congestion occurs over relatively short peak time commuter periods, particularly in the early evening. Much of this congestion is a result of the relationship between traffic queuing to access the toll booths and other cross-Dundee traffic which is not using the bridge. As a consequence, Dundee City Council is in the process of declaring an AQMA based on transport related NO2 emissions, and will also produce an action plan outlining how it intends to reduce NO2 levels .

Like Forth, modelling indicates that the existing congestion problems on Tay would be exacerbated without tolls, and that increased tolls could help to ease congestion problems. A bigger issue at Tay is the relationship between bridge traffic and other traffic in Dundee city centre; vehicles queuing to cross the bridge cause delays for cross-Dundee traffic which is not using the bridge.

The congestion and air quality problems are not solely related to bridge traffic. However, traffic modelling from Phase One, followed up in Phase Two, indicates that removing the tolls from the Tay Road Bridge would cause a significant increase in delays at the bridge and in Dundee city centre; it would also cause a corresponding increase in emissions and air quality problems. No one during the consultation process identified any practical cost effective method of reducing the congestion without a tolling regime in place.

Modelling also indicates that the location of the toll plaza - at the north bridgehead in Dundee - is a contributing factor to some of those problems. Although removing tolls would make congestion and air quality problems worse than they are currently, modelling indicates that relocation of the toll plaza away from the Dundee side of the bridge could bring further improvements.

An upgrade of the existing tolling facilities is required, due to aging equipment and changes to the northern bridgehead arising from the Dundee Central Waterfront Development. TRBJB commissioned Hyder Consulting to examine various options regarding the short, medium and long-term strategy for tolling (and toll equipment replacement) at the Tay Road Bridge. In September 2005, the Board endorsed a report from Hyder Consulting that recommended a new toll plaza in Fife with northbound tolling as the preferred long-term option for the Bridge.

Costs would be significant and the project would involve changes to both the local and trunk road networks. However, Fife side tolling would allow an expansion of the toll plaza, with dedicated lanes for public service and multiple occupancy vehicles and/or electronic tolling lanes. Proposed wider improvements might include a new park and ride site aimed at reducing car journeys into the city. An alternative, cheaper option, involving refurbishment of the existing plaza and tolling equipment, could add a fourth toll lane at the Dundee end of the Bridge, but does not offer the space or flexibility for dedicated lanes, and would not entirely remove the potential for queuing into the city centre at evening peak times.

Summary

Tolls can play an important role in helping the Scottish Ministers meet the wider objectives of managing traffic patterns and promoting more efficient use of the road and other transport networks, as part of an integrated approach involving all relevant modes, including car, bus, rail and ferries. Modelling from Phase One indicated that traffic levels on the tolled bridges and their approach roads are growing at a faster rate than elsewhere on the road networks. Where congestion is an issue, well designed tolling regimes can be implemented which encourage a shift from single occupancy journeys to public transport or multiple occupancy car trips. Tolling regimes can also encourage travellers to consider whether their journey is necessary, or can be made in other ways or at different times. Visible and appropriate transport improvements should be in place before toll increases are made to address demand.

At Erskine, there is currently no congestion problem on the Bridge itself, and tolling cannot be justified on the basis of demand management. There are congestion problems elsewhere in Glasgow, and Glasgow City Council has declared an Air Quality Management Area ( AQMA). Modelling has shown that congestion elsewhere, towards the centre of Glasgow, can be eased, and air quality problems improved, if tolls at Erskine are removed. These benefits would have to be "locked in" and there may be some localised increases in traffic that would need to be managed.

At Forth, there are severe congestion problems on the Bridge and no solution has been identified for those problems which does not include tolling as a critical element. Modelling indicates that congestion issues are improved at Forth if higher tolls are charged. Actual toll levels are a matter for the bridge authority to determine in the first instance, but Scottish Ministers make the final decision.

At Tay, there are some congestion problems at peak times, and Dundee is declaring an AQMA. Bridge traffic contributes to the air quality problems. As at the Forth Road Bridge, no solution has been identified for those problems which does not include tolling as a critical element. Modelling indicates that congestion issues are improved at Tay if higher tolls are charged, but Scottish Ministers make the final decision. TRBJB's investigations indicate that a move to south-side tolling in the long term would allow further improvements e.g. in provision for public service and multiple occupancy vehicles.

2.2.3 Investing in transport networks

In this section we discuss how, and to what extent, toll revenues can and should be used to invest in transport infrastructure and networks.

The costs of constructing major estuarial bridges are considerable - for example, the new bridge at Kincardine is currently estimated to cost around £110m. But the investment needed to maintain and operate those bridges, and to upgrade them as necessary, for example, to accommodate heavier traffic, is also very substantial.

However, more may be collected in tolls in a given period than is needed for the upkeep of the bridge because maintenance costs vary from year to year depending on what work is required. Importantly, it may be desirable, for demand management purposes, to set a tolling regime at levels which are higher than would otherwise be necessary, simply to maintain and operate the bridge. While maintenance should be the priority, decisions need to be made on how and where any additional revenue should be spent. Research ²⁰ and consultation ²¹²² on road user charging schemes shows that tolling regimes are more likely to be acceptable if revenues are seen to be ring fenced for local transport purposes.

Erskine Bridge

Schedule 2 to the Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 requires that total tolls collected should not exceed the total sum of the capital costs (with interest) of the bridge, the ongoing costs of operating, maintaining and renewing the bridge both during the tolling period and afterwards, and interest on annual shortfalls. Erskine Bridge annual accounts include a calculation in accordance with Schedule 2 to ensure that tolls collected have not exceeded the cap provided by Schedule 2. While surpluses have been registered in most years, it is currently the Executive's position that expenditure relative to tolls should be spread over the lifetime of the Bridge and contribute to the future renewal of the bridge. This expenditure will increase as the bridge gets older.

Toll revenues from the Erskine Bridge are credited to the Scottish Executive's roads programme, which in turn funds the costs of maintaining and operating the Bridge. Many of those who have criticised the collection of tolls at Erskine, including a number responding to the Phase Two consultation, have specifically stated that any "excess" tolls collected should be used to invest in local transport provision, for example by supporting public transport options in the area. However, the legislation for Erskine Bridge does not allow tolling "surpluses" to be spent in this way.

Forth Road Bridge

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority Order 2002 states that the first call on tolling revenue at the Bridge must go to meet the costs of maintaining and operating the Bridge. Beyond this, FETA has broad powers to invest in wider transport improvements, aimed at reducing congestion on and around the Bridge. In the three years of its existence, FETA has already used these powers on a range of projects - including contributing to the costs of the Park and Ride facility at Ferry Toll, supporting road, rail and ferry studies around the estuary, and in meeting some of the costs of improving the A8000/M9 Spur - work which is now underway.

FETA's recently approved local transport strategy sets out a significant investment plan for the period between 2006-07 and 2020-21, which amounts to some £141m. While approximately £113m of this is to be directed towards the costs of the Bridge itself, the programme includes a number of further initiatives to promote more efficient use of the surrounding road and other transport networks, including the A8000 project. These extra funds would only be available if FETA raised the current level of tolls or implemented a road user charge higher than the current toll levels.

Tay Road Bridge

Some 50% of toll revenues at the Tay Road Bridge go towards meeting capital and interest repayments on outstanding loans. The balance is not sufficient to meet the ongoing costs of the Bridge, and the Executive provides grant funding to the Board annually to fill this funding gap. Given this, the issue of how revenues might be invested more widely is currently a moot point. However, operational issues, such as the congestion problems at the toll booths and into Dundee city centre, mean that the TRBJB is increasingly concerned with how it can work with other stakeholders, such as Dundee City Council, to address wider transport issues. In addition, the redevelopment and regeneration of the city's waterfront area will directly affect the north end of the Bridge, and the Board is working closely with stakeholders in that project. Under the current legislation governing tolling at Tay, the Board has no responsibility for wider transport issues or investment, beyond the immediate needs of the Bridge, and cannot use tolling income to help fund measures to improve the efficiency of the networks.

Summary

Where a tolling regime is required to address congestion and traffic management objectives, maintenance and operational costs of the bridge should be the first priority for expenditure. Where toll revenues exceed operating and programmed maintenance and operational costs ( e.g., because the tariffs are being used to influence demand), there is a strong case for reinvesting in wider improvements to the surrounding transport network, where possible. This is to increase the efficiency of the network (and, as discussed at section 2.1, to promote public acceptability of the tolling regime).

2.3 Tolls or Road User Charging?

This section compares and contrasts bridge tolls and road user charges ( RUC). As stated previously, the existing tolling regimes on the bridges were put in place in the 1960's and 70's, and were designed to recover construction and operating costs at the time. However, traffic modelling indicates that tolls can also act as demand management mechanisms where congestion and/or traffic volumes pose problems on the network.

Scottish RUC legislation was designed with the policy intention of reducing congestion, noise and emissions. Additionally, the pressures brought about by increasing traffic levels, and the associated impacts on the environment and the economy, have opened up a wide ranging general debate on road pricing in recent years. For example, London now has an urban congestion charging scheme, and the Department for Transport led a study on the feasibility of a national road pricing scheme in 2004 ²³. FETA's Local Transport Strategy ( LTS), and more recently its Application in Principle for a road user charge, sets out the Authority's proposals to replace the existing tolling regime at the Forth Road Bridge with a RUC scheme. However, a number of responses to the Phase Two consultation questioned why RUC should be needed when there is already a tolling regime in place.

The key issues are what the difference is between bridge tolls and RUC, and whether there are situations where one is preferable to the other. The existing bridge tolling regimes are set out in legislation specific to each bridge, both in the primary legislation and in specific tolling orders. Although the primary legislation in each case allows the tolling orders to be revised by the Scottish Ministers, it attaches conditions and requirements for doing this. This means that, under the current legislation, the tolling authority does not have the power necessary to change the level of tolls to reflect changing circumstances or inflationary trends. Nor can it change the nature of the tolling regime to reflect policy shifts without reference to either the Scottish Executive or, in the case of Erskine Bridge, the Scottish Parliament.

Scottish local RUC schemes are governed by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and associated regulations, which provide a consistent legislative framework (though this does not mean that the actual amount charged would be the same in different schemes). A charging authority would develop a charging order, and submit the charging order to Scottish Ministers for confirmation before the charging scheme could be implemented. The Scottish Parliament has no formal role in the confirmation of charging orders.

The first main difference is that there is a single legislative framework in place for all RUC schemes. The tolling regimes do not have a consistent framework within which to operate - each was set up under specific legislation which is not consistent with the legislation for the other bridges.

The next comparison between tolling and charging is flexibility of the regimes. Existing tolling legislation allows toll orders to impose charges according to "different circumstances", but this is not flexible enough to meet present day challenges such as tolling regimes which promote efficient use of the networks through sophisticated differential tolling, for example by different days, different times of day, distance travelled, vehicle occupancy etc. Furthermore, the 2001 Act allows for a charging order to specify when inflationary increases in tolls may take place, something which is not provided for in the current bridge tolling legislation.

From this perspective, RUC schemes are more flexible than current tolling structures. The powers set out in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 allow for greater flexibility on differential charging without the need for changing the primary legislation. In addition to this flexibility, there comes with it the consistency of a single legislative regime.

With the growing need to manage demand on our roads and bridges, the growing national debate about road pricing generally, and moves towards ensuring the interoperability of electronic charging systems across Europe (discussed at section 4.5), greater operational flexibility is needed. This could perhaps be achieved more readily by moving to RUC than by amending the separate legislation for each of the bridges.

Further, RUC schemes must, directly or indirectly, facilitate the achievement of objectives in the charging authority's local transport strategy ( LTS). This gives the charging regime a more strategic purpose than tolls. As the LTS evolves to reflect local circumstances, so can the charging regime. For bridge authorities using RUC schemes, this means that income could be invested in schemes beyond the immediate confines of the bridge, and spending of that income would not be limited to the charging authority. Indeed, the revenue could be given to, for example, a neighbouring authority where that could assist in meeting the LTS's objectives. FETA already has similar powers in relation to its tolling regime, but has recognised the greater flexibility the RUC approach can bring when managing the bridge in its strategic context.

Against this, the RUC legislation was designed to facilitate local authority schemes - although the RUC provisions could be applied to a single road e.g. a tolled bridge, they were not designed for this purpose. Each of the bridges is a unique structure, with a unique set of circumstances and traffic scenarios. For that reason, it may be that maintaining separate legislation for each bridge is appropriate - particularly if that legislation can be adapted to take advantage of some of the flexibility and other benefits foreseen for RUC in the 2001 Act.

Summary

Tolls are based on specific legislation for each of the bridges. That legislation provides for a tolling regime which was relevant at a particular time, and was designed to provide an income stream to cover the costs of construction, and ongoing maintenance and operational costs, for each of the bridges individually. While tolling legislation could be amended to give the tolling authority greater flexibility, changes to the purpose of tolling for any of the bridges requires primary legislation.

Alternatively, the road user charging ( RUC) provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 are the result of wide-ranging consultation on the use of road pricing techniques for demand management purposes; are more flexible than the existing tolling provisions; and have a strategic purpose as part of a local transport strategy. Those provisions currently apply only to local roads; achieving those benefits on bridges which are trunk roads would require primary legislation.

« Previous | Contents | Next »