The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3. Managing the Tolled Bridges

This chapter considers different organisational structures for managing the operation and maintenance of the tolled bridges, and supporting wider Scottish Executive objectives. It takes into account the new transport landscape in Scotland, with the advent of Transport Scotland, and the statutory Regional Transport Partnerships ( RTPs).

3.1 Current arrangements

Separate legislation governs the management and operation of each of Scotland's tolled bridges. Each bridge is managed by a different body which has a unique set of responsibilities, powers and pressures. While the tolling regimes share a number of common aims and objectives, there are significant differences, for example in tariffs, the legal framework and the financial position of each bridge.

Chapter 3 of the Phase One Report set out the current arrangements at each bridge in detail. These are summarised below:

1 Contracted to AMEY Infrastructure Services Ltd
2 Contracted to APCOA Parking ( UK) Ltd

As a trunk road, the Erskine Bridge is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and is the only tolled bridge run directly by the Executive. Bridge operation and maintenance is presently contracted out to AMEY Infrastructure Services Ltd, as part of its term management and maintenance contract for trunk roads in South West Scotland. Toll collection is presently contracted to APCOA Parking ( UK) Ltd.

FETA is a joint board comprising the constituent local authorities of City of Edinburgh (four members), Fife (four members), Perth and Kinross (one member) and West Lothian (one member) Councils. Approximately 100 permanent and temporary staff are employed by FETA. In addition to the management, maintenance and operation of the bridge, FETA has a wider remit to develop, support and fund schemes and measures which it considers appropriate to reduce traffic congestion.

The administration, management, maintenance and operation of the Tay Road Bridge is the responsibility of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board ( TRBJB) as confirmed in the Tay Road Bridge Confirmation Act 1991. TRBJB comprises Dundee City (six members), Fife (five members), and Angus (one member) Councils. Approximately 50 staff are employed by TRBJB. Unlike FETA, TRBJB does not presently have a wider remit for improving local transport or contributing to other schemes to reduce congestion across the Bridge.

3.2 The emerging transport landscape in Scotland

The development of the new national transport agency, Transport Scotland, is a key Partnership Agreement commitment. It was established at the start of 2006 and, together with new RTPs, forms part of a new approach to delivering transport services and projects across Scotland.

3.2.1 Transport Scotland

Transport Scotland is responsible for trunk roads, rail, the delivery of major public transport infrastructure projects, the delivery of National Concessionary Travel Schemes, and integrated ticketing and travel information.

The consultation paper sought views on the possibility of one or more of the tolled bridges being managed by Transport Scotland. This would recognise their strategic importance, offer a joined up policy and management approach, and could address wider integration issues, for example between the road and rail networks. One of the main policy objectives for managing the tolled bridges is the efficient use of the surrounding transport network. Agency management of the bridges could help to promote that through its links to local authorities, RTPs and public transport providers.

Transport Scotland management of the Forth and Tay Road Bridges would require a decision to be taken on whether to retain the local road status of these bridges or to trunk them. This raises wider questions on the issue of charging for trunk road journeys, and potentially cuts across the growing debate about national road pricing. As set out in Chapter 2, RUC schemes appear to offer greater scope to manage congestion and traffic demand than the existing tolling structures. The current legislation for RUC allows schemes to be introduced only by a local traffic authority. Under current legislation, it would not therefore be possible to replace tolls with RUC on a bridge managed by Transport Scotland.

Given Transport Scotland's responsibility for strategic transport issues, even where the Agency is not directly responsible for one of the bridges, strong links between Transport Scotland and other bridge authorities will be necessary.

The detailed implications of management of the individual bridges by Transport Scotland are discussed at section 3.5.

3.2.2 Regional Transport Partnerships

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 places a duty on the Scottish Ministers to establish RTPs to plan the strategic delivery of regional transport in Scotland. Most RTPs will consist of several local authorities and other key players in the region. The 2005 Act makes provision for the future transfer of functions to RTPs and sets out an illustrative list of functions that could be transferred, which includes managing tolled bridges. However, the functions and responsibilities of individual RTPs will reflect the requirements of each region's transport strategy, due to be completed by April 2007. Over time, RTPs will be able to take on a more operational role in the delivery of projects and the management of infrastructure and services in their region, which could include taking on functions from local authorities or the Scottish Executive. For this reason, the consultation paper sought views on whether we should transfer some or all of the powers and functions of the current bridge authorities to the RTPs.

The tolled bridges are not isolated structures, and the key objectives of this Review include demand management where this is required, and the more efficient use of the transport networks. One of the main advantages of the RTP management model is that RTPs will already have an interest in sustainable transport and in demand management within their area. RTPs will be able to take on powers to promote and implement RUC schemes on their own networks to manage congestion, noise and emissions. RTP management of the bridges would, therefore, allow the existing tolling regimes to be replaced with RUC, where demand management is necessary.

There are, however, disadvantages to pursuing the RTP option at this stage. The partnerships will be new organisations, with a number of pressing priorities from the outset, most notably the duty to draw up a statutory regional transport strategy ( RTS). Managing major infrastructure initially will not be a core activity for most of the RTPs, although the West of Scotland Transport Partnership will be responsible for the Glasgow subway (employing around 700 people). There is a danger that imposing a bridge management function at such an early stage could distract the partnerships from other key tasks.

Tolled bridges are particularly complicated pieces of infrastructure, and the maintenance of them is complex and costly. If a RTP were responsible for the maintenance of the bridge this would require it either to directly employ engineers and other staff for the specific purpose of maintaining the bridge, or to contract out for the required skills and expertise to maintain the bridge on its behalf. In addition, management, toll collection and other staff would have to be employed. However, it is not currently envisaged that the RTPs which are relevant to Forth and Tay will employ large numbers of operational staff, at least in the early stages. In addition, funding structures and long-term spending plans may take some time to establish. Current and future spending pressures on the toll bridges could mean that the RTPs would have to find significant resources to meet these commitments, possibly diverting resources from their other objectives.

The tolled bridges play a significant role in regional transport and the RTPs will need to be mindful of the effects of tolls on the surrounding transport network. Guidance to RTPs on drawing up their RTSs will encourage them to look at all transport in the region, irrespective of whether it is provided by local authorities, the Scottish Executive, Transport Scotland, or other public bodies, including bridge authorities - even when the RTP itself is not the bridge authority. Strategies could make recommendations to bridge authorities on, for example, toll regimes. This would not be binding, but bridge authorities would be expected to consider it. RTSs will be informed by full public consultation. Local authorities and health boards will be statutory consultees, but other transport bodies will have the opportunity to input to the development of the strategies.

Summary

Transport Scotland and the new RTPs form part of a new approach to delivering transport in Scotland. Even if they are not directly responsible for any of the bridges, Transport Scotland and the relevant RTPs will be key partners of bridge authorities, given their responsibility for strategic and regional transport issues. The detailed implications of management of each of the bridges by Transport Scotland or RTPs are discussed at section 3.5.

3.3 Options Appraisal

A detailed options appraisal was undertaken to assess the applicability of various management options to each of the bridges. The full text of the tables used to carry out the options appraisal is available on request.

The Phase Two consultation paper posed questions on the advantages and disadvantages of new and existing bridge management models. It also asked for suggestions on other possible management structures, or on changes in responsibilities and powers which would enhance management effectiveness.

The consultation paper set out five management options for each of the three bridges:

• The new national transport agency - Transport Scotland
• The regional management option - RTPs
• The FETA model - the current arrangement at Forth - a Joint Board model but with broader powers than at Tay
• The TRBJB model - the current arrangement at Tay
• A new single Scottish Tolled Bridges Authority.

Two further options emerged from the responses to the consultation exercise:

• a single, East coast bridge management body for Forth and Tay
• management by private enterprise.

We have also assessed the implications of removing the tolls at each of the bridges. The consultation paper did not specifically seek views on removing tolls, as our aim has been to gather stakeholders' views on the implications of potential changes, rather than to establish their desire for change. Nevertheless, the option of ending tolls at each bridge has been fully considered. Of the 63 written responses to the consultation, around a third of respondents qualified their responses with their opinion that tolls should be removed. More than half of those comments related specifically to Erskine.

3.3.1 Appraisal methodology

The management options listed above have been subject to a qualitative appraisal process. Each of the eight models has been examined against our four key objectives for the tolled bridges:

• managing traffic demand, where and if this is required
• efficient use of the surrounding road and public transport networks
• funding ongoing maintenance
• addressing access - linking people to jobs, businesses to markets, communities to services.

We have also examined the practicalities of achieving these objectives under each option, by appraising the achievability of each option against a range of criteria:

• legislative/legal issues
• a broad consideration of the costs and savings of implementation
• impacts and acceptability
• timescale to implement
• wider impacts, i.e. economic and environmental.

Our aim has been to arrive at a qualitative assessment of how, and to what extent, each model for each bridge could help the Executive deliver its objectives for the tolled bridges and the practicalities of implementing the model.

Our evaluation of each option has been informed by written responses to the consultation paper, the feedback we received in meetings with key stakeholders, and by work done within the Executive.

Although 24 separate assessments were theoretically required (eight options x three bridges), it became clear early in the process that some of these assessments could be combined, with the result that only 18 options are assessed. This chapter presents the key findings of the appraisal.

3.4 Discounted Options

In the course of the options appraisal, three options were considered not to meet the criteria set out above for achieving our aims for the tolled bridges. They are discussed briefly below.

3.4.1 Private enterprise

This option was proposed in responses to the consultation paper. It would involve passing the management and operation of the bridge to a private sector organisation on a long term PFI/ PPP contract basis, the terms of which could include provision for maintenance and operational investment, setting tolling tariffs and keeping the tolling income. In terms of financing and operating it could mirror to some extent the arrangement which formerly applied at the Skye Bridge. It is distinct from the present operations at the Erskine Bridge, where management responsibility for the Bridge remains with the Scottish Executive, but maintenance and toll collection operations are contracted out separately, and tolling revenues are returned to the Scottish Executive.

Transfer of one or more of the bridges to the private sector under such an arrangement could provide advantages in terms of the long term financing of maintenance and upgrading work. PPP operators would be able to plan the programme across the lifetime of the agreement, borrowing as necessary and recovering costs through tolls. The need for short term borrowing by the existing authorities, or grants from the Scottish Executive would therefore be minimised or eliminated, depending on the terms of the agreement struck.

While there is experience of such contracts in respect of the design, build and operation of new structures, there is little experience of operators taking responsibility for existing bridge structures ²⁴. Each of the Scottish tolled bridges is around 40 years old and each requires significant investment over the next few years - for example, planned maintenance for the Forth Road Bridge amounts to some £113m in the next 15 years. Associated with this is the potential for transferring the "availability risk" to operators. Under such an agreement, operators may be penalised for lane or bridge closures over and above an agreed level in a given period. Potential operators may be wary of accepting the financial risks associated with such works, along with the possibility of future works arising, without continuing financial guarantees from the Executive. This transfer of risks from the public to the private sector is central to the PPP process.

Operators would also be required to take the "volume risk" associated with each bridge - i.e. financing, and therefore toll levels, would be set on the basis of traffic estimates over the contract period. There is potential tension in agreements relating to the bridges, where the operator would seek to recover enough in tolling revenues to meet the costs of maintaining and operating the bridge, as well as returning a profit to shareholders, while the Scottish Ministers could look to bridge operators to invest in and implement measures to reduce congestion, manage traffic demand and improve the efficiency of the surrounding transport networks.

Ministers may also seek to transfer an element of legislative risk to toll bridge operators. Such risks may include future changes in vehicle types or weights, or changes in motoring taxation, fuel duties or wider road pricing. In section 2.3 we have concluded that bridge operators may wish to consider moving from the existing tolling structures towards a road user charging scheme to better address congestion and demand management issues where this is required. Under the present legislation, a RUC scheme can only be introduced by a local traffic authority, and there are no plans to allow private enterprise to operate such schemes.

A more detailed examination of this option is outwith the scope of the Phase Two Review, and has not been undertaken at this stage. Any such examination is likely to be a lengthy process, involving significant technical and financial analysis work and market testing. This option would involve considerable primary and secondary legislative change, involving the winding up of the existing management boards at the Forth and Tay Road Bridges, and transferring responsibility for these two bridges, as well as the Erskine Bridge to the new operator or operators.

In terms of costs to the bridge user, tolls would be higher than the equivalent charge by the present operators. This follows a European Court of Justice decision that toll operations by private sector operators must charge VAT on the tolls levied. There is also a significant issue about the public acceptability of pursuing this option, and it could be negatively received by the public, and the surrounding local authorities in particular.

There is a distinction between tolling of the existing bridges, and requirements for new infrastructure, where e.g. a new crossing is proposed with significant investment requirements, in which case very different considerations would be applied. This Review has considered only the existing bridges, not the involvement of private enterprise in any future developments.

Summary

An initial assessment indicates that passing the management and operation of these key pieces of infrastructure to private enterprise could provide benefits in terms of financial savings and security for the Scottish Ministers over the course of a long term agreement. However, the risks associated with the maintenance and operation of the bridges, and the fact that there is little experience of operating such structures, could mean that the terms of such an agreement would offer no advantages over the other management models considered as part of this Review. In particular, there are potential tensions between the desire of an operator to ensure that the operation is profitable, and the need to strike a balance between the key aims for the existing tolled bridges. There are different considerations where new infrastructure is required - e.g. where the overriding aim is the provision of a new crossing.

3.4.2 Joint Forth and Tay Management Body

Another management option proposed in response to the consultation paper was to combine the management and operations of the two east coast bridges, Forth and Tay. This model offers scope for potential efficiency savings in terms of reduced administrative overheads, joint procurement procedures, shared back office functions, technology trialling etc. It would provide a single management structure covering both bridges, formed on the lines of the current FETA model, allowing the new authority the scope to collect tolls, manage traffic demand and reinvest revenues to improve the efficiency of the local transport networks. Toll revenues under this model would form a single income stream for expenditure on both bridges. The day to day arrangements for managing and operating the bridges would mean, however, that local management and staff would still be required to be situated at each bridge.

There are, however, significant differences between the two bridges. These include the levels, times and nature of congestion experienced, the ratio of strategic to local traffic, demand management issues, and investment decisions at each bridge. The bridges are also structurally different, so possible efficiency gains from pooling engineering resources could be limited. The financial positions are also different. Tay Road Bridge carries outstanding loan debt of some £13m. Assuming a single income stream from both bridges, toll payers at Forth may find it unacceptable that tolls paid at that Bridge would go to pay off debt at the Tay Bridge. While this could be remedied by using a ring fencing mechanism for revenues and spending at each bridge, the administrative and financial benefits of this arrangement may be reduced.

A joint Forth and Tay management body would also involve a number of local authorities in the management and operation of a tolled bridge in which they have no direct interest e.g. Angus Council in Forth Road Bridge matters, and West Lothian Council in Tay Road Bridge matters. This could be seen as particularly inappropriate for the Tay Road Bridge as the majority of bridge traffic (around 65%) is of a local nature.

Against this, it is also worth emphasising that the managers for both bridges already share information and experience on a regular basis, both directly with each other, and through national and international technical and bridge management organisations.

Summary

The appraisal indicates that though there are some rationalisation gains under this model, mainly from sharing back office functions, these would be offset by other pressures. These include the cross-over of local authorities with interest in only one of the bridges, the issue of "ring-fencing" revenues for each bridge, the continued need for a large number of staff on site at each of the bridges, and the distinct challenges that each of the bridges faces in the future.

3.4.3 Scottish Tolled Bridges Authority

The consultation paper included the option of a new single Scottish Tolled Bridges Authority. This would require primary legislation to transfer the management and operations of all three bridges to this Authority, which would sit alongside Transport Scotland and RTPs. As a single body, the Authority could benefit from drawing on a range of expertise within Scotland, and could develop best practice in the operation and running of the bridges.

Consultation respondents expressed little support for such an Authority. In particular, respondents saw no advantages in this option over the Transport Scotland model, and commented that it would create another transport bureaucracy. A number were concerned about the potential set-up and operational costs of a new national body, although these costs have not been assessed in detail. The loss of local accountability and of transparent funding arrangements were seen as particular disadvantages. As with the joint Forth and Tay management body option, there would be issues around spending of any excess tolling revenues (outside what was required for bridge maintenance) and utilisation of Erskine and Forth revenues for repayment of the current Tay debt.

A decision would also have to be taken on whether to trunk the Forth and Tay Road Bridges, making the new Authority a trunk road authority, or to retain the local road status of these bridges. Whether trunked or not, the authority could be set up in such a way that it would be able to introduce some kind of road user charge on the bridges. However this is likely to be a long process with significant legislative changes, and wider implications in terms of the ongoing debate about road pricing, particularly for the trunk road network.

In addition, central management could be seen as inappropriate for the Tay Road Bridge in particular, as it is predominantly used by local traffic which has a direct relationship with the management of Dundee city centre.

In the wider context, the Scottish Executive's Efficient Government initiative seeks to avoid the creation of new bodies, especially where there are alternatives. In this case, we consider that any central management of the bridges would be better performed by Transport Scotland.

Summary

The appraisal indicates that there are significant legislative and potential cost implications associated with this option, with marginal benefits that could be captured by other options. Those responding to the consultation did not see any advantages over other possible management models for the bridges, and were concerned by the loss of local accountability, particularly for the Tay Road Bridge.

3.5 Management options for the three tolled bridges

The early part of this chapter provided the background on the new transport landscape in Scotland. Transport Scotland and the RTPs stand separate from the other management options for the bridges as they will exist whether or not they are charged with the management of one or more of the bridges; and even if they are not directly responsible for the bridges, there will be a need for close interaction between Transport Scotland, the relevant RTPs, and the bridge authorities.

We have examined and dismissed three of the eight options identified as potential management models for the bridges. In each case we considered the advantages and disadvantages of each model, and have taken the view that none of the options examined so far appear to provide a practicable means to achieve the Executive's aim of striking an effective balance between addressing access, managing traffic demand where it is necessary to do so, ensuring the efficient use of wider transport networks, or providing for the ongoing costs of maintaining and operating the bridges.

In the following sections we examine in detail the five remaining management options for each of the bridges - removing tolls, management by a Joint Board on the lines of the TRBJB, management under a FETA type of body, the relevant RTPs, and Transport Scotland.

3.5.1 Options for Erskine Bridge

The Erskine Bridge is the only tolled bridge which is a trunk road. It is currently managed by the Executive and, under the current arrangements, is passing to the new agency, Transport Scotland, in January 2006. Maintenance of the Bridge is contracted to AMEY Infrastructure Services Ltd, as part of the trunk road operating contract ( TROC) and tolls are collected under contract by APCOA Parking ( UK) Ltd.

Option 1 - Remove tolls at Erskine Bridge

The consultation paper did not seek views on this option directly, but around one-third of those responding sought the removal of tolls at the bridges, and about half of those singled out Erskine Bridge.

We have discussed in Chapter 2 that there is no strong case for continuing to charge tolls at Erskine on the historical basis of recovering construction costs, and that ongoing costs are met from the Scottish Executive's roads programme. Also in that Chapter we highlighted that the bridge does not currently suffer congestion problems, having spare capacity to accommodate further traffic, while parts of the wider road network in Glasgow suffer congestion which could be alleviated if more traffic was attracted to Erskine. Traffic modelling discussed in section 2.2.2 and Appendix B indicates that this wider congestion could be alleviated by ending the tolling regime at Erskine Bridge, but these benefits would require to be "locked in".

If tolls are removed, traffic levels on the bridge are expected to increase. In Phase One of the Review, we believed that this increase could require bridge strengthening, with associated costs. Further modelling indicates that strengthening is not likely to be necessary as an immediate impact of removing tolls, although traffic levels would continue to be monitored to confirm the traffic levels indicated by the modelling, and to assess whether strengthening work would become necessary in the future.

There are various legislative steps necessary to end the tolls at Erskine. As a first stage, it would be possible to suspend tolling, by means of a Ministerial Order. Tolling could end 14 days after the Minister has given public notice of the intention to suspend the tolls. This suspension could remain in place for up to 18 months during which time Ministers would normally promote a more formal Statutory Instrument revoking the Tolling Order. However, the power to charge tolls at the Bridge will expire on 1 July 2006 and a Statutory Instrument may not therefore be required, if tolls were to end before this date. On a longer timescale, the main Erskine Bridge Tolls Act 1968 would also have to be repealed, although provisions such as the requirement to prepare Annual Accounts for the Parliament would remain relevant for up to two years, depending on the timing of the end to tolls, and the process of winding up operations at the Bridge.

There would be a loss of the tolling income to the Scottish Executive's bridge programme - currently about £5.5 - £6m per annum - and some additional costs on maintenance due to increased traffic flows. There would also be initial costs arising from the need to remove the existing toll booths and realign the road. We have not made a detailed estimate of such costs.

Against this, there would be offsetting savings arising from the end of the tolls collection contract. The current costs of this agreement are some £700,000 per annum, and there are associated administration costs within the Scottish Executive. However, the contract is due for renewal and it is likely that the new contract costs could be somewhat higher than this. In addition, we have highlighted in section 2.4.2 the need for significant early upgrading of the operations and systems at Erskine Bridge. We do not, at this stage, have detailed costings for this work but, based on estimates of work necessary on the Administration Building, and on the experience of redesigning the tolling systems and toll plaza at the Forth Road Bridge, we estimate that total costs could be in the region of £5m to £8m. This funding would have to be found within the current spending period.

Elsewhere we have reported the representations received in support of ending tolls at Erskine. A move to end tolls would be widely welcomed by the travelling public, and by local authorities and business interests in the region in particular. If this option were pursued, the Bridge would continue to be managed as part of the trunk road network, with maintenance and other operations carried out by Transport Scotland.

Option 2 - Tay Road Bridge Joint Board management model

The powers and functions of the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board model are summarised at section 3.1 above.

The TRBJB model creates a body which is responsible for the administration, management, maintenance and operation of the Bridge. It has no remit for improving local transport or contributing to other schemes to reduce congestion across the Bridge.

Primary legislation would be required to transfer ownership of and responsibility for the Erskine Bridge from the Scottish Executive to a new Joint Board, comprising one or more local authorities from around the Clyde estuary. Those authorities would be likely to include, as a minimum, Glasgow City, East and West Dunbartonshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire Councils. As part of this, it would also be necessary to de-trunk the route. This may give rise to criticism, given the Bridge's clear strategic role within the existing motorway and trunk road network. Modelling indicates that over 60% of morning peak time traffic is undertaking long-distance or strategic journeys. This proportion is likely to be higher at other times of the day.

The Board would have broadly the same powers as are now available at the Tay Road Bridge: to charge and collect tolls, and to maintain and operate the Bridge. The Board would be responsible for setting the toll levels, and funding any necessary future maintenance and upgrading of the Bridge. Costs of maintaining and operating the Bridge would fall to the Board, to be funded by way of tolls, but potentially with the possibility of borrowing for long term investment. The current maintenance programme for the Erskine Bridge is estimated to cost some £17m over the next seven years.

The most significant obstacle to pursuing this option is the fact that those councils which would make up such a Board, are strongly opposed to the continuation of tolling at the Erskine Bridge. There is no desire on the part of these authorities to take on the management of the Bridge under this or any other model. The Joint Board management model is therefore not seen as a viable option for Erskine under the present circumstances.

Option 3 - Forth Estuary Transport Authority management model

The powers and functions of the Forth Estuary Transport Authority model are summarised at section 3.1 above.

As with Option 2 above, legislation would be required to transfer ownership of and responsibility for the Erskine Bridge from the Scottish Executive to a new Transport Authority. The Authority would draw its membership from surrounding local authorities, and would have powers and responsibilities based on the current FETA model. The Authority would be able to replace tolling with RUC, if and when this was deemed necessary, and to invest toll revenues in wider transport improvements such as public transport provision, as well as being able to set, charge and collect tolls, and maintain the Bridge itself. Again, it would be necessary to de-trunk the route.

Once again, the most significant obstacle to pursuing this option is the fact that local authorities in the west of Scotland area are strongly opposed to the continuation of tolling at the Erskine Bridge. There is no desire on the part of these authorities to take on the management of the Bridge under this or any other model. The FETA management model is therefore not seen as a viable option for Erskine under the present circumstances.

Option 4 - Regional Transport Partnership

As discussed at paragraph 3.2.2 above, the RTPs are new bodies and are not generally designed with the intention of being responsible for the operation of major pieces of infrastructure at the outset. The RTP for the West of Scotland is an exception to this, as it will be responsible for the Glasgow subway. However, local authorities in the west of Scotland area are generally opposed to the continuation of tolling at the Erskine Bridge. This was the clear message from those authorities in response to the consultation paper, in the associated stakeholder meetings, and in other fora such as the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee. There is no desire on the part of these authorities to take on the management of the Bridge under the new West of Scotland Transport Partnership or any other model. Traffic on the road is strategic in nature, with over 60% of traffic at the AM peak being strategic - it is likely to be even higher at non-peak times. The RTP for the west of Scotland will not have any other roads functions in the short to medium term. For those reasons, the RTP management model is not seen as a viable option for Erskine under the present circumstances.

Option 5 - Transport Scotland

The role of Transport Scotland is discussed at paragraph 3.2.1 above. In general terms there would be little change in the way in which the Erskine Bridge is currently managed. Responsibility for the trunk road network, of which Erskine is a part, is passing from the Scottish Executive Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department to Transport Scotland from January 2006. The present arrangements in terms of maintenance and toll collection could therefore continue as now.

However, work undertaken in parallel with the main Phase Two Review shows that significant investment is required in the toll plaza, collection systems and other infrastructure at the Erskine Bridge. This could amount to some £5m to £8m over the next two to three years and Transport Scotland would have to fund this upgrading, although further detailed work is required to make an accurate assessment. In addition, the present toll collection contract is due for renewal. Upgrading work and the transfer of responsibility to Transport Scotland offers an opportunity to re-examine the scope of that contract, to ensure that the day to day operation and management of the Bridge is managed efficiently and effectively.

There are benefits to be achieved by managing one or more of the tolled bridges centrally. In particular, management of all the bridges by Transport Scotland could allow a single approach to management, and help to address wider issues of integration of the bridges with the roads and other transport networks. If the tolls remain, these advantages are balanced against the potential disadvantages of the lack of local accountability, transparency, and expenditure on local projects.

Summary

Analysis indicates that, on balance, Transport Scotland should be responsible for the bridge, and that tolls should be removed. The opposition to tolling at the Bridge from local authorities in the area, MSPs and others, means that it would be difficult to gain acceptance for alternative management options at the Bridge. In terms of meeting construction costs and/or managing traffic demand at the Bridge, there is no strong policy basis for continuing to charge tolls at the Erskine Bridge. Traffic modelling has shown that removing the tolls can ease congestion elsewhere in Glasgow, particularly through the Clyde Tunnel and on the Clydeside Expressway and a number of other routes to the north of the Clyde. This would improve the efficiency of the wider road network.

If tolls were removed, all efforts would have to be made to "lock in" the resultant congestion benefits in Glasgow to ensure that the new free space did not fill up with new trips in the future. Removal of the tolls would result in a loss of toll income, amounting to some £5 - £6m per annum, although this would be partly offset in other cost savings. If tolls remain, Transport Scotland is the most appropriate management option, given the high percentage of strategic traffic and the lack of support from the relevant local authorities for other models.

3.5.2 Options for Forth Road Bridge

The Forth Road Bridge is a local road managed by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority ( FETA). FETA is responsible for the management, maintenance and operation of the Forth Road Bridge and the funding of those activities. It has the power to develop, support and fund schemes and measures to reduce road traffic congestion on the bridge or to encourage an increase in the use of public transport across the Firth of Forth.

FETA is a local authority joint board, made up of representatives of the surrounding local authorities, which provides a high level of local representation. It is a local traffic authority and is therefore able to introduce RUC.

Option 1 - Remove tolls at Forth Road Bridge

As discussed at section 2.2.2, the Bridge suffers from severe congestion problems and frequently operates beyond design capacity. Congestion problems are exacerbated by the high proportion of single occupancy vehicles crossing the Bridge, particularly at peak times.

Traffic modelling carried out in Phase One and followed up in Phase Two indicates that these traffic problems would only be made worse by the removal of tolls at the Bridge. A decision to remove tolls would leave no effective means of managing demand (decreasing congestion problems or at least preventing them worsening by holding back traffic growth), or of promoting more efficient use of the surrounding road and other transport networks, through increasing vehicle occupancy, changing travel times and/or encouraging modal shift. No one during the consultation process identified any practical, cost effective method of reducing the congestion, or preventing its increase, without a tolling regime in place.

In financial terms, loss of tolling revenue which currently amounts to some £10m per annum would be a factor. FETA's current 15 year financial expenditure plan amounts to some £141m which would, in the absence of tolling revenues, have to be found elsewhere. This would be likely to lead to calls for the Executive to trunk the route and for Transport Scotland to take on the management of the Bridge. This would be a significant additional financial pressure on the new Agency, becoming greater as the bridge gets older.

Given the congestion problems at the Forth Road Bridge, and the need to fund significant ongoing maintenance and upgrading works, the removal of tolls does not appear to be a viable option.

Option 2 - Tay Road Bridge Joint Board management model

Secondary legislation would be required to transfer ownership of and responsibility for the Forth Road Bridge from FETA to a new local authority Joint Board. This choice of model would effectively be a return to the powers available to FETA's predecessor prior to 1 April 2002, when FETA replaced the former Joint Board.

A Joint Board approach, on the lines of the existing TRBJB, would effectively remove the new powers gained by FETA when it was set up in 2002, including the power to promote and implement a RUC scheme, and to invest revenues on transport schemes aimed at reducing or relieving congestion on and around the Bridge. Further, Joint Boards do not have the power to introduce RUC schemes, or to invest tolling revenues beyond the confines of the Bridge itself. This change would therefore halt FETA's current plans to bring forward a RUC scheme to replace tolls on the Bridge. It would also mean that FETA's current programme of wider transport improvements, including the funding of the A8000/M9 Spur upgrade, could not be taken forward.

The process of winding up FETA and setting up a new Board would involve some administrative costs, although we do not presently have an estimate of what these might be. However, the process itself could take some time, in terms of legislation and in terms of agreeing new structures and responsibilities with the affected local authorities. FETA took office some 15 months after the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 took effect, but discussions and planning had taken place over a period of at least two to three years before this.

Option 3 - Forth Estuary Transport Authority management model

This is the existing management model at the Forth Road Bridge. There would be no new legislation or implementation costs associated with retaining this management structure.

As noted above, the new Authority, FETA, was set up under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Forth Estuary Transport Authority Order 2002, aimed at addressing specific problems at the Bridge. FETA is responsible for the maintenance and operations needs of the Bridge and the surrounding transport network, and has a remit to manage traffic demand, ease congestion and improve the efficiency of wider transport networks, all of which are key objectives which we have identified for this Review. FETA has also recently approved a local transport strategy which sets out its objectives and spending plans for the period to 2018. In order to fund this programme, and to better manage demand at the Bridge, FETA is also committed to replacing the present tolling regime with a road user charging scheme, probably from 2008.

However, FETA faces considerable challenges in the future, given the financial and operational pressures which arise from the need for major planned and structural maintenance works, and from the capacity issues around cross-Forth travel on the Bridge itself and more widely. There is a continuing need for FETA to work closely with all major stakeholders, including the Scottish Executive, Transport Scotland, and the relevant local authorities and regional transport partnership. The current governance arrangements for FETA have not to date allowed these challenges to be faced in a stable manner.

Option 4 - Regional Transport Partnership

The role of the RTPs is set out at paragraph 3.2.2 above. As discussed there, the RTPs are new bodies and are not generally designed with the intention of being responsible for the operation of major pieces of infrastructure. RTP management of the Forth Road Bridge would fall most obviously to the proposed new South East Transport Partnership. However, the proposed membership of the partnership includes a number of local authorities, for example, Midlothian and the Scottish Borders Councils, which have little direct interest in the operation of the Bridge and which, for that reason, were not included as members of FETA when that Authority was set up in 2002.

Option 5 - Transport Scotland

The role of Transport Scotland is discussed at paragraph 3.2.1 above. Primary legislation would be needed to wind up FETA, transferring responsibility for the Bridge to Transport Scotland. In addition, it is likely that the bridge would need to be trunked.

A number of consultees stated that the traffic and congestion pressures at Forth and in Edinburgh mean that local responsibility and accountability for the Forth Road Bridge are important elements if continued tolling or charging at the Bridge is to be seen as acceptable.

As the Bridge represents a key link in the strategic network, management by Transport Scotland could allow Ministers to take direct control, particularly alongside the Agency's responsibility for the Rail bridge which would allow consideration of the strategic need for cross-Forth travel. However, significant policy and legislative changes would be needed to allow Transport Scotland to manage and operate the bridge, and manage traffic demand, particularly if road user charging were to be implemented.

Summary

Analysis indicates that tolls should remain on the Forth Road Bridge, and that the Forth Estuary Transport Authority ( FETA) is, on balance, the most appropriate management option. FETA has the powers to address congestion and manage traffic demand, invest in wider transport improvements, make financial provision for planned maintenance and upgrading of the bridge (some £113 million between 2006/7 and 2020/21), and take forward a road user charge. However, it has experienced some significant problems recently due to its governance arrangements. This has led to uncertainty for bridge users. As the Bridge represents a key link in the transport network, management by Transport Scotland which also controls the Rail bridge could allow Ministers to manage cross-Forth travel in a more strategic manner. This would require primary legislation. The RTP option is less appropriate as not all local authority members have a direct interest in bridge issues and, in the early stages, the relevant RTP will not be set up to manage major infrastructure.

3.5.3 Options for Tay Road Bridge

TRBJB is currently responsible for the administration, management, maintenance and operation of the Tay Road Bridge. Unlike FETA, it has no remit for improving local transport or contributing to other schemes to reduce congestion across the Bridge. It is a local authority joint board composed of representatives of the surrounding local authorities.

Option 1 - Remove tolls at the Tay Road Bridge

As discussed at section 2.2.2 and Appendix B, the Tay Road Bridge does not suffer from the same levels of congestion as the Forth Road Bridge. Nevertheless, there is a relatively short period of congestion at peak times, particularly during the evening commuter period due to vehicles queuing at the toll booths. This impacts mainly on the centre of Dundee and, with the increase in traffic growth, this situation is likely to get worse as time goes on.

As at Forth, traffic modelling carried out in Phase One and followed up in Phase Two indicates that these traffic problems would be made worse by the removal of tolls at the Bridge, and that it is unlikely that congestion can be managed effectively without tolling. No one during the consultation process identified any practical, cost effective method of reducing congestion without a tolling regime in place.

Loss of tolling revenue would be a factor. TRBJB's capital expenditure programme amounts to some £55m between 2003-04 and 2023-24, and includes expenditure amounting to some £19.6m over the next three years to replace the main bridge bearings. In addition, the main legislation relating to the Bridge requires the Board to repay all outstanding loans by no later than 2016. The current debt outstanding is some £13m, and around 50% of toll income is used to meet capital and interest charges on this.

In the absence of tolling revenues, funding both to repay this outstanding debt, and to maintain and operate the bridge would have to be found. Like Forth, it is likely that this would lead to calls for the Executive to trunk the route and for Transport Scotland to take on the management of the Bridge. This would be a significant additional financial pressure on the new agency, becoming greater as the Bridge gets older. In addition, trunking of the Tay would not be consistent with its main function, as some 65% of traffic is undertaking local journeys. A number of those responding to the consultation emphasised the need for local accountability and transparency in relation to tolls collected and the expenditure on the bridges, and several made the point that this is particularly important at Tay, given the local nature of much of the traffic.

Given the congestion problems around the Tay Road Bridge, the need to repay outstanding debt, and the ongoing need to fund significant ongoing maintenance and upgrading works, the removal of tolls does not appear to be a viable option.

Option 2 - Tay Road Bridge Joint Board management model

This is the status quo position for the Tay Road Bridge. Maintenance is planned and carried out by the Bridge management in conjunction with the constituent local authorities. There is a high degree of local accountability, and sensitivity to the effects on local traffic. It should also mean effective planning, for example of maintenance, so that works do not coincide with maintenance closures on alternative routes.

No legislative change would be required if the Joint Board were to remain responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Tay Bridge. However, there is a strong case for amending the existing legislation to remove the deadline for repayment of debt on the Bridge. If the tolls collected are not sufficient to pay for the maintenance needed in any given year, or over a longer term project, then the Joint Bridge Board is theoretically able to borrow money to cover the costs. In practice, the fact that the Board must repay its outstanding loan debt by 2016 makes it increasingly difficult for the Board to consider significant further borrowing. Against this background, the Scottish Executive provides capital grant funding to the Board of £2.3m per annum in this spending period, to help it meet its current commitments.

However, the Board faces increasing financial pressures, including the need to replace the main bridge bearings. This is not affordable under the present arrangements without substantial support funding from the Executive, significant increases in toll levels which are thought to be unacceptable to Bridge users and/or further borrowing by the Board. By amending the legislation to remove the repayment date, the Board would be able to consider further, long term borrowing, or re-financing existing borrowing on a longer timescale.

Apart from the financial pressures noted above, the Board has no powers or remit beyond maintaining and operating the Bridge itself. While the Board works closely with its constituent councils and other stakeholders on a range of issues, including the current project to regenerate the Dundee Central Waterfront area, it cannot offer financial support for wider transport improvements, or promote wider congestion-related initiatives such as improved public transport provision, developing park and ride facilities etc.

The Board recently commissioned Hyder Consulting to examine options for upgrading the tolling systems and equipment at the Bridge. On 19 September 2005, the Board considered the consultants' report and has accepted the recommendation to plan for the construction of a new toll plaza at the southern end of the Bridge, replacing the existing plaza. This would involve significant changes to the local and trunk roads at the southern landfall. During the Board's discussion on this issue, some members questioned the Board's powers to take this forward.

Looking to the future, the Joint Board is not a traffic authority within the terms of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 and could not replace the current tolling regime with a RUC scheme aimed at reducing congestion, if this was seen to be necessary.

Repayment of the outstanding debt on Tay should remain the main objective of the tolling regime, and for that reason, RUC powers or greatly expanded powers of investment in wider transport improvements might be unnecessary. However, the existing Board's powers are currently very restrictive; ideally, these would be widened to allow it greater flexibility in meeting emerging challenges, e.g. to allow it to contribute money to projects related to traffic crossing the bridge that reduce congestion and assist in tackling air quality problems in Dundee.

Option 3 - the Forth Estuary Transport Authority management model

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 makes provision for replacing Joint Boards responsible for the management of bridges with a new Authority, with wider powers in terms of tolling or implementing RUC schemes, and for investing in transport improvements and initiatives beyond the Bridge. These are the wider powers now available to FETA.

In the previous section we have discussed the challenges facing the existing Board, and have noted that it currently has limited powers to address these in a significant way. A new FETA-style authority could be a significant step forward in helping to address the needs of the Bridge and the wider issues of congestion in the area. It would also allow the new Authority to work more meaningfully with both the Scottish Executive and Transport Scotland, and the neighbouring local authorities, to promote a joined up approach to roads and other transport improvements. In particular, the Authority could play a full part in supporting the regeneration of Dundee Waterfront. This is particularly important given that a significant part of the land required to complete the regeneration project is currently owned by the Bridge Board, and that the northern section of the Bridge itself will have to be redesigned and rebuilt to realise the benefits of that project.

Replacing the existing Board with a new Authority, based on the FETA model, would require new legislation. This would mainly be secondary legislation, under the enabling powers set out in section 69 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, and would follow the same general course as the Forth Estuary Transport Authority Order 2002. Necessary amendments to existing primary legislation could also be effected by means of the Order. Planning and preparation for the change would involve a period of discussion and consultation with the Board, local authorities, bridge users and other stakeholders before the Order could be laid in the Scottish Parliament. The process is already familiar from setting up FETA in 2002 and, in some cases, will involve the same stakeholders as then.

While moving to the FETA model under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 would allow the Board to be more flexible, recent experience at Forth has shown that the governance arrangements of FETA can be problematic. It would be important to ensure that these issues were not reproduced at Tay if a FETA-style body were introduced.

The greater powers available under this model would allow the new Authority to work more meaningfully with councils and other transport providers. However, the Authority would be required to take on and repay the existing loan debt, and maintain and operate the Bridge itself. These would be the first priorities for the Authority, and could be set out in the necessary Order. However, as with the existing Board model, there would be significant advantages in removing the requirement to repay all outstanding debt by 2016, to allow the Authority to address the current spending pressures brought about by the need to repair and maintain the Bridge itself, and to make meaningful long-term financial plans to address both bridge maintenance and wider transport initiatives.

There would be some costs involved in winding up the existing Board and setting up a new Authority. However, these are not considered to be significant.

Option 4 - Regional Transport Partnership

The role of the RTPs is set out at section 3.2.2 above. As discussed there, the RTPs are new bodies and are not generally designed with the intention of being responsible for the operation of major pieces of infrastructure.

The Tay Road Bridge will straddle the boundary between the proposed south-east RTP and the proposed new Central and Tay RTP. If the south-east RTP were to adopt the Bridge, this would not include Dundee City Council, which is the prime destination for most of the bridge traffic, whereas management by a Central and Tay RTP would exclude Fife Council from full membership, giving rise to likely criticism from the other side of the river, particularly given that the majority of northbound traffic using the Bridge originates in Fife.

Fife's links with Central and Tay RTP could be addressed by including Fife as a non-voting but active "observer" on the RTP, and by including cross-Tay transport issues in the RTS. Bridge authorities could also be full or observer members of the RTPs, although this would primarily be a decision for the RTPs themselves.

Option 5 - Transport Scotland

The role of Transport Scotland is discussed at section 3.2.1 above. There are significant issues to address if this model is pursued. Primary legislation would be needed to wind up the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board, transferring responsibility for the Bridge to Transport Scotland. In addition, it is likely that the Bridge would need to be trunked under this option.

However, around 65% of all traffic using the Tay Bridge is of a local nature, with many of the journeys being relatively short distance commuter trips. Tay also feeds traffic directly into Dundee city centre, and therefore into the local road network. A number of consultees stated that the traffic and congestion pressures within Dundee mean that local responsibility and accountability for the Tay Road Bridge is crucial.

Further, the Board has an outstanding loan debt of some £13m, with around half of the tolls income collected going to repay capital and interest on these loans. If management of the Bridge were to pass to Transport Scotland, it would have to adopt this debt, repaying the outstanding amount, either up front or over the longer term through continued tolling.

Management of all the bridges by Transport Scotland would allow a single approach to management, and help to address wider issues of integration of the bridges with the roads and other transport networks. However, for Tay, these advantages appear to be outweighed by significant barriers to this model, in terms of the policy and legislative changes which would be needed to allow it to manage and operate the bridges, and manage traffic demand (particularly through the introduction of RUC schemes), and provide an acceptable level of local accountability.

Summary

Analysis indicates that tolls should remain on the Tay Road Bridge, and that the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board should continue to manage the bridge. The Board would benefit from having extra powers to tackle congestion on and around the bridge, and this would be assisted by removing the statutory requirement on the Board to repay all the outstanding debts by 2016/17.

The current Board has no remit beyond maintaining and operating the bridge itself. This limitation means that it cannot meet the complex challenges required to manage and maintain the bridge in the greater context of the transport network. Both the RTP and Transport Scotland options are, however, inappropriate options for Tay. The Bridge straddles the boundary between two RTP areas and therefore selecting the appropriate RTP would be difficult; the large majority of traffic on the bridge is local and therefore it would not be appropriate to bring it into Transport Scotland at this time. While moving to the FETA model under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 would allow the Board to be more flexible, recent experience at Forth has shown that the governance arrangements of FETA can be problematic, and those problems could be reproduced at Tay if a FETA-style body were introduced. Furthermore, repayment of the outstanding debt on Tay should remain a priority for the tolling regime. For that reason, the FETA model's greatly expanded powers of investment in wider transport improvements might be unnecessary. However, the existing Board's powers should be widened to allow it greater flexibility in meeting emerging challenges.

« Previous | Contents | Next »