« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
4. Setting the Tolls
This Chapter considers whether there is a need to amend the legislative and procedural arrangements for changing tolling or charging levels and periods, in a way that is transparent, flexible, justifiable, and responsive to changing circumstances. It further considers a number of principles that might apply when setting tolls, focussing on the use of exemptions and discounts, and current and future developments which will influence decisions about tolling - technological developments, and moves to standardise vehicle classification.
4.1 Legislation and procedures for setting and changing tolls
The current procedures for changing tolls are set out in the relevant legislation for each bridge and are summarised at section 7.3 of the Tolled Bridges Review Phase One Report.
Only the Scottish Ministerscan vary the Erskine, Forth and Tay Tolling Orders. Changes to tolls at the Forth and Tay Road Bridges can be proposed by the bridge's management body and its constituent councils, and by any body which substantially represents the interests of bridge users or particular groups of bridge users. However, changes to tolls at the Erskine Bridge can only be initiated by the Scottish Ministers.
Although everyone has the right to object to proposed changes to tolls, the provisions for dealing with objections vary from bridge to bridge. In general terms, in the case of Erskine Bridge, objections made by a local authority, any organisation which substantially represents the interests of a particular group of bridge users, or any corporate body whose vehicles regularly use the bridge must be considered at an inquiry. In the case of the Tay Road Bridge, objections made by the Bridge Authority or any of its constituent councils or any 'body' (which is undefined in the legislation) must be considered at an inquiry. For the Forth Road Bridge, any written objection which is not withdrawn must be considered by an inquiry, if the objector so wishes.
Procedures for changing tolls at the Forth Road Bridge were followed in 2004 when FETA proposed a 20p increase to the toll payable by cars and light goods vehicles. Although approximately 12 million Forth Road Bridge tolls were paid in 2004, only two objections to the proposed increase were received, one of which was subsequently withdrawn. As a result of the remaining single objection, the Scottish Ministers were obliged to hold an inquiry to consider FETA's proposals under the terms of Part V of the Forth Road Bridge Conformation Order Act 1958.
The inquiry was conducted in December 2004. The inquiry Reporter concluded that the proposed increase was justified and recommended that the increase be approved by the Scottish Ministers. The increase took effect from 1 May 2005, seven months later than FETA had planned. FETA estimate that this delay cost around £1.1m in lost tolling revenue. This recent experience of tolling changes at the Forth Road Bridge illustrates the time and costs which can be involved in the inquiry process.
80% of the respondents who commented on the current inquiry process in their response to the consultation paper perceived it to be an inappropriate way of changing tolls or charges to meet the cost of managing, maintaining and operating a bridge, although a small number said that the procedure is appropriate where public concern is significant. The time and cost of inquiries were the most frequently cited reasons for this lack of support. Those who commented in favour of the current process said that it provides an essential means of public consultation and accountability. However, some of these respondents said that they believed this could be achieved by other, more straightforward means.
Irrespective of the way in which objections are dealt with, most respondents said that the Scottish Ministers should have final approval of changes to tolls or charges.
The views expressed in response to the consultation and recent experience of Forth toll increases suggest there is a need to amend the legislative and procedural arrangements for changing tolling or charging levels and periods.
As part of this review, we have researched legislation and procedures for admitting and resolving objections against proposals made by other Government bodies and Executive departments, and against proposals by other parties which concern the general law. This has included a review of planning procedures relating to proposals by: the Executive's Development Department (both the current arrangements and the changes outlined in the Planning White Paper 25); the Executive's Trunk Road Division; Local Authorities in respect of parking charges; and Private Bills. We have also considered The Road User Charging (Consultation and Publication) (Scotland) Regulations 2003.
This has highlighted a number of questions that require further consideration before legislative and procedural changes can be proposed, for example:
- Should there be a lodging fee for objections?
- Should objections only be considered if they meet certain criteria?
- Should there be other ways to resolve an objection to a proposed tolling change instead of or in addition to an inquiry? What should they be? Should they be optional or obligatory? Should they be managed independently e.g. by the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit?
- When is an inquiry appropriate? Should this be a discretionary matter for the Scottish Ministers or should the criteria be prescribed?
Further work is required to develop and appraise options for changing tolling or charging levels and periods, in a way that is transparent, flexible, justifiable, and responsive to changing circumstances.
Summary
The current legislation and procedures for setting or varying tolls are not consistent across the tolled bridges and, as the 2004 inquiry relating to the Forth Road Bridge tolls showed, may not be perceived as an appropriate way of handling objections to proposed toll changes. This conclusion is supported by most respondents to the consultation. It is important that tolled bridge users continue to be consulted on proposed changes and that their views are taken into account in the decision-making process, but Ministers should have final approval of changes. Further analysis is required to develop a consistent and fair approach for setting and varying tolls.
4.2 Tolling Exemptions
Exemptions for bridge tolls and road tolls may be given for a number of reasons. They may be used to maximise the efficiency of the route by ensuring that it is not blocked by accidents, to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes in order to reduce congestion and pollution, or to reduce delays for emergency vehicles. However, a balance has to be struck between the provision of exemptions, revenue requirements and managing demand for road space. In addition, the use of exemptions has administrative implications for toll operators, who must find ways of verifying eligibility that are efficient and effective.
4.2.1 Exemptions for disabled travellers
All three of Scotland's tolled bridges offer exemptions for disabled travellers. This is rooted in the policy of facilitating mobility and enabling travellers to access the road network, and therefore work and leisure activities, when they may not have any viable alternative to travelling by car. Buses, for example, may be perceived as being inaccessible, either in terms of the vehicle itself, or in terms of getting to and from the bus at either end of the journey. This policy is reflected in The Road User Charging (Exemption from Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 ( SSI No. 519) which exempts Blue Badge holders.
Tolling exemptions also currently apply to vehicles displaying a Blue Badge and vehicles which are exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty ( VED). People who are entitled to the higher rate mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance, or the War Pensioner's Mobility Supplement, are entitled to an exemption from VED due to their possible increased dependence on private transport.
The Blue Badge scheme is a UK scheme for which operational responsibility has been devolved. Blue Badges are issued by local authorities following their assessment of applicants' eligibility against national criteria. Certain applicants automatically qualify for a Blue Badge, for example those who are registered blind or receive the higher rate of the mobility component of the Disability Living Allowance. Some applicants' eligibility, however, is determined at the discretion of the local authority on the basis of medical reports.
There were approximately 230,000 Blue Badges on issue in Scotland on 31 March 2005 26, 51% of which were held by recipients of allowances or grants which provide an automatic entitlement to a Blue Badge, 47% had been issued on a discretionary basis to people with a permanent or substantial disability, and the remainder had been issued on a discretionary basis to organisations caring for people meeting one or more of the qualifying criteria.
Toll exemption problems experienced by some Blue Badge holders or those exempted from VED, as outlined at section 6.3.2 of the Phase One Report, are largely a result of the tolling operators' need to validate exempt crossings by vehicles other than those used by the emergency services. Such problems can be avoided where the traveller has pre-registered with the bridge authority and has obtained a book of exemption vouchers. However, many travellers are unaware of this facility.
Many of those responding to the consultation were in support of continued exemptions for disabled travellers. Of the small number who questioned it, several pointed out that the Blue Badge scheme was originally designed to ease parking for disabled drivers, and not as a blanket exemption from transport costs. However, most of those responding thought the system of verifying exemptions, particularly Blue Badge exemptions, should be changed to speed passage through the tolls.
Several respondents suggested that Scottish Citizens Entitlement Cards ( SCECs) may offer scope for encoding rights to tolling exemptions for Blue Badge holders and would align arrangements for obtaining concessionary fares and tolling discounts in the future. This would require tolling operators to install technology compatible with SCEC data at the tolling plazas. The current priority for SCECs is their issue to more than one million citizens who are entitled to concessionary fares by April 2006. The addition of toll exemption entitlements to SCECs would be a matter for Local Authorities unless prioritised by the Scottish Ministers.
A further issue raised on a number of occasions in the past, and during our consultation, is a concern amongst toll operators and others that the Blue Badge system is prone to fraudulent misuse. For toll bridges, this could lead to exemptions being claimed falsely, and so to a loss of toll income. Changes to the UK Blue Badge scheme are beyond the scope of this Review, but we will pass on the relevant findings of the Bridges Review to the Department for Transport.
Summary
The Scottish Ministers are committed to improving access for all travellers, including disabled travellers. Continuing exemption from bridge tolls for disabled drivers supports that policy and is consistent with The Road User Charging (Exemption from Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004. However, there is a need to ensure that the verification systems can operate to speed travellers through the toll booths as quickly as possible, through improving current manual systems and by seeking to make the most of emerging technology to verify Blue Badge, and other, exemptions automatically.
4.2.2 Exemptions for emergency services vehicles
Emergency service vehicles (Police, Fire and Ambulance) are exempt from tolls at all of the tolled bridges. The Phase Two consultation paper noted that The Road User Charging (Exemption from Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 include an exemption for vehicles operated by the Coastguard. Respondents were asked whether a similar exemption should be offered by toll operators, and three-quarters of those responding to this question supported this extension of exemption for HM Coastguard vehicles.
A number of those responding to the consultation paper noted that the issue of such exemptions is more related to easing the passage of vehicles responding to an emergency than to the collection, or otherwise, of a financial toll. Given this, it was stated that exemptions should only apply in "blue light" situations. However, other consultees suggested that verifying whether vehicles were responding to an emergency would be impractical.
Some respondents to the consultation suggested further extending exemptions to other travellers, including doctors on call, free patient transfer vehicles, blood transfusion service vehicles, Royal Military Police and Bomb Disposal vehicles. There is little or no precedent for this, and it would be difficult for toll operators to verify whether such an exemption was being correctly claimed, as many such travellers use unmarked and/or private cars to undertake their journey. In addition, such travellers may be able to reclaim travelling costs, including toll charges, from their employer, which in many cases will be a public body.
Summary
There is widespread support for extending toll exemptions to vehicles operated by the Coastguard. A change to this effect is also in line with The Road User Charging (Exemption from Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004. A strong case has not been made for extending exemptions to other groups or types of vehicle.
4.2.3 Exemptions for breakdown vehicles
The consultation paper also asked whether exemptions from tolls should be extended to commercial breakdown service vehicles responding to breakdowns on areas of the road network other than where this is the responsibility of the bridge authorities. For example, a vehicle which breaks down on the Forth Road Bridge will be relocated (free of charge) by one of FETA's recovery vehicles to a position where it will not impede bridge traffic flows and where it may be recovered by a commercial breakdown service. Exempting commercial breakdown services - or offering a 100% discount - would be in line with the RUC scheme in London, and would in principle recognise the role such vehicles and organisations have in helping to clear vehicles and therefore ease traffic flows.
A significant majority of those responding to this question were not in favour of exempting such services. Many made the point that, although these vehicles respond to breakdowns on the main road networks, they do not operate on the tolled bridges, where almost all breakdowns are cleared by the bridge authorities themselves. Many respondents also pointed out that breakdown services are commercial organisations and will, as now, recover their costs from their customers or members. It was further noted that it would be very difficult to distinguish trips to respond to a call out from other trips, such as return journeys or "repositioning".
Those in favour of exempting breakdown services noted that this would be consistent with road pricing policy and legislation elsewhere in the UK. While this is the case in London, the exemption is not set out in main legislation. It is specific to individual schemes. In practice, these exemptions are offered in recognition of the fact that breakdown vehicles operate within the "charging area" and assist in clearing vehicles, therefore easing traffic flow in that area and the wider network. In contrast, breakdown services do not attend vehicles on the tolled bridges themselves, and are not therefore required to pay the toll. There is not, therefore, any direct parallel with the RUC example.
In addition, while it might be possible to offer toll exemptions for well known, national breakdown services, there are many other companies which may also attend breakdowns in the vicinity of the tolled bridges. Arguably all such businesses should be treated equitably, but it would be extremely difficult to identify all such companies and verify their entitlement to the exemption.
Summary
There is little support, or traffic management justification, for extending exemptions from tolls to commercial breakdown services. Such an exemption is generally seen as inappropriate, particularly given that such services do not attend breakdowns on the bridges themselves.
4.2.4 Exemptions for Public Service Vehicles
Public Service Vehicles ( PSVs), buses for example, are charged a full toll at each of the three bridges. The tariff ranges from 60p in each direction at the Erskine Bridge to £1.40 at Forth (northbound only) and Tay (southbound only). The Forth and Tay tariff is more than the full cost to a car or light goods vehicle and less than the full cost to a heavy goods vehicle and applies to buses constructed for the carriage of more than 16 passengers. The Erskine toll is a flat rate toll which is payable by all chargeable vehicles.
Respondents to the consultation paper showed almost unanimous support for PSVs to be exempted from tolls. This is in line with the Executive's policy of encouraging greater use of public transport and would be in line with The Road User Charging (Exemption from Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004. It would also support the tolled bridges' objective of addressing demand, where necessary.
There was some debate amongst respondents as to how "public service vehicle" should be defined, and which types of vehicle should or should not be included. The Road User Charging (Exemption from Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 specifically define PSVs by reference to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.
According to Scottish Transport Statistics No. 24: 2005 edition 27, there were 76,000 tolled bus crossings on the Forth Road Bridge and 49,000 on the Tay Road Bridge in 2004 which equates to £106,400 and £68,600 worth of tolls respectively. No separate count of different chargeable vehicle types is made at the Erskine Bridge as all chargeable vehicles pay the same amount. However we understand that bus traffic on the Erskine Bridge is relatively light.
Summary
There is strong support for exempting PSVs from bridge tolls in Scotland, consistent with the Executive's policy of encouraging greater use of public transport. The Road User Charging (Exemption from Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 provide a possible framework for defining and exempting public service vehicles.
4.2.5 Exemptions for Multiple Occupancy Vehicles
Multiple occupancy vehicles ( MOVs) are more efficient users of road space than single occupancy vehicles ( SOVs) and support the tolled bridges objectives of addressing demand, where appropriate. The consultation paper asked whether this efficiency should be encouraged by tolling tariffs.
Most respondents commented in favour of tolling incentives for MOVs, particularly on bridges with congestion problems. Although most people who expressed an opinion favoured a tolling exemption for MOVs, some respondents said that a tolling discount would be more appropriate. The possibility of discounts for MOVs is discussed below.
MOV exemptions could offer bridge authorities some flexibility for managing demand when and where this is required by encouraging travellers to car-share. Such an exemption could apply around the clock or only at certain times of day according to the particular circumstances at each bridge. It would require " MOV" to be defined e.g. by reference to the number, and possibly type, of passenger e.g. would a vehicle carrying a driver plus one young child qualify as a MOV? Such a definition at a national level would reduce options for bridge authorities and would not be flexible to long term changes in driver behaviour ( e.g. car-sharing schemes). Any such exemption would also need to be considered alongside technological developments - e.g. as FETA is introducing electronic tolling, the detection of vehicle occupancy rates would be important if such an exemption were applied other than through manually-operated toll booths, where verifying occupancy may still take a substantial time. Emerging technology may be able to detect vehicle occupancy automatically.
Tolling exemptions for MOVs could have an impact on tolling revenues and the need to strike an effective balance between managing demand and ensuring efficient use of the associated road space. On the other hand, funding of the ongoing maintenance requirements of the bridge could have an adverse effect on toll prices for chargeable vehicles. However, consultees noted that vehicle occupancy rates at Forth at peak times are currently very low - around 70% of traffic is SOV traffic - so a very large change would be required before this loss of income would be a major issue 28.
Summary
There is broad support for tolling incentives for MOVs where congestion is an issue. However, a national exemption does not offer flexibility for bridge authorities in managing demand in terms of numbers of vehicles and times of journeys.
4.3 Tolling Discounts
Like exemptions, tolling discounts may be given for a number of reasons; a balance has to be struck between the provision of discounts, revenue requirements and managing demand for road space. As with exemptions, the use of discounts has administrative implications for toll operators, who must find ways of verifying eligibility that are efficient and effective.
4.3.1 Multiple Crossing Discounts
The legislation for each bridge allows the operator to enter into an agreement with drivers to "compound in advance" for the payment of tolls. Effectively, this allows for the sale of books of vouchers which may be tendered in lieu of tolls. At Erskine and Forth these vouchers are sold at a discounted price. Any Erskine Bridge user can purchase books of vouchers at a 10% discount, while at the Forth Road Bridge car and light goods vehicle drivers can purchase books of vouchers at a 10% discount, and heavy goods vehicles at a 35% discount. TRBJB sells books of vouchers at full cost although has recently raised the possibility of offering a 10% discount. The Board has agreed to await the outcome of this Review before taking this matter further. None of the bridges currently offer any multi-crossing discount incentive for buses or other PSVs.
Historically, vouchers were designed to speed traffic through the toll plaza, by avoiding the need for drivers to have or find the cash required, and to minimise cash handling by toll collectors. Cash handling and banking processes are also reduced centrally.
About a third of respondents who commented on multiple crossing discount vouchers during the consultation were in favour of them. However, a larger number were opposed to this type of discount in principle. Very few respondents perceived the availability of a discount to be an inducement to travel over the bridges, but several were concerned that the discount offered an "inappropriate" reward for certain types of crossing.
The availability of vouchers at a reduced price is generally seen as a "frequent user discount" and, arguably, might be considered to be a reward for travelling by car. This is contrary to the Executive's aspirational aim of stabilising traffic volumes at 2001 levels by 2021. More specifically, the current system of offering discounts does nothing to support our aim of striking an effective balance between managing demand, ensuring efficient use of road space and funding ongoing maintenance requirements. However, it could be argued that these discounts provide some support to our aim of addressing access.
In offering a multi-journey discount there is an acknowledged trade-off between promoting the efficient flow of traffic and the wider policy implications of continuing to offer financial rewards to drivers. However, the efficiency gains which might once have flowed from the use of vouchers no longer apply at congested travel times. This is particularly true at the Forth Road Bridge where the governing factor over traffic flows is the physical layout of the toll plaza and bridge deck, and of the surrounding road network, rather than the time taken to collect tolls at the booths. At such times, the need to promote more sustainable travel modes and patterns - such as a move towards increased public transport use or multiple occupancy journeys - is more pressing. The possibility of discounts for promoting efficient means of payment is discussed further below.
Summary
The multi-crossing (or frequent user) discount is contrary to our aim of striking an effective balance between addressing access, managing demand (if required), ensuring efficient use of road space, and funding ongoing maintenance, and is out of line with wider objectives for traffic stabilisation.
4.3.2 Multiple occupancy vehicle discounts
Most respondents commented in favour of tolling incentives for MOVs, particularly on bridges with congestion problems. Although most people who expressed an opinion favoured a tolling exemption for MOVs, one in five felt that a tolling discount would be more appropriate.
Like a MOV exemption, MOV discounts could be used to encourage drivers to share their car with at least one passenger and could therefore help to reduce traffic volumes and congestion on tolled bridges, if required. This would be consistent with our aim of managing demand and ensuring efficient use of road space. Discounts may offer greater potential to spread the flow of MOV traffic across the day by increasing or decreasing the size of the discount at different times, instead of the 'all or nothing' approach offered by exemptions.
The rate of any MOV discount should reflect local circumstances such as the timing and duration of any periods of congestion.
Summary
Discounts for MOVs could help bridge authorities to better manage traffic demand in terms of the number and timing of vehicle crossings, where this is required, as well as offering bridge authorities greater scope for managing demand than an exemption, as the amount of the financial incentive can be subject to greater variation.
4.3.3 Other Discounts
Some consultees suggested that future developments in electronic tolling, which would require drivers to have a tag installed in their vehicle, would enjoy greater take-up if a discount were offered to those participating.
FETA is already undertaking work to redesign the toll plaza at the Forth Road Bridge and to introduce automatic electronic tolling or charging. TRBJB is also planning to replace the current out-dated tolling equipment at Tay Road Bridge, and is considering introducing a system which will allow automatic charging. Under electronic tolling, the operator can build on the benefits of reduced cash handling and speedier passage for vehicles through the use of prioritised approaches and toll lanes for tag users, while potentially promoting the benefits of more sustainable forms of travel, such as MOV trips.
A move towards electronic charging may require incentives such as reduced charges to encourage drivers to participate in such a scheme. Such discounts may be justified by the potential for central efficiencies in terms of cash handling, accounting and administration costs. However, extreme care needs to be taken to ensure that such discounts do not reward drivers for taking extra trips and that there is no adverse impact on transport and traffic objectives; care is also needed to ensure that substantial take-up of such a scheme, with many bridge users paying at a discounted rate, does not reduce revenues to the extent that longer-term investment plans are undermined.
Summary
There is scope for improving traffic flows and tolling efficiency through the use of electronic payment systems. Discounted toll charges could be used as an effective incentive to encourage travellers to use such schemes by, for example, fitting electronic tags to their vehicles. However, this would need to be balanced against traffic outcomes and the need to ensure extra trips are not rewarded.
4.4 The relationship between damage caused by vehicles and toll levels
All three of Scotland's tolled bridges are now around or approaching 40 years old. They were designed at a time when traffic levels and projected growth were significantly lower than now, and when vehicle types were also very different, particularly in terms of overall weight.
In recent years all of the bridges have required significant investment in maintenance and strengthening to cope with these loads. There has recently been major work at Erskine to strengthen the bridge and refurbish the expansion joints, TRBJB is embarking on a three year programme to replace the main bridge bearings, and FETA is carrying out testing of the main suspension cables to assess damage and corrosion. (The results of this testing emerged after the completion of the Review). FETA has also stated that it will need to resurface the main carriageways of the Forth Road Bridge every nine years, as opposed to the twenty-five year replacement cycle originally envisaged.
Much of this work is caused by wear and tear on the bridges from all forms of traffic. However, bridge operators have stated that the increased weight of HGVs - now at a maximum of 44 tonnes - and the design of such vehicles, particularly those using "super-single" high pressure tyres, have had a significant effect on bridge surfacing and structures. Research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory 29 shows that increased traffic levels, higher axle loads generally, and the increasing use of super-single tyres all have a significant effect on road surfacing. In particular, that report states that the wide-based single tyre is more damaging to the road than other wheel types, particularly where the road pavement is relatively thin. This is the case at the Forth Road Bridge, where the road construction is bonded to the steel bridge deck.
The bridge operators and others believe that there is a strong case for setting toll levels for HGVs which better reflect this impact on the bridge structure and surfacing, and the present tolling structures at Forth and Tay Road Bridges already charge a higher toll for HGV traffic. At Erskine Bridge all chargeable vehicles currently pay the same toll of 60 pence per crossing.
The consultation paper asked whether respondents believed that tolls should be set at a level which reflected the relative impact of each vehicle type. The majority of responses to this part of the consultation supported the principle of tolls reflecting the cost of wear and tear. However, those against higher tolls for heavier vehicles said that this issue could not be viewed in isolation from others. In particular, a number of respondents pointed out the importance of efficient freight transport to the national economy. Scottish Ministers recognise this and work has started for the first time on the development of a national freight strategy for Scotland. The aims of that strategy are to ensure that appropriate consideration of the key economic role of the freight and logistics sector is undertaken as local, regional and national transport policies develop and to ensure that the role of the sector is given a higher profile within decision making organisations.
Respondents also made the point that too large an increase or differential between different vehicle types, could be counter-productive, in terms of the overall economy and/or by diverting heavy traffic onto other, possibly less suitable routes. Some respondents also noted that HGV operators already pay significantly more in terms of VED and fuel duties than car drivers, and one respondent felt that this issue would be better considered in the context of the proposed move to a national road pricing system.
The broad range of opinions expressed in response to the consultation on this issue reflects the various factors to be considered in setting toll levels generally, and in deciding whether those tolls should relate, at least in part to the damage caused by individual vehicles.
Summary
It is necessary to strike a balance between ensuring the free transport of goods and services, to support the economy of Scotland, and asking bridge users to pay an appropriate contribution to the costs of maintaining the tolled facility. The present tolling structures at Forth and Tay Road Bridges go some way towards this, while the flat rate toll at Erskine takes no account of the impact of different vehicle types and loads. Overall there is probably a case for tolling structures including higher tariffs for HGV traffic, to reflect their impacts. However, tolls should not be set at so high a level as to discourage economic activity, or redirect significant heavy traffic to less appropriate routes.
4.5 Current and Future Developments
This section highlights current and future developments which will influence decisions about tolling - technological developments, and moves to standardise vehicle classification.
4.5.1 Modernising tolling operations
Tolling operations at Scotland's bridges have been in place for many years and are generally in need of modernisation in terms of access for drivers, payment methods and systems, and back office systems such as IT.
Erskine
Tolling operations at the Erskine Bridge have not been upgraded for many years. Work carried out in parallel to Phase Two of the Tolled Bridges Review indicates that there is now a pressing need to upgrade the toll plaza area and the toll collection systems. In addition, significant refurbishment work is required on the tolling operations administration building. The total cost of this work has not been assessed in detail, but is likely to be significant - probably between £5m and £8m 30, depending on the specification of the work undertaken.
Forth
Work is currently progressing at the Forth Road Bridge to upgrade the toll plaza area, offer a range of payment options including cash, electronic tags and smart cards, and upgrade IT systems to include electronic billing. The system, which is due to go live in Spring 2006, will be compliant with the requirements of the EU Directive on interoperability 31, will allow for future application of differential toll levels throughout the day (if this is taken forward), and will be compatible with that in use on the M6 Toll Road and the Dartford Crossing. Cars can be fitted with an OBU or electronic tag, and charges may be paid by telephone, internet, or credit card. Although the current manual system will be replaced, the option to pay in cash will remain, and bridge users will also be able to pay using smart card technology. FETA is investing some £7.3m in this project.
Tay
Similarly, TRBJB has engaged consultants to advise on the modernisation of the IT and payment systems at the Tay Bridge. In addition, the Board is considering what benefits can be gained, in terms of easing congestion in Dundee city centre, by moving the toll plaza from the north end of the Bridge, where space is restricted, to the south end. This scheme is highlighted at section 2.2.2 above.
The work being done at the Forth and Tay Road Bridges is being taken forward against the background of developing European legislation and charging systems elsewhere in the UK and abroad. Both FETA and TRBJB have regular discussions between themselves and with other toll operators to share technical knowledge, monitor developments in charging systems and technology and to agree, where possible, how systems at each bridge (or in the wider context, tolled tunnels and roads) can be better aligned.
The systems being examined by both FETA and TRBJB involve the use of electronic tags or OBUs, and the benefits of the scheme depend on the uptake of these units. Indications are that the take up of tags is greater when a driver makes the journey once a week or more. Offering benefits to encourage the take up of tags, as long as this is compatible with wider policies, may be necessary. Consideration also needs to be taken of driver behaviour in relation to the technology selected. For example, the loss of the manual payments if payment is made automatically through a tag system ( i.e. drivers no longer having to stop at the toll booth to hand over money physically) may mean that, even with an increased charge, drivers' behaviour and route choice is affected less. Bridge authorities will need to balance effective means of payment and customer service with transport objectives.
DIRECTS
A research project, known as DIRECTS ( Demonstration of Interoperable, Road user, End to end Charging and Telematics Systems) is currently being run in Leeds. DIRECTS is looking at an electronic method for charging vehicles using busy roads. Temporary equipment has been set up on a small network of roads in Leeds, and volunteers have small electronic charging units in their vehicles to test the system.
DIRECTS was set up to find out how various designs would work in real conditions and to provide guidance on which are best. It will make sure that equipment from different suppliers is compatible so that drivers only need one unit in their vehicles to pay local charges in different parts of the country. DIRECTS will also check that all parts of the system - from the electronic unit in the vehicle to the billing and administration centre - can work together.
To foster interoperability between electronic road user charging systems in the UK (and potentially those outside) the Department for Transport has produced OMISS ( Open Minimum Interoperability Specification Suite) and this contains DfT's view of the current best practice for interoperable road user charging systems using 5.8 GHz microwave technology. However, it does not provide a complete set of road user charging system or interoperability requirements. Representatives from FETA and the TRBJB have been involved in the DIRECTS project, to ensure that any relevant benefits for the Forth and Tay tolling operations can be taken on board.
Summary
Both FETA and TRBJB are moving towards the introduction of modern electronic tolling systems which offer a choice of payment methods to drivers and offer scope for better traffic management and improved flows at the toll booths, as well as reducing the costs and resources involved in handling cash transactions. The systems being introduced or investigated are compliant with EU requirements on interoperability of electronic toll systems, and will allow recognition of On Board Units ( OBUs) from other charging schemes. At Erskine Bridge, tolling systems are currently manual only, but will have to be updated in the near future if tolling remains on the bridge.
4.5.2 Standardising vehicle classifications
At present, different vehicle classifications are used on each of the three tolled bridges in Scotland. On the Erskine Bridge all chargeable vehicles pay the same rate. On the Forth Road Bridge there are a number of classifications of vehicles and these are broadly in line with those on the Tay Road Bridge.
Classification of vehicles is necessary if different levels of tolls are to be applied to different classes of vehicles. Generally speaking, cars and light vehicles tend to be one classification; buses another and heavy vehicles another. There may also be separate classes for any of these vehicles towing trailers. There are a number of ways that classifications can be identified, such as by weight, height, length and number of axles. Within the UK, there are quite wide variations in classification on tolled structures.
As bridge authorities move to introduce new electronic tolling systems, the technological challenge is to identify classes of vehicles automatically, so as to speed their progress through the toll plazas. In addition, operators are looking at how systems could automatically identify how many occupants a vehicle is carrying.
The majority of respondents to the consultation were strongly in favour of a common system of classification. They also expressed the view that classification should be common not only across Scotland, but across the UK and indeed across Europe. A common system of classification (at any level) could improve analysis and comparison of traffic data. Work is being undertaken at a European level to improve interoperability of tolling systems; this includes a move towards common classification.
In May 2004, the European Directive on the Interoperability of Electronic Road Toll Systems in the Community 32came into effect. The Directive lays down the conditions necessary to ensure the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the European Community and this could include tolling systems on bridges. It does not apply where tolling systems have no electronic collection means; where such systems do not require the fitment of on board units ( OBUs); and it does not apply to small, strictly local systems where the cost of compliance with the Directive is disproportional to the benefits.
The Directive requires that where Member States have toll systems, they shall endeavour to ensure that 50% of all traffic flow at each toll station can use the electronic systems by 1 January 2007. It also sets up a European Electronic Toll Service ( EETS) which will allow travellers to access a single service through all operators.
The Directive also states that all new electronic systems introduced after 1 January 2007 shall use one or more of the following technologies: global positioning systems ( GPS); mobile communications ( GSM- GPRS); and/or 5.8 GHz microwave technology. It recommends that new systems brought into service after the adoption of the Directive should use the first two of those three technologies. This is because microwave technology usually requires costly roadside infrastructure to support its operation whereas both satellite positioning and mobile communications technologies do not require such infrastructure. However this is less of an issue where charges are applied for crossing a particular structure.
However, while a common classification seems desirable there are a number of significant problems associated with it. Firstly, respondents to the consultation saw the detection of classification criteria as potentially problematic when using electronic recognition equipment. The identification of some classifications would be easier to implement than others. Secondly, standardisation of these classifications would require amending the relevant legislation which sets out the classifications used on each bridge.
Another way to move towards standardisation would be to replace the existing tolling regimes with RUC schemes. As discussed at section 2.3 above, this provides a consistent approach to charging across Scotland, and there would be a common set of classifications of vehicles under the Road User Charging (Classes of Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Regulations 2003. However, this may not guarantee standardisation as these are classes from which an individual charging authority can choose. An authority may adopt some classes but need not adopt all.
The benefits of standardisation could be simplification and ease of management over the longer term. For users of the bridges, this could mean being treated the same at each bridge, and would aid understanding as there would only be one classification system for all, rather than different for each. However, this equality of treatment across the bridges need not extend to paying the same amount at each bridge to cross.
Summary
Standardisation of vehicles classifications can bring significant benefits to both bridge users and tolling operators. With the move towards electronic tolling, there is a real opportunity to drive operational costs down, by implementing technology to a common standard across all three bridges. While there are currently difficulties in agreeing a common set of classifications, and in designing systems which can automatically detect and distinguish between different vehicle types, these issues are being addressed on a UK and Europe-wide basis, e.g. through the introduction of the European Directive on the Interoperability of Electronic Road Toll Systems in the Community.
« Previous | Contents | Next »