THE MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT (MERSEY GATEWAY BRIDGE) NATIONAL ALLIANCE AGAINST TOLLS Mr Dave Loudon (NAAT/2/1P) REBUTTAL BY Steve Nicholson

Transcription

1 HBC/2/6R THE MERSEY GATEWAY PROJECT (MERSEY GATEWAY BRIDGE) NATIONAL ALLIANCE AGAINST TOLLS Mr Dave Loudon (NAAT/2/1P) REBUTTAL BY Steve Nicholson

2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction Economic Benefits Plans to Charge Toll increases Alternative Route "Plans for tolls and almost closing the existing bridge will be a disaster"... 3 HBC/02/XX

3 1. Introduction 1.1 This rebuttal addresses the following issues raised in the Proof of Evidence of Mr Loudon (NAAT/2/1P): (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) If the new crossing is tolled it won t be good for drivers or the economy; The plan to charge on the bridge is against what was said in the past; Tolls will keep going up; An alternative route should be adopted from the Knowsley Expressway to the M56; and Plans for tolls and almost closing the existing bridge will be a disaster. 2. Economic Benefits 2.1 The evidence of Graham Russell (HBC/9/1P) and Alan Pauling (HBC/8/1P) demonstrates that the Mersey Gateway project will result in both transport economic and wider economic benefits. 3. Plans to Charge 3.1 A possible new crossing of the Mersey in or near Halton has been investigated for around 15 years. The initial investigations by the government looked at potential routes for a trunk road scheme and even at this early stage delivery through tolling was an option under consideration. Further information on these early studies are reported in the Environmental Statement Chapter 5, Alternatives, and in my evidence (HBC/2/1P, paragraph 3.2.2). In 1994 the investigation of potential solutions to the congested Silver Jubilee Bridge was passed to Halton Council, supported by the Mersey Crossing Group. Since then, both tolling and non tolling schemes have been developed and assessed. The terms of the funding agreement with government, established when the Project received programme entry approval in March 2006, was clearly on the basis of it being financed with a substantial contribution from tolling both HBC/02/XX 1

4 bridges. The proposed funding terms were accepted by the Council and these tolling arrangements were included in the extensive consultations undertaken during 2007 prior to submitting the proposals before this Inquiry. There is no basis to claim that the public have been misled over the tolling proposals. 4. Toll increases 4.1 The tolling/charging Orders allows for the bounds within which tolls can be set to be increased annually in line with inflation plus 1% (ie PRIX +1%). Such an arrangement is common for regulating public transport services and is in line with observed actual average wage inflation, which tends to run above price inflation. Importantly, the tolls themselves need not rise at such a rate and the Borough Council expects the approach and changes in toll rates to be managed through the Concession Agreement. 5. Alternative Route 5.1 The western route suggested by Mr Loudon in his evidence was assessed by the Department for Transport in their earlier studies into a possible strategic crossing of the Mersey (Environmental Statement, Chapter 5, section 5.3) and was ruled out on cost and environmental grounds, as it would have to be built through the protected sites in the Mersey Estuary (see Figure 1, Page 11, in Paul Oldfield s evidence, HBC/14/1P, on Avian Ecology for locations of the designated sites). Proposing a New Crossing on this route now, I am advised, would have an adverse effect on the designated SPA in the middle estuary. It is not possible for a consenting authority (such as the Secretary of State) to approve a plan or project that passes through such a protected site if it will have an adverse effect upon the integrity of that site and an alternative to the plan or project is available. Here, the proposed route of the Mersey Gateway is such an alternative. HBC/02/XX 2

5 6. "Plan for Tolls and almost closing the existing bridge will be a disaster" 6.1 The New Bridge, along with the proposed tolling of both bridges, would result in around 80% of traffic transferring from Silver Jubilee Bridge to the New Bridge. The resulting, lower traffic flows on Silver Jubilee Bridge could be accommodated by reinstating the carriageway to the original single two lane configuration (the carriageway was widened to the current four sub-standard lanes in ). Such a reduction in road width available for all-purpose traffic would allow the proposed cycling and walking facilities to be provided, along with bus priority measures on the connecting roads. The proposed modifications to the Silver Jubilee Bridge are only possible with the construction of the New Bridge, combined with the tolling proposals for both bridges, and such modification will ensure that the Project is successful in achieving its objectives to improve public transport and to encourage cycling and walking. The MG Sustainable Transport Strategy builds on the opportunity presented by the proposed modifications to Silver Jubilee Bridge, enhancing the travel choices available in Halton, particularly for cross river journeys. 7. Conclusions 7.1 Although much of Mr. Loudon s comments are directed against tolling in principle, I trust that the above provides a response to the specific concerns and claims that are related directly to the proposals before this Inquiry. HBC/02/XX 3