My name is David Holmes and I have the Ferryboat in Whitchurch and soon will take over the Greyhound as well. Can I help in any way? as this rise is just gouing too far and will harm my bussines.
Let me know as we can reach many people through the pubs.
David Holmes
Phil LewisNovember 27th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@David,
Ahh, I wondered who was going to take over the Greyhound. I was only just thinking of calling round today… We’ll be in contact v.soon.
Rod ColeDecember 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Hi
Well done Phill, I’ve written to the Secretary of State for Transport and Bridge Co.
We did go down this road a few years ago but didnt get much in the way of concessions.
May need to be a bit more radical this time
David LindsayDecember 1st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
This proposed increase will greatly strengthen the case for the total abolition of all remaining tolls exacted by private bridge owners. Those who have paid for UK driving and vehicle licences
should be entitled to free use of any part of the whole public road system. Where any part still happens to remain in private ownership, it is, surely, up to the Government (or County Council) either to buy-out, or take a lease of, that part - meeting the cost, perhaps, out of their driving and vehicle licence fees. This would bring parity of cost (ie \\\\"fairness\\\\") between the great majority who rarely, or never, have to use any of these few remaining. Whitchurch Bridge users should join with Swinford Bridge users in demanding total scrapping of the toll.
Louise RashidDecember 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Well done, guys. I’ve just posted my letters of objection. Being a mum with one child going to school in Pangbourne and living in Whitchurch Hill, I can use the bridge a minimum of four times a day. I think the Bridge company are taking the mickey and taking advantage of a captive audience! When we moved here eleven years ago, the cost of a crossing was 2 p. I just wish my husband’s salary was increased at the same rate!
Keep up the good work!
Bob ButtonsDecember 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
You are to be commended for these efforts, a worthy cause to fight on a local level if ever there was one.
The Whitchurch Bridge toll, yet another example of rip off Britain in full force, the exploitation of the many -powerless to object- to line the pockets of the few, the corrupt.
Those of us who choose to live in this not unpleasant area of the country, over a barrel because we choose to work on the other side of a stretch of river, long overdue for an efficient crossing point suitable for modern traffic levels.
I fail to see why the responsibility falls to us to fund the replacement of a privately owned bridge that has reached the end of its serviceable life. One hundred years could be considered long enough to plan and budget for replacement in due course, but worry not ladies and gentlemen of \’the company\’ the shiftless British motorist can be relied upon to bail you out at the last minute.
My letters will be duly sent this week, but not a jot of difference will it make. Those who sit in the offices of the department of transport have their snouts stuffed firmly in the same trough as the vermin presiding over Whitchurch Bridge.
Clare BenthamDecember 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Has anyone else contacted their MP? I emailed John Howell (HOWELLJM@parliament.uk). I received the response copied below. He says he will “continue to pursue this”. I suppose he might pursue with more vigour if more of us lobby him.
I also intend to pursue it with him.
Clare
———————————————————————————————————————
Dear Clare
Thank you for your e mail.
I’m ahead of you with this one; I’ve already raised the issue with the County Council as the Highways Authority for Oxfordshire. Their response (below) is not good news for you but I hope that it at least goes some way to answering your questions. The difference with Shillingford Bridge appears to be that that bridge is already publicly owned whereas the Whitchurch toll bridge is not.
I will continue to pursue this.
What the council said was:
‘The question about removing the tolls on the remaining two toll bridges in Oxfordshire arises regularly. If the tolls were to be removed and the bridges taken into the public road system the County Council would need to compensate the owners and no funding is available through the Local Transport Plan. Alternatively, if removing the tolls is a national initiative from Government - as has happened in Scotland - then funding would presumably come from the Government.
Removing the toll and reducing delays at the Whitchurch Toll Bridge would increase the attractiveness of the route and inevitably lead to increased traffic flows through Woodcote, Whitchurch and Pangbourne. The risk is that this would become an informal Caversham bypass. Similarly at Swinford Toll Bridge the road is too narrow for two way traffic making signal control necessary if tolls are removed. In both cases the toll collection acts as a useful traffic control.
Whitchurch Bridge is 100yrs old and in poor condition and requires replacing if it is to safely continue to carry traffic. The level of tolls is set by Parliament under the Whitchurch Toll Bridge Act and it will be up to the Bridge Company to publicly justify any increase. The Whitchurch Bridge website indicates that the Bridge Company will retain the toll after the bridge is reconstructed.’
Regards
John
John Howell MP
Member of Parliament for Henley
House of Commons
London, SW1A 0AA
Tel. 020 7219 6676
Fax 020 7219 2606
Colin CooperDecember 4th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Oxfordshire CC have long used the excuse “we don’t have any money”. But think of how many bridges there are in Oxfordshire, how many miles of road they maintain. Here we are talking about just one bridge - and not a big one at that. We aren’t talking about a Humber Bridge or Channel Tunnel - just a few million quid thats all.
And while Oxfordshire CC don’t buy it think how much extra tax people near the bridge are paying extra tax in tolls. At least £100 per year for many and much more for some. A tiny increase on council tax for a few years would easily cover it. If the residents of Oxford, Wallingford, etc, etc have a bridge paid for by their regular taxes why not us. What have we done wrong not to deserve the same treatment.
With the Bridge Company collecting the bridge tax (for that is what it is), 90% of it gets “wasted” paying the bridge company to “look after it”. Only 10% goes on the bridge itself. Not even Oxfordshire CC is that inefficient.
Thomas WilsonDecember 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Is there some sort of electronic petition that we could raise on the governments website?
I know I have already signed one for soldiers wounded in Conflict, but am not sure how or if anyone can set up these things.
Phil LewisDecember 4th, 2008 at 11:42 am
@Thomas Wilson,
We can apply to have a petition put on-line. But we already have an officially sactioned method for objection (in writing to the DfT) and a petition may result in less people writing because they may think that signing the petition is good enough - which would be wrong of course. Maybe one could be started after the closing date of 26th December instead??
Phil LewisDecember 4th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I don’t buy the Oxfordshire County Council’s alleged view that
“The risk is that this would become an informal Caversham bypass. Similarly at Swinford Toll Bridge the road is too narrow for two way traffic making signal control necessary if tolls are removed. In both cases the toll collection acts as a useful traffic control.”
Yes, that is a small risk, although the risk could easily be reduced by traffic calming (I know, another hot topic) then traffic lights would not be necessary. How many major traffic jams do you get in Reading where there are speed humps? Most commuters will avoid those types of routes. Also, the natural congestion in Pangbourne High Street and west Reading will deter many rush hour commuters (it can already be worse than Caversham and the A4074).
David CarrDecember 5th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Why don’t the Toll company re-introduce the local discount and charge more for non-residents.
It woul be easy for the card system to reduce the cost to an RG8 postcode holder, as they have this information already.
Mind you, even Northern Rock would lend them the money to pay for the upgrade to the bridge with £130k profit per anum!
g brownDecember 7th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
two 100% increase in 3 years. im a plumber if i put my rates up that much i think i would be banckrupt, but thats me not dick turpin who owns the bridge. the reason im posting on here is can you all please count your passes because ive checked my last two and there is no way i get the full amount of crosses that i pay for on my card . its every 3 to 4 crosses my card goes 1 lower than it should, i hope im wrong but i think they already are up to the 40p they need
Robert WillowsDecember 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Excellent web site which I feel sure will help galvanise the widespread unhappiness with the Whitchurch Bridge company.
It’s Ok having a quaint bridge but there appears to be a conflict of interest between the Company and the local community. If the company cannot provide the capital to provide a safe and reliable crossing, except by taxing the current users, then it serves no useful function. If I’m paying for a new Bridge I should damn well own a bit of it ! And a share of the future income.
Better the Secretary of State refuse future toll increases so that the local Councils can take over the company at a cost that reflects the liability that, through their profligate dividend policy over many years, leaves the Bridge company without the capital to fund a replacement bridge.
My letter is in the post.
Graham CottinghamDecember 11th, 2008 at 11:39 am
We have written to John Howell and the Sec of State. We arranged to see John Howell, but have since established that Colin Cooper has already been there (well done) and that John Howell is meeting with Martin Salter to try to find a joint way forward. Angela Pattison (Johns pa) has agreed to keep me up to date with developments.
Having read the report from OCC, a significant part of the dramatic increase in the cost of replacement of the bridge is to accommodate the largest vehicles on the roads under EU rules. These vehicles can’t approach the bridge from the south because of a severe restriction of a low and narrow rail bridge, nor from the north because of an extremely narrow section of road in Whitchurch itself. Surely red tape gone mad.
The time must be due where the Highways agency, or South Oxfordshire and West Berks take ownership of the bridge and include access as part of the national highways infrastructure and thereafter abolish toll charges altogether.
We have no option but to cross the river at this point and do so on a daily basis, we are pensioners already struggling on a fixed income and object vigorously to this doubling of the existing toll which, in our view, is already exorbitant.
Quite apart from these increases I am at a loss to understand, in the current climate, how a 100% increase can by justified. We already pay road tax to both access and exit the bridge and feel that in the 21st century a bridge toll charge is totally unacceptable anyway.
The commercial approach to make the users of the bridge fund the redevelopment whilst still paying shareholders exorbitant divends is unusual to say the least, lets hope that we do get a public enquiry where all of these issues can be aired properly
Graham and Yvonne Cottingham
Fay Harby - GuinchoDecember 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
It was a great turn out this morning, well done to everyone that turned up and special thanks must go MP Martin Salter for lending support and for bringing the BBC and ITV with him and to Dave and Jesse for the coffees and a warm up afterwards! I’ve just watched the campaign on BBCs lunchtime news!
Please if you have taken a leaflet can you make sure you write to both the Secretary of State for Transport and The Company of Proprietors of Whitchurch Bridge by DEC 26th, there were lots of promises to write from drivers today but with Christmas coming letter writing is easily pushed to the back of your mind, DONT DELAY, POST TODAY! Last post Dec 20th!
Chris SumnerDecember 12th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Is this history repeating itself?
Go back a few years and Network Rail went broke because the government refused to keep pumping tax payers money into a failing company, chief amongst the protesting share holders was Geoff Weir (toll bridge secretary)
Here we are again and Whitchurch bridge an outdated, failing company that needs to be taken back into public ownership is attempting to get tax payers to prop it up.
Whitchurch Bridge is part of the road network and should be funded and maintained as such.
Scotland has recently abolished tolls on all its bridges it’s about time we did the same.
Colin CooperDecember 14th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Yes, there are strong parallels between Railtrack and the WBC:
a. ranking shareholder interest over the primary mission of the company
b. monopoly granted by the state
c. blaming running-away maintenance costs
d. a big drain of cash
e. Geoff Weir as spokesperson
Jennifer DentonJanuary 21st, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The introduction of the bridge cards must have generated a huge amount of income for the bridge owners. There was a £2.00 deposit plus money loaded on the cards, there was a notice up at the bridge saying that 500 cards had been lost. That’s 1,000 straight away, plus the unused amounts of money on the card. I put £10.00 on my card, which got lost when I changed cars.
Could it be that the owners are trying to squeeze as much out of their cash cow before the inevitable happens and it is taken from them. Plus with this increase in income over the past few years would they be in a better position to demand more compensation.
Where is this money going? They are telling us that all this is about collecting money to fix the bridge but they are not spending anything – can this be looked into?
David MadgwickFebruary 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
I just recently topped up my card with £5.00 and noticed that only 36 credits had been added. It would seem that the charges are already going up. Other people have noticed this too.
Helen WrightMarch 6th, 2009 at 8:54 am
The government this week agreed to GIVE the Scottish government half a BILLION pounds to build a toll-free Forth Bridge. The Scottish government gets MORE per head of population for transport, according to the rules of the Barnett Formula.
The Labour government also paid off the Skye Bridge debts, which were owed to a private company. All bridges and roads in Scotland are now toll free.
But HALF A BILLION POUNDS? During this recession? The Forth Bridge will cost over 4 billion pounds, and no tolls will be raised to pay for this or its upkeep. Where do you think those extra costs come from?
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling both signed the Scottish Claim of Right, pledging to always put Scotland’s interests first and foremost. All this and more is available on the internet, but don’t expect the media to mention it. You’re not supposed to know.
Why do you think the English pay the highest and most stealth taxes? Work it out for yourselves.
Rod ColeMay 6th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Hi Phill,
Do we have a master plan now that we have an appeal date?If you need any help let me know?
Phil LewisMay 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
@Rod Cole
Preparations are being discussed on the mailing list - best to sign up if you want to keep informed or involved. See the Mailing List link above to do so.
Bob ButtonsOctober 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
On the off chance anyone is still reading here…
It looks like its all over, I crossed earlier (my third crossing of four today) while they were putting the signs out.
Toll to be increased from 26th October 2009. Under 3.5 tonnes increase to 40p per crossing, over 3.5 tonnes increase to £3 a crossing!
Bridge cards remain at the current prince until 2010.
I’ll be off to cross further up the river I think, hope Goring + Streatley are looking forward to a massive increase in congestion at each end of the day. I dare say it won’t be a lot of fun.
Terry DriscollOctober 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am
I’m afraid that everyone who has been campaigning against the toll rise has been wasting their time. In this country nothing ever changes as the maintenance of the status quo is paramount and we’re all too polite to challenge it in any way other than with good old British fair play. Please note that the bridge company didn’t play fair with the concession for residents!
The correct legal process has been followed and despite the fact that everyone agrees that it results in an unfair decision nothing will be done about it. Producing leaflets that explain this will achieve nothing more than increase recycling in the village.
If we were French we would use civil disobedience and get results quickly. Here are two proposals:
1. We all drive onto the bridge and ‘break down’. If enough people all do it it will be impossible for anyone to take action against us. I’m also fairly sure that, as we will be on a private road, the police won’t be interested.
2. We write to the chairman of the twinning association and recruit some French farmers/ fishermen from La Bouille to assist us.
Your comments please.
Terry
Phil LewisOctober 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
@Terry Driscoll, Why just complain about us all wasting our time trying to make a difference (on behalf of the vast majority of local residents) and make proposals when *you* could actually get involved and act? It is even more common for the average person to do just that - complain and then not do anything about it!
Terry DriscollOctober 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Phil,
Read my message again please.
I didn’t complain about anyone wasting their time and I applaud all the hard work that has been done. What I said was that I am afraid that everyone who has been campaigning against the toll rise has been wasting their time. It isn’t a complaint about the people just an observation of our legal/political system. We all know the process has thrown up an unfair decision but the process won’t change through our legal system as the system is designed to ensure that the letter of the law is followed and not the spirit.
As for getting involved - I did advocate a course of action which I will be happy to follow but I haven’t been inundated with messages of support.
To clarify my position - I don’t believe that pursuing this through the British legal system will result in any change in the near future. I do believe that non violent direct action will raise the profile of the issue and will get quicker results.
We British tend to sit in our homes and write polite letters which can easily be ignored as they don’t portray the depth of feeling. When law abiding citizens take matters into their own hands people and politicians want to know why. We all remember the 80+ year old woman who was prepared to go to prison rather than pay the unfair poll tax.
I await the messages of support……
Phil LewisOctober 19th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
@Terry,
I now understand what you are saying. I would suggest joining the mailing list (see the link above) as that is where all the discussion and planning on action seems to be happening.
Dear Toll Protesters
Although we don’t live in Whitchurch these days we very strongly agree with your campaign. Direct action, at least in an attempt to bring about a change in the law looks to be the only way forward. How about this for a thought - quietly arrange a date - busy mid week - and encourage all local users to abandon their discount cards, and instead, every single user offer payment by banknote of either £20 or £50 denomination - how many minutes before the whole system keels over through lack of change - could they refuse to let people through if they can’t provide correct change ? If it is arranged quietly, even if they get wind of the action they won’t know what day, and it should have an effect. If it works once, do it again, and again…
Good Luck with defeating these ratbags - how can you live in community and cynically profit from something that is so detrimental to every one else around you?
Dave & Helen (son & daughter-in-law of Fred Maggs, Lockkeeper 1955-1983)
Hi,
My name is David Holmes and I have the Ferryboat in Whitchurch and soon will take over the Greyhound as well. Can I help in any way? as this rise is just gouing too far and will harm my bussines.
Let me know as we can reach many people through the pubs.
David Holmes
@David,
Ahh, I wondered who was going to take over the Greyhound. I was only just thinking of calling round today… We’ll be in contact v.soon.
Hi
Well done Phill, I’ve written to the Secretary of State for Transport and Bridge Co.
We did go down this road a few years ago but didnt get much in the way of concessions.
May need to be a bit more radical this time
This proposed increase will greatly strengthen the case for the total abolition of all remaining tolls exacted by private bridge owners. Those who have paid for UK driving and vehicle licences
should be entitled to free use of any part of the whole public road system. Where any part still happens to remain in private ownership, it is, surely, up to the Government (or County Council) either to buy-out, or take a lease of, that part - meeting the cost, perhaps, out of their driving and vehicle licence fees. This would bring parity of cost (ie \\\\"fairness\\\\") between the great majority who rarely, or never, have to use any of these few remaining. Whitchurch Bridge users should join with Swinford Bridge users in demanding total scrapping of the toll.
Well done, guys. I’ve just posted my letters of objection. Being a mum with one child going to school in Pangbourne and living in Whitchurch Hill, I can use the bridge a minimum of four times a day. I think the Bridge company are taking the mickey and taking advantage of a captive audience! When we moved here eleven years ago, the cost of a crossing was 2 p. I just wish my husband’s salary was increased at the same rate!
Keep up the good work!
You are to be commended for these efforts, a worthy cause to fight on a local level if ever there was one.
The Whitchurch Bridge toll, yet another example of rip off Britain in full force, the exploitation of the many -powerless to object- to line the pockets of the few, the corrupt.
Those of us who choose to live in this not unpleasant area of the country, over a barrel because we choose to work on the other side of a stretch of river, long overdue for an efficient crossing point suitable for modern traffic levels.
I fail to see why the responsibility falls to us to fund the replacement of a privately owned bridge that has reached the end of its serviceable life. One hundred years could be considered long enough to plan and budget for replacement in due course, but worry not ladies and gentlemen of \’the company\’ the shiftless British motorist can be relied upon to bail you out at the last minute.
My letters will be duly sent this week, but not a jot of difference will it make. Those who sit in the offices of the department of transport have their snouts stuffed firmly in the same trough as the vermin presiding over Whitchurch Bridge.
Has anyone else contacted their MP? I emailed John Howell (HOWELLJM@parliament.uk). I received the response copied below. He says he will “continue to pursue this”. I suppose he might pursue with more vigour if more of us lobby him.
I also intend to pursue it with him.
Clare
———————————————————————————————————————
Dear Clare
Thank you for your e mail.
I’m ahead of you with this one; I’ve already raised the issue with the County Council as the Highways Authority for Oxfordshire. Their response (below) is not good news for you but I hope that it at least goes some way to answering your questions. The difference with Shillingford Bridge appears to be that that bridge is already publicly owned whereas the Whitchurch toll bridge is not.
I will continue to pursue this.
What the council said was:
‘The question about removing the tolls on the remaining two toll bridges in Oxfordshire arises regularly. If the tolls were to be removed and the bridges taken into the public road system the County Council would need to compensate the owners and no funding is available through the Local Transport Plan. Alternatively, if removing the tolls is a national initiative from Government - as has happened in Scotland - then funding would presumably come from the Government.
Removing the toll and reducing delays at the Whitchurch Toll Bridge would increase the attractiveness of the route and inevitably lead to increased traffic flows through Woodcote, Whitchurch and Pangbourne. The risk is that this would become an informal Caversham bypass. Similarly at Swinford Toll Bridge the road is too narrow for two way traffic making signal control necessary if tolls are removed. In both cases the toll collection acts as a useful traffic control.
Whitchurch Bridge is 100yrs old and in poor condition and requires replacing if it is to safely continue to carry traffic. The level of tolls is set by Parliament under the Whitchurch Toll Bridge Act and it will be up to the Bridge Company to publicly justify any increase. The Whitchurch Bridge website indicates that the Bridge Company will retain the toll after the bridge is reconstructed.’
Regards
John
John Howell MP
Member of Parliament for Henley
House of Commons
London, SW1A 0AA
Tel. 020 7219 6676
Fax 020 7219 2606
Oxfordshire CC have long used the excuse “we don’t have any money”. But think of how many bridges there are in Oxfordshire, how many miles of road they maintain. Here we are talking about just one bridge - and not a big one at that. We aren’t talking about a Humber Bridge or Channel Tunnel - just a few million quid thats all.
And while Oxfordshire CC don’t buy it think how much extra tax people near the bridge are paying extra tax in tolls. At least £100 per year for many and much more for some. A tiny increase on council tax for a few years would easily cover it. If the residents of Oxford, Wallingford, etc, etc have a bridge paid for by their regular taxes why not us. What have we done wrong not to deserve the same treatment.
With the Bridge Company collecting the bridge tax (for that is what it is), 90% of it gets “wasted” paying the bridge company to “look after it”. Only 10% goes on the bridge itself. Not even Oxfordshire CC is that inefficient.
Is there some sort of electronic petition that we could raise on the governments website?
I know I have already signed one for soldiers wounded in Conflict, but am not sure how or if anyone can set up these things.
@Thomas Wilson,
We can apply to have a petition put on-line. But we already have an officially sactioned method for objection (in writing to the DfT) and a petition may result in less people writing because they may think that signing the petition is good enough - which would be wrong of course. Maybe one could be started after the closing date of 26th December instead??
I don’t buy the Oxfordshire County Council’s alleged view that
“The risk is that this would become an informal Caversham bypass. Similarly at Swinford Toll Bridge the road is too narrow for two way traffic making signal control necessary if tolls are removed. In both cases the toll collection acts as a useful traffic control.”
Yes, that is a small risk, although the risk could easily be reduced by traffic calming (I know, another hot topic) then traffic lights would not be necessary. How many major traffic jams do you get in Reading where there are speed humps? Most commuters will avoid those types of routes. Also, the natural congestion in Pangbourne High Street and west Reading will deter many rush hour commuters (it can already be worse than Caversham and the A4074).
Why don’t the Toll company re-introduce the local discount and charge more for non-residents.
It woul be easy for the card system to reduce the cost to an RG8 postcode holder, as they have this information already.
Mind you, even Northern Rock would lend them the money to pay for the upgrade to the bridge with £130k profit per anum!
two 100% increase in 3 years. im a plumber if i put my rates up that much i think i would be banckrupt, but thats me not dick turpin who owns the bridge. the reason im posting on here is can you all please count your passes because ive checked my last two and there is no way i get the full amount of crosses that i pay for on my card . its every 3 to 4 crosses my card goes 1 lower than it should, i hope im wrong but i think they already are up to the 40p they need
Excellent web site which I feel sure will help galvanise the widespread unhappiness with the Whitchurch Bridge company.
It’s Ok having a quaint bridge but there appears to be a conflict of interest between the Company and the local community. If the company cannot provide the capital to provide a safe and reliable crossing, except by taxing the current users, then it serves no useful function. If I’m paying for a new Bridge I should damn well own a bit of it ! And a share of the future income.
Better the Secretary of State refuse future toll increases so that the local Councils can take over the company at a cost that reflects the liability that, through their profligate dividend policy over many years, leaves the Bridge company without the capital to fund a replacement bridge.
My letter is in the post.
We have written to John Howell and the Sec of State. We arranged to see John Howell, but have since established that Colin Cooper has already been there (well done) and that John Howell is meeting with Martin Salter to try to find a joint way forward. Angela Pattison (Johns pa) has agreed to keep me up to date with developments.
Having read the report from OCC, a significant part of the dramatic increase in the cost of replacement of the bridge is to accommodate the largest vehicles on the roads under EU rules. These vehicles can’t approach the bridge from the south because of a severe restriction of a low and narrow rail bridge, nor from the north because of an extremely narrow section of road in Whitchurch itself. Surely red tape gone mad.
The time must be due where the Highways agency, or South Oxfordshire and West Berks take ownership of the bridge and include access as part of the national highways infrastructure and thereafter abolish toll charges altogether.
We have no option but to cross the river at this point and do so on a daily basis, we are pensioners already struggling on a fixed income and object vigorously to this doubling of the existing toll which, in our view, is already exorbitant.
Quite apart from these increases I am at a loss to understand, in the current climate, how a 100% increase can by justified. We already pay road tax to both access and exit the bridge and feel that in the 21st century a bridge toll charge is totally unacceptable anyway.
The commercial approach to make the users of the bridge fund the redevelopment whilst still paying shareholders exorbitant divends is unusual to say the least, lets hope that we do get a public enquiry where all of these issues can be aired properly
Graham and Yvonne Cottingham
It was a great turn out this morning, well done to everyone that turned up and special thanks must go MP Martin Salter for lending support and for bringing the BBC and ITV with him and to Dave and Jesse for the coffees and a warm up afterwards! I’ve just watched the campaign on BBCs lunchtime news!
Please if you have taken a leaflet can you make sure you write to both the Secretary of State for Transport and The Company of Proprietors of Whitchurch Bridge by DEC 26th, there were lots of promises to write from drivers today but with Christmas coming letter writing is easily pushed to the back of your mind, DONT DELAY, POST TODAY! Last post Dec 20th!
Is this history repeating itself?
Go back a few years and Network Rail went broke because the government refused to keep pumping tax payers money into a failing company, chief amongst the protesting share holders was Geoff Weir (toll bridge secretary)
Here we are again and Whitchurch bridge an outdated, failing company that needs to be taken back into public ownership is attempting to get tax payers to prop it up.
Whitchurch Bridge is part of the road network and should be funded and maintained as such.
Scotland has recently abolished tolls on all its bridges it’s about time we did the same.
Yes, there are strong parallels between Railtrack and the WBC:
a. ranking shareholder interest over the primary mission of the company
b. monopoly granted by the state
c. blaming running-away maintenance costs
d. a big drain of cash
e. Geoff Weir as spokesperson
The introduction of the bridge cards must have generated a huge amount of income for the bridge owners. There was a £2.00 deposit plus money loaded on the cards, there was a notice up at the bridge saying that 500 cards had been lost. That’s 1,000 straight away, plus the unused amounts of money on the card. I put £10.00 on my card, which got lost when I changed cars.
Could it be that the owners are trying to squeeze as much out of their cash cow before the inevitable happens and it is taken from them. Plus with this increase in income over the past few years would they be in a better position to demand more compensation.
Where is this money going? They are telling us that all this is about collecting money to fix the bridge but they are not spending anything – can this be looked into?
I just recently topped up my card with £5.00 and noticed that only 36 credits had been added. It would seem that the charges are already going up. Other people have noticed this too.
The government this week agreed to GIVE the Scottish government half a BILLION pounds to build a toll-free Forth Bridge. The Scottish government gets MORE per head of population for transport, according to the rules of the Barnett Formula.
The Labour government also paid off the Skye Bridge debts, which were owed to a private company. All bridges and roads in Scotland are now toll free.
But HALF A BILLION POUNDS? During this recession? The Forth Bridge will cost over 4 billion pounds, and no tolls will be raised to pay for this or its upkeep. Where do you think those extra costs come from?
Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling both signed the Scottish Claim of Right, pledging to always put Scotland’s interests first and foremost. All this and more is available on the internet, but don’t expect the media to mention it. You’re not supposed to know.
Why do you think the English pay the highest and most stealth taxes? Work it out for yourselves.
Hi Phill,
Do we have a master plan now that we have an appeal date?If you need any help let me know?
@Rod Cole
Preparations are being discussed on the mailing list - best to sign up if you want to keep informed or involved. See the Mailing List link above to do so.
On the off chance anyone is still reading here…
It looks like its all over, I crossed earlier (my third crossing of four today) while they were putting the signs out.
Toll to be increased from 26th October 2009. Under 3.5 tonnes increase to 40p per crossing, over 3.5 tonnes increase to £3 a crossing!
Bridge cards remain at the current prince until 2010.
I’ll be off to cross further up the river I think, hope Goring + Streatley are looking forward to a massive increase in congestion at each end of the day. I dare say it won’t be a lot of fun.
I’m afraid that everyone who has been campaigning against the toll rise has been wasting their time. In this country nothing ever changes as the maintenance of the status quo is paramount and we’re all too polite to challenge it in any way other than with good old British fair play. Please note that the bridge company didn’t play fair with the concession for residents!
The correct legal process has been followed and despite the fact that everyone agrees that it results in an unfair decision nothing will be done about it. Producing leaflets that explain this will achieve nothing more than increase recycling in the village.
If we were French we would use civil disobedience and get results quickly. Here are two proposals:
1. We all drive onto the bridge and ‘break down’. If enough people all do it it will be impossible for anyone to take action against us. I’m also fairly sure that, as we will be on a private road, the police won’t be interested.
2. We write to the chairman of the twinning association and recruit some French farmers/ fishermen from La Bouille to assist us.
Your comments please.
Terry
@Terry Driscoll, Why just complain about us all wasting our time trying to make a difference (on behalf of the vast majority of local residents) and make proposals when *you* could actually get involved and act? It is even more common for the average person to do just that - complain and then not do anything about it!
Phil,
Read my message again please.
I didn’t complain about anyone wasting their time and I applaud all the hard work that has been done. What I said was that I am afraid that everyone who has been campaigning against the toll rise has been wasting their time. It isn’t a complaint about the people just an observation of our legal/political system. We all know the process has thrown up an unfair decision but the process won’t change through our legal system as the system is designed to ensure that the letter of the law is followed and not the spirit.
As for getting involved - I did advocate a course of action which I will be happy to follow but I haven’t been inundated with messages of support.
To clarify my position - I don’t believe that pursuing this through the British legal system will result in any change in the near future. I do believe that non violent direct action will raise the profile of the issue and will get quicker results.
We British tend to sit in our homes and write polite letters which can easily be ignored as they don’t portray the depth of feeling. When law abiding citizens take matters into their own hands people and politicians want to know why. We all remember the 80+ year old woman who was prepared to go to prison rather than pay the unfair poll tax.
I await the messages of support……
@Terry,
I now understand what you are saying. I would suggest joining the mailing list (see the link above) as that is where all the discussion and planning on action seems to be happening.
Dear Toll Protesters
Although we don’t live in Whitchurch these days we very strongly agree with your campaign. Direct action, at least in an attempt to bring about a change in the law looks to be the only way forward. How about this for a thought - quietly arrange a date - busy mid week - and encourage all local users to abandon their discount cards, and instead, every single user offer payment by banknote of either £20 or £50 denomination - how many minutes before the whole system keels over through lack of change - could they refuse to let people through if they can’t provide correct change ? If it is arranged quietly, even if they get wind of the action they won’t know what day, and it should have an effect. If it works once, do it again, and again…
Good Luck with defeating these ratbags - how can you live in community and cynically profit from something that is so detrimental to every one else around you?
Dave & Helen (son & daughter-in-law of Fred Maggs, Lockkeeper 1955-1983)