Oxfordshire County Council
As you may be aware, the Bridges Section of Oxfordshire County Council acts as paid adviser to the Whitchurch Bridge Company on engineering matters. In this capacity, they recently wrote to the company setting out the engineering reasons for the proposed reconstruction together with the expected project cost. Those letters are incorporated in the Bridge Company’s application to the Secretary of State for the toll increase. The company has also submitted its own traffic and financial data in support of its application.
Having assessed the need for and the cost of bridge reconstruction, the County Council recognises the need for the company to ensure that sufficient funds are available for this purpose. The Secretary of State is responsible for assessing the financial case for the proposed toll increase and it would not be appropriate for the County Council to try to duplicate this statutory role.
We do recognise that there is considerable local concern about the proposed toll increase. However, the company does appear to be taking some account of this local concern by proposing a much smaller increase (from 12.5 to approximately 14 pence) in the discounted toll for regular users (at least in 2009) than the proposed doubling of the equivalent cash toll from 20 pence to 40 pence.
I therefore propose to write to the Secretary of State and to the company in relation to the application making the following points:
- That the County Council supports and has estimated the costs of the proposed bridge reconstruction;
- That the company be asked to maintain a discount of at least 50% for regular users, to reduce the impact on local people;
- That the level of the toll should be temporary, to be reviewed when the bridge reconstruction has been completed and paid for.
I hope this is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Ian Hudspeth
Cabinet Member for Transport
Notes on this statement:
1. “the Bridges Section of Oxfordshire County Council acts as paid adviser to the Whitchurch Bridge Company” - yes they took almost £110,000 in fees last year. That was getting on for half the total tolls taken in the year.
2. “it would not be appropriate for the County Council to try to duplicate this statutory role” - they made comments on it in 1993. What has changed this time?
3. “the company does appear to be taking some account of this local concern by proposing a much smaller increase (from 12.5 to approximately 14 pence) in the discounted toll”. But only in 2009. The application states that it will rise to 20p by 2012 (just 3 years later). This line is just taken straight from the bridge company.
4. “That the company be asked to maintain a discount of at least 50% for regular users” - but 50% of what? The Bridge Company propose a 40p cash toll and 20p discounted toll. By my adding up that is 50%. So how does this help?
5. “That the level of the toll should be temporary”. At last some sense. But that won’t happen until 2014 at the earliest. Far better to use loans to bridge (sorry not a pun) the peak. That’s what all other similar projects do. Or do we make do with a faint promise of jam tomorrow?
@Colin,
On point (5) - I guess that would mean *much* later than 2014 assuming that the proposed 20% loan takes longer than one year to pay off.
Yes, Phil. If the loan was over 20 years then “and fully paid” would be in 25 years time. To “temporarily” raise the toll to 40p for 25 years.
Are they by this saying that they agree to 80% front-loaded funding of this bridge infrastructure where clearly the Bridge Company failed to put aside enough money for the rebuilding fund in the past few (100) years?
By deferring to the DfT they are saying that they don’t want to voice their opinion on the Bridge Company’s blatantly weak and self-serving financial case for the proposed toll increase.
My comment on the above is that the sooner we confirm that our case is to accelerate the demise of any toll on this bridge the better. Any toll on this, or on any other toll bridge that is an integral element of the British road system, is patently unfair to vehicle users who have already paid their fees and taxes for use of the system, and should be promptly abolished. I have made that point in my letter tothe DfT.
I believe that a small toll is beneficial to the people living nearest the bridge on both banks of the Thames.
1. It is likely that even a small toll deters some potential users who have a chice of bridges. e.g. people in Woodcote or Upper Basildon. If the toll was not there, then the high streets of Whitchurch and Pangbourne would be even more clogged than they currently are during the commuting rush.
2. The fact that there is a barier probably deters some wrongdoers. I do not have precise figures, but I believe that burglaries in Pangbourne are as much as a four times the rate in Whitchurch. It is in easy strike for the baddies of West Reading. Crossing the bridge would be an extra hazard, increasing the chances of being spotted and detected.
However if the proposal to approve a bridge which can carry up to 40 tons is approved, the high streets of Pangbourne and Whitchurch are entirely inappropriate for that weight of vehicle, quite apart from the height restriction beneath the railway bridge in Pangbourne. It would seem to be a safety factor too far.
The suggestion of prolonging the life of the existing bridge and restricting it to three tons seems to me to be in the interests of everyone with the possible exceptions of the shareholders in the bridge company.
I quote from para 9.6 of the Report of the Public Local Inquiry of January 1993 into the then proposals to increase the tolls:-
“The possibility of the responsibility for the bridge being taken over by the local authority was urged by many objectors who felt they were being unfairly treated by having to pay for highway upkeep and improvement through taxation, like all other citizens, and then to pay again to use the bridge. I note that Oxfordshire County Council has had discussions with the Company about the possible transfer of responsibility but that the matter is in abeyance pending the outcome of this inquiry.”
As one of those “objectors”, I cannot recall being informed of the final result of those discussions and the reason for that result