TollFreeze Statement to the Inquiry

Here is what we said at the inquiry:

Evidence from Colin Cooper of TollFreeze.com

I represent a group of local residents concerned about the Whitchurch Toll Bridge, called Tollfreeze.com.  We formed a few years ago and have been calling for a full public inquiry into the management of the bridge.   Tolls doubled in the 1990s, again in 2005, and now, just five years later, to double yet again.   This exponential growth in tolls, in itself, points to something seriously wrong.  This scramble to build funds to pay for bridge reconstruction, which has been known about for several decades, is a strong indicator of bad planning.   The Whitchurch Bridge Company, that was entrusted to save our tolls to pay for it, has failed in its primary reason for its existence.

As a result of this situation Tollfreeze has received strong support.   The majority of the 270 formal objectors are a direct result of our campaigning before Christmas, when news of the latest application came out.   We have been supported by local parish councillors, our local district councillor, our current and prospective county councillor, and our local MPs – one for each side of the river.  They have asked me to read in their statement ……

And now back to Tollfreeze’s statement.  We have tried talking directly to the Whitchurch Bridge Company – but they just talk down at us or refuse requests for information.   They claim local support in their statements, but let me tell you frankly, they do not have it.  And it isn’t just the tolls going up; it is their condescending statements and obsessive secrecy.   But, in the last two weeks we have been deluged with information for this inquiry.  We’ve had to work pretty hard to link it to what we know and come up with our case.  For the record, I’d like to say that notice periods for this inquiry have been completely inadequate.

But despite that deluge of information – there are many glaring omissions.  The Whitchurch Toll Bridge Company application and statements are incomplete and misleading.  I’d like to summarise the most important of these:

• The bridge company try to blame inflation for the increase in the reconstruction estimates.  In fact, their estimate of construction cost inflation from 2005 to 2008 (6% per annum) was correct (see chart 2).  What have increased the cost are the revisions of the specification: in 2005 and 2008.  These alone have trebled the cost estimates.
• We have heard that these detailed specifications could have been done earlier.  If they had, the Bridge Company would have had more time to build the funds needed.  The tolls required would have been lower.  Additionally, they could have been done before the 2004 application, so that the new plan could have been properly examined.
• This delay in specifying the reconstruction in detail is a fatal omission.  It has lead directly to the current mess.   The WBC is clearly culpable.  We believe that OCC is too.  They have been the consulting engineers for the last 15 years, and have a lot of experience in bridge building that the WBC don’t have.   Remember, there has been 107 years to plan.  It is inexcusable it is all being done in the last few years.
• We have also heard that the specification is still not complete, and that the cost may rise again.   In addition the new design must go through planning.  This is a grade 2 listed structure in a conservation area in an area of outstanding natural beauty.  There will be considerable interest from conservation groups.  The project is likely to increase in cost.
• Moving to the raising of funds ….  The 2004 application proposed a 20p cash toll and a fixed 9p discounted toll.  The toll application actually says that the WBC would go back to ask the Minister for Transport to increase that discounted toll.  That was also in the official notice asking for objections.  That commitment was broken.
• The 2005 jump in the reconstruction estimate, from £0.972m to £2.356m came just 3 months after the toll application was approved.  That made nonsense of the application.  It was junk almost as soon as the signature of the Secretary of State was dry.  WBC was forced to make a new plan.  This they communicated to the local parish councils as “the plan” – the one in the application.  We asked to see the application itself, but were refused.
• This 2005 plan is inexplicably missing from the current toll application.  We have entered it into the record for them (extract as chart 1).
• This plan created the sliding scale of increasing discount tolls that we see today.  The WBC said they would increase the average toll be 0.5p per year.  In fact it has gone up 6p over five years – more than double what they said.
• In addition the proportion paying the full cash toll has been only 35% - not the 50% predicted.  Both of these have led to a higher toll income than that planned in 2005.
• The WBC have pointed out that the number of crossing has gone down slightly since 2004.  2004 was a peak in crossings.  Local road works and other factors are the likely cause.  However, that decrease is a far smaller effect than the faster rising discounted toll and more people paying cash.  The WBC only mentions the reduction in crossings.
• This small drop in crossings is only over the last couple of years and follows an unusual peak in 2004 (see chart 3).  To construct a trend in traffic flows taking just 3-4 years data, and project it over 10-20 years is false statistics, particularly as we have the last 15 years available.  Looking at the whole picture the trend is flat.  Even from experience, how many other road projects in the country predict falling traffic flows?  It is false for the WBC to do so.
• The local community don’t just ask for a discounted toll, as mentioned in the WBC statements, they ask for a guaranteed discount level, with good reason.  The WBC has frequently used threats of withdrawing the discount to persuade people not to object to their plans.  Locals would also like the people that live close to the bridge, and have no choice but to use it regularly, to have a bigger discount.  They had this until it was withdrawn unilaterally in 2005.  Tolls have always gone up more than the WBC has said they would. The 1988 WB Act gives a specific obligation not to burden regular users.  We believe local regular users, with no choice but to use the bridge, are a special category not adequately considered.
• The bridge is almost unique in the country.  It isn’t a toll bridge across an estuary, it isn’t a strategic new motorway, but it is a small bridge over a river that divides two villages, Whitchurch and Pangbourne.  A school on one side. The station, GP surgery, shops and banks on the other.  It is like placing a toll gate in the middle of a high street in any other town.   It has only been acceptable and survived because the tolls have been low.  To push them up to the levels of more strategic toll bridges in the country is unacceptable to the local community.
• The new tolls will mean that we pay one set of road tax for the rest of the country, and then the same again to cross a 50m bridge.  There is real danger that it will rise even more than that.  Also some people pay far more - with kids in school, a commuting parent, shopping and other crossings of the bridge – often several times a day.  That can work out at more than £600 per year, for some, which is starting to be equivalent to their council tax, not just the road tax.  This is a real burden.
• The WBC has helpfully given us a summary of the law that applies to them.  They repeat the mantra – “no more or no less than required”.  They missed out the other half of clause 6(3) of the 1954 Transport Act – that says that if the minister thinks it fair and just he/she can order less than that.  They don’t mention the 1998 Bridge Act clause that says that the minister is required not to burden regular users when considering the tolls.  The also missed out the clause in the original Bridge Act that requires shareholders to pay more money if there is a shortfall in funds to maintain the bridge.
• The WBC seems to us to consider their dividend payment automatic.  They even link it directly to the size of the total cash employed (including money taken from toll payers for maintenance of the bridge).   No question of do they deserve that money.   Automatic payment.
• Even though a false argument, as stated above, they claim that they only get a 2.3% return on investment.  This ignores the increase in value of their shares.  A properly calculated return is 12.4% in 2008. In 2015, after the reconstruction, and using the WBC’s own estimates, this will rise to 57.6%.  But the real question is do they deserve any?
• They mention, but don’t highlight, clause 4 of the 1998 Whitchurch Bridge Act that says that they are only entitled to a dividend if there is “any balance remaining”.  With a £2m deficit there is no “balance remaining”.

So we are left with a mess.  As an analogy, the bridge is a critically ill patient.  It is haemorrhaging and will die soon.  The WBC faces a £2m dept it cannot pay.

What can we do?  A bigger blood transfusion – more tolls.  That would keep the patient alive, but it would be just a temporary fix.  There is a real danger that this situation will get worse.  The reconstruction is not yet fully specified and it has yet to go through planning.

What is needed is radical surgery, the quicker the better. 

Who is gaining from this mess?

·         WBC – the worse it gets the more money they make.  Uniquely, unlike any other company, the higher their costs the more dividend they take.  We don’t believe that is a correct interpretation of law, but is what the WBC is doing.

·         OCC – rather than fulfilling their legal and democratic responsibility, they make money from inadequate and untimely advice.  Also they wash their hands and say “not our problem”.   Legislation exists now, that they could use to take over the bridge operation.   Most similar toll bridges and turnpikes went in precisely the same way in the 1880s, and for precisely the same reason: failure to save sufficient funds for maintenance.  County councils were created to solve this problem.  This is one bridge they missed.

Who suffers from this mess? 

Local residents do.  Paying 20p (the discounted toll by 2013) and making just one crossing each way will cost £146, doubling their road tax.  However some people cross several times a day.  With kids in pre-school and primary school can lead to three crossings each way, costing them £438 per year.  If those tolls do go up to 30p (and the company refuse to say they won’t, which on past form means they will) that will cost that family £657 per year.  These are not small sums.  This is a real burden.  Like many rural areas there may be some rich people here, but there are also a lot of poorer people, or those on a fixed pension.  They are the victims.

To add to that burden, the bridge company has recently removed important concessions.  Free crossings for disabled people and health workers from the GP surgery next to the bridge, have all been stopped.   We believe, however, that Bridge Company directors still get free crossings.

Tollfreeze campaigned for a “full public inquiry”.  Did we get it?  We asked for terms of reference, but none were available. Here our proposals, in order of preference, depending on what recommendations you, sir, are empowered to make:

1. That OCC step in to fully or partially fund the reconstruction, with a view to removal of the tolls altogether as soon as possible, but not necessarily immediately.
2. If the inspector feels he has no power to recommend the above, then at least to request a further inquiry or investigation that could.
3. If the inspector feels he has no power to recommend either of the above, then:
   1. Whitchurch Bridge Company is not entitled to draw a dividend until there are funds available (as stated in the 1988 Act).
   2. Tolls of 30p cash, 20p by discount card, and 10p for local residents (the parishes near to the bridge).  These discount levels to be fixed in the order.
   3. The WBC to publish annual accounts and make all construction cost estimates and toll applications public.

Thank you.