Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority

9 February 2006

Budget Meeting - (TOLLS ITEMS ONLY)

Present: Councillor M Dowd, Chair

Councillor J Spriggs, Vice Chair

Councillors R Abbey, P Allen, R Crummie, A Dean, J A Dodd, T Hargreaves, R Johnston, D Knowles, A Makinson, P Millea, D Mitchell, K McGlashan, L McGuire, J McKelvie, R E Roberts, J Spriggs, D Sumner and Mr D Callan.

________

An apology for absence was submitted by Ms C Roberts.

________

76. Exclusion of the Press and Public

Resolved that under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 7 and 8 of part 1 of Scheduled 12A of the Act.

 

77. Mersey Tunnels Tolls

(CX/15/06)

The Authority considered a report of the Chief Executive together with a verbal report on proposals submitted by the Mersey Tunnels Users Association (MTUA).

Although the Authority was not under a statutory duty to consult with the MTUA about the proposals for the revision of Mersey Tunnels Tolls for the future. In particular, no such duty is prescribed in the County of Merseyside Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act") as amended, which sets out the statutory mechanism and process for the annual review and calculation of the relevant tolls.

The Chief Executive brought the MTUA proposals to the attention of the Authority as follows:-

(a) Proposal 1 - No Tunnel Toll Rises.

(b) Proposal 2 - No Tunnel Toll Rises on Sundays and Public Holidays.

(c) Proposal 3 - No Tolls for buses.

(d) Proposal 4 - One Way Tolling.

Outlining the following points with regard to each proposal in turn.

Proposal 1

It was a matter for calculation under the Act and also at the ultimate discretion of the Authority depending upon local economic circumstances.

Proposal 2

It had been rejected as it simply gave money away, in this case approximately £3.75 million.

 

Proposal 3

It had been rejected as it simply gave money away and it would cost approx £400k. There was no mechanism for that concession to be returned to the bus users.

Proposal 4

The proposal for one way tolling was very simplistic and was not factually based.

(a) Postcode analysis of customer returns from the last Tunnel Users' survey undertaken by Simpson Carpenter showed that approx 23% of user journeys originate in areas that may be considered marginal inasmuch that the user had the option of using either the Runcorn Bridge or the Mersey Tunnels.

(b) It was not possible to predict with any accuracy what proportion of these users may decide to use the Runcorn Bridge if the Authority were to adopt one way tolling.

(c) There would also be a corresponding switch of traffic from the Runcorn Bridge to Mersey Tunnels in the non-paying direction.

(d) It would not be financially prudent to base the Mersey Tunnels budget on an uncertain prediction that may lead to a loss of toll revenues with the associated implications to both revenue and capital budgets.

(e) The MTUA had not considered what effect on city centre traffic congestion one way tolling may have. Increased demand for tunnel usage in the untolled direction would increase demand on city centre roads which are already heavily congested during peak travel times.

(f) Preliminary meetings had been held with Halton District Council to discuss tolling options for the proposed Halton Bridge. Should the bridge be constructed it was predicted that a toll would be charged for use. It was prudent for the Authority to liaise with the bridge operator to ensure tolls are collected in the most efficient manner. This would infer one way mutually beneficial tolling.

(g) In view of (f) it would be prudent both financially and operationally to wait and see if the bridge was constructed before considering one way tolling at the Mersey Tunnels.

 

The above had been agreed by the Authority and this proposal would not be considered again unless and until the Second Mersey Crossing had been built.

Concern was expressed that some of the proposals were very simplistic and not factually based, others had cost implications which could impact on the levy and place District Councils in conflict with the Government over funding.

During the discussion of the recommendations in report CX/15/06 Councillor J McKelvie gave notice that she would wish to move an amendment to the recommendation, which had been submitted to the Clerk, but required a seconder from the Members. No seconder came forward therefore in accordance with Standing Orders the Amendment was not considered.

Resolved that:-

(a) the contents of report CX/15/06 be noted;

(b) (i) the tolls payable by vehicles in class 1, 2 and 3 continue to be discounted from their authorised levels such that they are the same as the tolls charged in respect of those vehicles for the year 2005/06;

(ii) the tolls payable by vehicles in Class 4 be increased but not to the full permitted rate in order to maintain the ratio with the current level of actual tolls for other classes, with an appropriate discount for AVI/Fast Tag users; and

(iii) that accordingly, the toll levels, and their associated AVI (Fast Tag) levels be set for 2006/07 as follows:-

 

Cash

AVI

Class 1 and 2

£1.30

£1.15

Class 3

£3.90

£3.45

Class 4

£5.20

£4.60

(e) it be noted that the rise in tolls for class 4 users are not the maximum permitted for 2006/07 by the County of Merseyside Act 1980 (as amended), and that it is proposed that the Authority should continue to exercise its discounting power in section 92C of the Act in respect of all classes due to economic and social maters affecting the County of Merseyside; and

 

(d) it be noted that the continued exercise of the discounting power will have to be reviewed before the Authority makes is Mersey Tunnels (Revision of Tolls) Order in February 2007.

(Councillor J McKelvie recording dissent to proposals for class 4 users).

 

78. Mersey Tunnels (Revision of Tolls)

Order 2006

(CX/16/06)

The Authority considered a report of the Chief Executive regarding the Mersey Tunnels (Revision of Tolls) Order 2006.

Resolved that:-

(a) the content of report CX/16/06 be noted;

(b) having regard to report CX/16/06 and to the associated report CX/15/06, the Authority's Clerk be authorised to make the order set out in the annex to the report CX/16/06, incorporating any minor drafting and similar such changes as may be required and approved by the Chief Executive;

(c) having regard to section 92C (2) and (3) of the County of Merseyside Act 1980, as amended, to discount the tolls that are authorised by the application of section 91 (8) and (9) of that Act with regard to classes 1, 2 and 3 and vehicles in class 4 charged on the AVI basis, to the extent and for the reasons set out in the associated report CX/15/06 by exercising the power in section 92C (1) (c); and

(d) the clerk be authorised to publicise the level of tolls to take effect on 1 April 2006 in local newspapers, in accordance with the requirements of section 92B of the 1980 Act.

 

 

 

CHAIR

 

 

 

CTTE/MIN/MPTA-9Feb/CB/HS

21.02.06