Severn Bridge tolls cut "for first time"

[Gareth GriffithJones]

What has happened? The title of this thread is Severn Bridge tolls cut "for [the] first time" ... this has been hijacked!
Gareth Griffith-Jones

[Owain]

The sheer barmness of the new tolls across the Mersey is that the old bridge of 1956 that replaced the tolled transporter bridge is toll-free, but will have tolls imposed because the new bridge will have them.

So why any tolls at all on either bridges ? Indeed why toll any of the Mersey crossings ?

Because you cannot have an untolled bridge next to a tolled bridge? If you do, everybody will use the untolled bridge. (Look at the traffic volumes on the M6 compared, with the M6 Toll!).

The tolls on the original Severn Bridge increased dramatically when the Second Severn Crossing was under construction. This was to pay for the cost of the new bridge. People who continued to use the old bridge (e.g. residents of Chepstow and the Forest of Dean) had to pay the higher tolls, even if they never used the new bridge, because it would have been daft to have the old bridge tolled at a rate far less than the new one.

[fras]

Better for both to be untolled, surely ? And the two Mersey tunnels too.In Scotland they would not have tolls. So how come Scotland can do it and we can't ? There really is no logic in it.The two Thelwall viaducts on the M6 are also huge pieces of infrastucture yet are untolled. By tolling all the Mersey crossings, the authorities are seriously preventing normal economic development. Why not toll all the Thames bridges in London ? No, they get away with it because it is local to Merseyside. If the bridges were tolled in London there would be uproar and riots on the streets.

[A9NWIL]

Better for both to be untolled, surely ? And the two Mersey tunnels too.In Scotland they would not have tolls. So how come Scotland can do it and we can't ? There really is no logic in it.The two Thelwall viaducts on the M6 are also huge pieces of infrastucture yet are untolled. By tolling all the Mersey crossings, the authorities are seriously preventing normal economic development. Why not toll all the Thames bridges in London ? No, they get away with it because it is local to Merseyside. If the bridges were tolled in London there would be uproar and riots on the streets.

Tolls should be scrapped and VED used exclusively for roads. Then bring all roads under national Authorities e.g. HE in England. Yes general taxation may need to go up a little for more well off people and cracking down on tax evasion, but it would be worth it in the end.
I'm sure with all the extra money many roads could get an upgrade project where they otherwise wouldn't.

[rhyds]

Better for both to be untolled, surely ? And the two Mersey tunnels too.In Scotland they would not have tolls. So how come Scotland can do it and we can't ? There really is no logic in it.The two Thelwall viaducts on the M6 are also huge pieces of infrastucture yet are untolled. By tolling all the Mersey crossings, the authorities are seriously preventing normal economic development. Why not toll all the Thames bridges in London ? No, they get away with it because it is local to Merseyside. If the bridges were tolled in London there would be uproar and riots on the streets.

Scotland can do it because Scotland has chosen to spend its money on removing tolls rather than on another devolved matter. Its a case of prioritising spending.

[jackal]

The UK government has a stated policy of tolling new crossings of estuaries. London does not get special treatment - Grayling confirmed in April that the Lower Thames Crossing is likely to be tolled, and the Dartford Crossing is still tolled despite ending its PFI contract 15 years ago.

[RichardA35]

The UK government has a stated policy of tolling new crossings of estuaries. London does not get special treatment - Grayling confirmed in April that the Lower Thames Crossing is likely to be tolled, and the Dartford Crossing is still tolled despite ending its PFI contract 15 years ago.

IIRC and it may be ultra pendantic but isn't it a "Dartford road user charge" or similar construct rather than a bridge toll as there was a separate SI to bring it in. Same effect for the user though.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[jackal]

Indeed.

[Owain]

Better for both to be untolled, surely ? And the two Mersey tunnels too.In Scotland they would not have tolls. So how come Scotland can do it and we can't ? There really is no logic in it.The two Thelwall viaducts on the M6 are also huge pieces of infrastucture yet are untolled. By tolling all the Mersey crossings, the authorities are seriously preventing normal economic development. Why not toll all the Thames bridges in London ? No, they get away with it because it is local to Merseyside. If the bridges were tolled in London there would be uproar and riots on the streets.

Tolls should be scrapped and VED used exclusively for roads. Then bring all roads under national Authorities e.g. HE in England. Yes general taxation may need to go up a little for more well off people and cracking down on tax evasion, but it would be worth it in the end.
I'm sure with all the extra money many roads could get an upgrade project where they otherwise wouldn't.

I lived in the area when the Second Severn Crossing was being built, but growing up in St Briavels (Glos) meant that we were regular users of the old bridge and not the new one. I've driven over the old bridge hundreds of times, but have only ever been over the new one twice! [EDIT - actually, three times as a driver, and once as a passenger).

What happened was that the new bridge had to be funded. Whatever we might think of charging people to use a bridge (I'm not expressing an opinion on that one), the money had to come from somewhere. The decision was taken to use money from tolls to cover (at least part of) the cost.

Overnight in the 1990s, the original Severn Bridge tolls shot up. When my family first used it in 1982, it cost 20p each way. By the opening of the new bridge in 1996(?), the tolls were £4.50 one direction (escaping from Wales was free). Since then, they have gradually risen to be (the last time I used it) £6.90 in one direction.

The towers on the original bridge were also painted white at this point, AIUI because the French company that had taken the bridge and the collection of the tolls wanted to tidy it up. The original grey colour was looking pretty grotty by then, and it looked far nicer in white.

When I used to drive from Tutshill to London (early 2000s), I'd travel there on the M4 because there was no toll, and return via the M40-A40-A48 to avoid the toll. When I used to drive from Frome to visit my parents (now in Soudley), I would drive up the A46 to Gloucester to get there, and use the free side of the bridge to get back.

My understanding now is that the tolls are being cut prior to being abolished, because the new bridge has been paid for.

[A9NWIL]

I lived in the area when the Second Severn Crossing was being built, but growing up in St Briavels (Glos) meant that we were regular users of the old bridge and not the new one. I've driven over the old bridge hundreds of times, but have only ever been over the new one twice! [EDIT - actually, three times as a driver, and once as a passenger).

What happened was that the new bridge had to be funded. Whatever we might think of charging people to use a bridge (I'm not expressing an opinion on that one), the money had to come from somewhere. The decision was taken to use money from tolls to cover (at least part of) the cost.

Overnight in the 1990s, the original Severn Bridge tolls shot up. When my family first used it in 1982, it cost 20p each way. By the opening of the new bridge in 1996(?), the tolls were £4.50 one direction (escaping from Wales was free). Since then, they have gradually risen to be (the last time I used it) £6.90 in one direction.

The towers on the original bridge were also painted white at this point, AIUI because the French company that had taken the bridge and the collection of the tolls wanted to tidy it up. The original grey colour was looking pretty grotty by then, and it looked far nicer in white.

When I used to drive from Tutshill to London (early 2000s), I'd travel there on the M4 because there was no toll, and return via the M40-A40-A48 to avoid the toll. When I used to drive from Frome to visit my parents (now in Soudley), I would drive up the A46 to Gloucester to get there, and use the free side of the bridge to get back.

My understanding now is that the tolls are being cut prior to being abolished, because the new bridge has been paid for.

I understand that, but if the Queensferry crossing could be built without levying tolls, then all bridges and roads could be toll free.
Like I say fund the roads directly from VED and it would be problem solved.
I have other ideas for how to plug the shortfall in other areas of government spending, but that's not for discussion here.

I would also cut fuel duty but introduce a basic rate of VED for all vehicles allowed on a road of £10 then charge exta depending on how much they pollute the atmosphere.

[RichardA35]

I understand that, but if the Queensferry crossing could be built without levying tolls, then all bridges and roads could be toll free.
Like I say fund the roads directly from VED and it would be problem solved.
I have other ideas for how to plug the shortfall in other areas of government spending, but that's not for discussion here.

I would also cut fuel duty but introduce a basic rate of VED for all vehicles allowed on a road of £10 then charge extra depending on how much they pollute the atmosphere.

Well as explained earlier the devolved assemblies choose what to spend their money on. Here's a quick example -
Wales has no prescription charges (so for a typical reasonably fit family that may be say 6 adult prescriptions a year ~£50 pa),
In England my youngest child gets a free school lunch for Reception/Y1 & 2 (thanks to Nick Clegg) worth about £425 pa whereas her cousin of the same age in Wales does not and her family has to pay for lunch.
Now if you want to take away my child's free lunches and make river crossings toll free, good luck to you but that's on a par with "Milk Snatching"
I would prefer to have the users of the crossings pay according to their use.

[Chris Bertram]

In England my youngest child gets a free school lunch for Reception/Y1 & 2 (thanks to Nick Clegg) ...

'dyell. Someone said something nice about Nick Clegg! Pass the smelling salts ...

[Big L]

Well as explained earlier the devolved assemblies choose what to spend their money on. Here's a quick example -
Wales has no prescription charges (so for a typical reasonably fit family that may be say 6 adult prescriptions a year ~£50 pa),
In England my youngest child gets a free school lunch for Reception/Y1 & 2 (thanks to Nick Clegg) worth about £425 pa whereas her cousin of the same age in Wales does not and her family has to pay for lunch.
Now if you want to take away my child's free lunches and make river crossings toll free, good luck to you but that's on a par with "Milk Snatching"
I would prefer to have the users of the crossings pay according to their use.

Or to put it another way, "I want my freebie, so you can't have yours."

[RichardA35]

Or to put it another way, "I want my freebie, so you can't have yours."

Why should a resident of the Midlands contribute to the Dartford crossing through general taxation when it is of little benefit to them and thereby subsidise London, Essex and Kent businesses?

[jackal]

Economically it probably does make sense to toll congested crossings like Dartford, as you reduce congestion a little and shift the available capacity to higher value uses. Far inferior to providing additional capacity, of course.

[Owain]

Or to put it another way, "I want my freebie, so you can't have yours."

Why should a resident of the Midlands contribute to the Dartford crossing through general taxation when it is of little benefit to them and thereby subsidise London, Essex and Kent businesses?

To come back to the Severn Bridge tolls, that this precisely what happened when the new bridge was built.

As I said in the post above, regular users of the old bridge who lived in the Forest of Dean or Wye Valley had to pay for the new one, even though they were unlikely to make use of it.

[Big L]

Or to put it another way, "I want my freebie, so you can't have yours."

Why should a resident of the Midlands contribute to the Dartford crossing through general taxation when it is of little benefit to them and thereby subsidise London, Essex and Kent businesses?

You're asking the wrong person. Amongst the 40k+ miles a year I drive, I use the Dartford Crossing on many occasions for work purposes, and a few times for personal use. I am off to Brands Hatch on Sunday, for example.

[Bryn666]

Economically it probably does make sense to toll congested crossings like Dartford, as you reduce congestion a little and shift the available capacity to higher value uses. Far inferior to providing additional capacity, of course.

Unless you subscribe to induced demand and continually widening roads is thus pointless. Which is the prevailing argument helped along by utterly terribly designed local highway schemes being congested from day one.

[jackal]

Even under the unrealistic worst case scenario of a 1:1 ratio between induced demand and capacity increase you're still facilitating additional economic activity. This is why 'it'll just fill up' is a bad argument even when it's true, which it rarely is.

[Berk]

The UK government has a stated policy of tolling new crossings of estuaries. London does not get special treatment - Grayling confirmed in April that the Lower Thames Crossing is likely to be tolled, and the Dartford Crossing is still tolled despite ending its PFI contract 15 years ago.

IIRC and it may be ultra pendantic but isn't it a "Dartford road user charge" or similar construct rather than a bridge toll as there was a separate SI to bring it in. Same effect for the user though.

And that is what the Severn Crossing ‘charge’ will be from January (to enable it to become VAT-free). It will remain in place for the rest of the year for government to recoup costs-what costs?? Converting the road back to normal??