SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION PAPER

1. Introduction

1. On the 17th August 2001 Merseytravel published a consultation paper explaining the desirability of promoting a Local Act of Parliament to change the way the Mersey Tunnel tolls are revised and the use to which toll income is applied. Views were invited by 9th November 2001, particularly in response to the following questions:-

(a) Should the Mersey Tunnel toll levels be index-linked in line with inflation ?

(b) Should the requirement to reduce tolls when the Tunnels debt is paid off be removed ?

(c) Should surplus toll income be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, benefiting the wider Merseyside community ?

(d) Should legal powers be sought to undertake and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Wallasey Tunnel approach roads on the Wirral ?

1.2 The consultation paper was distributed to :-

21	MPs (16 in Merseyside, 5 in Merseybelt constituencies)
12	Local Authorities (5 District Councils and 2 Joint Boards in Merseyside, and 5 Merseybelt Districts)
6	Local Health Service Providers
4	Local Development Boards
3	Local Universities
8	Trade Unions
9	Local Public Transport Operators
5	Motoring Organisations
6	Local Business Sector Forums
37	Local Community Groups

1.3 Copies of the consultation paper were also provided to members of 7 Advisory Panels and approximately 12,000 Tunnel users (companies and individuals) paying tolls by Fast Tag.

1.4 The consultation paper was given wide publicity and advertised on Merseytravel's website. Responses were invited by letter, fax and e-mail. Follow up letters were sent at the beginning of October 2001 reminding consultees of the opportunity to respond by the 9th November 2001.

2. Volume of Responses

2.1 A total of 357 responses were received expressing views on the consultation paper. The total comprises responses from 10 local MPs, 35 local organisations, and 312 (87%) from individuals, most of whom were Tunnel users. The response rate from individuals was about 2.6% of the number consulted, compared with a norm of 1% for written consultations of this nature.

2.2 Not all respondents felt able to answer the specific questions posed in the consultation paper, preferring instead to offer broad support or express antipathy regarding the proposals. Some Tunnel users took the opportunity to register their concerns about specific aspects of the Tunnels operations.

2.3 Many respondents expressed thanks for the opportunity to voice their opinions on the issues involved. Merseytravel is grateful that they took the time to consider the arguments and express a view.

3. Nature of Responses

3.1 A total of eight local MPs have indicated support for a Mersey Tunnels' Tolls Bill, and two (Wirral-based) MPs have indicated their intent to oppose the Bill. Their opposition is largely due to perceptions concerning the impact of tolling on their constituents and local businesses.

3.2 All five of Merseyside's District Councils, two Joint Boards and a Merseybelt local authority have expressed support for Merseytravel's proposals, as has Liverpool Vision and the North West Regional Assembly, and four local public transport operators.

3.3 One of the local universities, the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, the Liverpool Stores Committee, and three national motoring organisations support the proposed index-linking of tolls, but oppose using surplus toll income to cross-subsidise local public transport facilities. They all favour lowering tolls when the Tunnel debts are paid off.

3.4 The response from Trade Unions has been mixed. Five Trade Unions representing some of the 320 staff at the Tunnels have declared opposition to the Bill. In contrast, two other Trade Unions representing some of the 4,000 staff engaged in the provision of public transport facilities on Merseyside have given full support to the Bill.

3.5 Responses were received from seven Local Community Groups, all but one supporting the proposed index-linking of tolls. The groups held mixed views on the lowering of tolls when Tunnel debts are paid off, using surplus toll income to cross-subsidise public transport, and undertaking noise insulation work on the Tunnel approach roads.

3.6 The response from individuals (mainly Tunnel users) can be summarised by reference to the questions posed as follows :-

Questions	Respondents	Yes	No	Undecided
(a) Should the Mersey Tunnel toll levels be index-linked with inflation ?	312 (100%)	140 (45%)	146 (47%)	26 (8%)
(b) Should the requirement to reduce tolls when the Tunnels debt is paid off be removed ?	312 (100%)	54 (17%)	220 (71%)	38 (12%)
(c) Should surplus toll income be used to cross-subsidise and improve local public transport services, benefiting the wider Merseyside community ?	312 (100%)	73 (23%)	208 (67%)	31 (10%)
(d) Should legal powers be sought to under- take and finance noise insulation work to properties adjacent to the Wallasey Tunnel approach roads on the Wirral ?	312 (100%)	145 (46%)	81 (26%)	86 (28%)

3.7 Many of the individual respondents offered reasons for their views. For example, a number of Tunnel users favoured index linking tolls to avoid large and irregular toll rises. Many saw this as a means to accelerate the repayment of the Tunnels debt and hasten the point to be reached when tolls could be reduced.

3.8 The larger volume of undecided respondents in relation to the noise insulation question is accounted for by uncertainty about the origin and extent of the proposals. For clarification, whereas legal powers already exist to insulate properties adjacent to normal highways, they do not apply to the Mersey Tunnels because they are not maintained at public expense. The availability and use of such powers on the Wallasey Tunnel approach roads is unlikely to cost more than £300,000, i.e. less than 1% of the Tunnels current annual turnover. The volume of heavy traffic using the Wallasey Tunnel has escalated in recent years due to restrictions in the weight of vehicles using the Birkenhead Tunnel.

4. Common Misunderstandings

4.1 Some of the responses to the Consultation Paper contain misunderstandings about the Mersey Tunnel finances. Merseytravel would therefore like to take this opportunity to put the record straight. Accordingly the Annexe to this document contains a factual response to the most common misunderstandings mentioned by a number of consultees.

4.2 A newspaper article published shortly prior to the consultation deadline indicated that under EU Directive 1999/62 tolls can only be used for the upkeep of the structures to which they relate. The Directive only applies to Heavy Goods Vehicles (about 5% of the Mersey Tunnels traffic), is primarily designed to avoid discrimination in road user charges between hauliers from different member states, and does not prohibit the use of toll revenue for public transport projects.

5. Conclusions

5.1 It is evident that a clear majority of MPs, local authorities and other organisations representing the community in Merseyside fully support Merseytravel's proposals. It is also evident that nearly half of Tunnel users who responded to the consultation favour index-linked tolls and the proposal to provide noise insulation on Tunnel approach roads.

5.2 The eagerness of two local MPs, the local Business Community, motoring organisations and a number of Tunnel users to see tolls reduced, and their antipathy to the use of toll income to subsidise public transport is understandable. It is clear however that they represent a minority of current public opinion.

Link to Common Misunderstandings

Merseytravel
24 Hatton Garden
Liverpool
L3 2AN