By Bruce Fegen and Bruce Robbins

THE SCOTTISH Executive has come under renewed pressure on three fronts to abolish the tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges.

Leading the abolition calls was the National Alliance Against Tolls Scotland (NAATS), and it was joined by the Tay road bridge joint board and Fife Council, who argued they had a “very strong” case that the tolls should be lifted on the grounds of “fairness and equality.”

But the Forth Estuary Transport Authority (FETA) remained a dissenting voice, insisting the £1 charge was necessary to fund maintenance and control traffic flow over the bridge.

The points for and against the abolition of the tolls were contained in submissions made to the Executive as part of the latest consultation exercise, which closed on Thursday.

In its submission, NAATS says the tolls are a regressive tax on the people of Fife and Tayside and they should have ended years ago.

Pointing out that it should already be clear to the Executive that tolls are “unwanted, unfair, uneconomic and unnecessary,” NAATS states that they have long been unpopular, in the past causing riots and leading in Scotland to the abolition of tolls and similar “exactions” by the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878.

Following the scrapping of the charges on the Skye and Erskine bridges, there are now no tolled crossings in the west of Scotland and campaigners are demanding that the east of the country is given equal treatment.

NAATS spokesman John McGoldrick said, “The remaining tolls are unfair because they should already have ended: the Forth bridge in 1995 and the Tay bridge when the construction cost had been recovered. The bridge cost £4.8 million to build and the tolls are almost that sum each year.

“Tolls are also a regressive tax which mainly affects those in Fife and on Tayside and has no effect on the MSPs who decided to continue its imposition.”

However, FETA convener Lawrence Marshall said in their submission, “The unique circumstances of the Forth road bridge mean that it would be folly to remove tolls at this stage.”

FETA’s position is diametrically opposed to Fife Council’s view.

Depute leader of the Fife administration, Councillor Alec Thomson, states, “The position is clear—tolls are inherently unfair and putting Fifers and bridge users at an unfair disadvantage economically—not just in their own pockets but the effect felt in the wider Fife and east Scotland economy.”

NAATS says that the Executive’s claim that tolls have no adverse impact on the local economy is wrong, and quotes the leader of West Dunbartonshire Council, Andy White, who said abolition of the Erskine bridge toll would bring 20,000 new jobs.

NAATS also says that with any crossing, there tends to be one side which is the “wrong side of the tracks.” It may or may not have higher levels of unemployment, but it will have fewer facilities and job opportunities and people will have to travel further to work.

Mr McGoldrick continued, “In the case of Scotland’s two remaining tolls, it is of course the people of Fife who are on the “wrong side of the tracks.”

NAATS also disputes an earlier claim by the Executive that the removal of tolls will cause congestion, stating that tolls have the opposite effect.

The campaign group says that much of the congestion on and around the Forth bridge is caused by the inadequacy of the A8000, a problem which should have been addressed by the Executive many years ago and is only now being tackled.

Mr McGoldrick added, “If tolls have all the benefits that are claimed (by the Executive), then why are these blessings largely confined to the people of Fife?”

Tay Road Bridge joint board’s chairman, Dundee Lord Provost John Letford, said the board believed its case was “very, very strong” and difficult to ignore.

Mr Letford said some of the Executive’s arguments for the retention of tolls were “feeble” and the advice it was getting appeared to be not of the same quality as that provided to the board.

He added, “We have a strong, strong case and I can’t see how they can rebut the detailed response we have made.

“If they keep the politics out of it and base their decision on the professionals’ advice, I would be very optimistic of our success.”

In a detailed letter to the Scottish Executive’s road pricing team, agreed at its quarterly meeting earlier in the week, the board reiterated its view that opposition to tolls is based on fairness and parity.

In support of that position, it highlighted a number of issues surrounding tolls.

The main arguments articulated were:

* The current toll plaza is insufficient to cope with the current evening peak flows and results in significant congestion in the centre of Dundee.

* Removal of toll-induced congestion is “imperative” for the successful development of Dundee’s central waterfront area.

* Air quality problems associated with this congestion is a “major consideration,” with high levels of pollution recorded immediately adjacent to the bridge approach ramps.

* The visually obtrusive nature of a major toll plaza within a prestigious city centre area is a further environmental consideration.

* Collection of tolls to fund the management and maintenance of the bridge is effectively removing a large proportion of money from the local economy.

* Rush-hour congestion is another “significant cost to society,” largely borne by the local communities.

* Tolls disproportionately affect lower income households.

The bridge board, in its submission, said that, while it favours the removal of tolls, it is keen to ensure that the structure continues to be properly managed and maintained.

Consequently, an alternative method of funding the bridge should not cause a change to the present management system.

Should the tolls be removed, all remaining debt of the bridge board should be written off by the Scottish Executive in the same way as that associated with the Skye and Erskine crossings.

Mr Letford said it was unfair for the Erskine bridge to be treated differently from the Tay bridge when the circumstances were the same.

He added, “There’s a great case for abolition and I would hope that the Executive treats us in fairness and makes the right decision.”