Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Mersey bridge plan could be "risky"

Plans for the £600M Mersey Gateway Bridge represent a “serious financial risk”, according to a sustainable transport charity.

The report compiled by the Campaign for Better Transport says the toll revenue for the proposed bridge would not cover the construction and operating costs.

The charity says that this, coupled with the higher costs of private finances since the initial proposal, means it represents a financial gamble.

Bosses for the Mersey Gateway project have hit back at the report, calling it “flawed” and “a deliberate attempt to undermine the project”.

The Campaign for Better Transport wants there to be an independent assessment carried out into the risks when construction companies start to enter bids to build the bridge.

Writers of the report also suggest that Halton Borough Council and the government should be prepared to abandon plans for the bridge if the risks are too high.

The bridge, which would span the Mersey between Runcorn and Widnes, is to be constructed and operated under a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and paid for by a combination of tolls on the new bridge, tolls on the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge and public funds through PFI credits.

Halton Borough Council has promised to provide discounts for local users, the report says.

However, the charity claims that traffic surveys show around 90% of likely users will be from the local area, meaning toll revenue could be much lower than anticipated once the discount scheme is factored in.

“The financial implications and viability of introducing the recommended discounts for the Mersey Gateway project could be huge,|” said Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive.

“Not only could it make raising private finance for the project very difficult, it could also create huge liabilities for the local council and the Government, who may be called upon to underwrite the costs of any discount scheme.”

He added: “We need an independent review before contracts are signed and the project is finally agreed.”

Steve Nicholson, Mersey Gateway project director, said: “This report is fundamentally flawed and has been jointly commissioned by the Campaign for Better Transport and the North West Transport Activists Roundtable who locally are one of the few organisations opposed to the construction of Mersey Gateway.

“It is regrettable that the authors of the report did not check their assumptions with Mersey Gateway officials before drawing conclusions.”

He added: “The report at best does not add anything to the understanding of the financial risks associated with the project and at worst it is misleading and a deliberate attempt to undermine the delivery of a project that benefits from widespread support across the region and in Government.”

Readers' comments (2)

  • John Mather

    Of course there are risks. One would hope/expect that the client, the SPV and the banks would do their due diligence properly. Anticipating what might happen over a 30 year concession period is challenging, particularly when 'politics' are involved. There are risks attached to doing nothing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If more effort was put into relieving HGV traffic on the bridge by using the adjacent West Coast Mainline railway branch and better supporting the freight terminals in Widnes, Garston, Warrington and Liverpool would the new toll bridge be needed?
    Can we continue to keep road building our way out of transport capacity pinch points?
    I don't hold out much hope for a UK government that actually believes in and implements an integrated transport policy unfortunately.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.