Home Views & Blogs Daily Post Says...

Comment: Unfair toll on emergency staff

REGULAR users of the Mersey Tunnels are probably well aware that the Liverpool Daily Post takes a very dim view of the tolls charged to drivers.

It is a restrictive levy which stifles the economy and particularly punishes those who have no choice but to use the routes beneath the river on a regular basis. But it is even more outrageous that emergency services are being charged to use the tunnels when they are not on blue-light emergency journeys.

The North West Ambulance Service and Merseyside Fire Service paid more than £60,000 travelling back and forth between Wirral and Liverpool last year. This figure would have been even higher if Merseyside Police had not refused to reveal just how much it paid out in tunnel journeys.

Ambulance drivers and staff on official business claimed some £38,000 between April, 2007, and March, 2008, in tunnel toll expenses, while fire service personnel claimed more than £24,000 in the same period, according to figures obtained by the Daily Post through the Freedom of Information Act.

This money could have been put to far better use by both services, and underlines the calls made earlier this year for emergency services personnel to be given toll-free travel through the tunnels for official business.

Last week, locals who regularly use the Dartford Tunnel learned they would be charged just 20p per journey; it would be interesting to know if the emergency services there have to find that sum as well, or whether they travel free.

The Mersey Tunnel tolls are an unfair burden on motorists, and with the NHS and Fire Service having to find money to reimburse its staff, it is also costing the tax-payer tens of thousands of pounds a year. One Fire Authority member describes the situation as “complete nonsense” and it’s difficult to argue with that point.

Merseytravel may try to defend its decision, but it is an impossible job. Our 999 crews do vital jobs on both sides of the river; charging them to get there is indefensible.