Traffic on the Skye Bridge increased by 50% since the tolls were removed almost two and a half years ago, while households in the area are now saving almost £800,000 a year.
But overall the economic benefit to users of the bridge since it opened in 1995, is already close to £100m and is likely to reach almost £400m over the next 60 years. It has also helped Skye hold its population.
These are amongst the main findings of the Skye Bridge Socio-Economic Impact Study, just completed by Edinburgh-based consultants DHC for Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership (HITRANS). They also found that the long running anti-tolls campaign acted as a positive marketing tool for Skye.
The study records the severe congestion at Kyle of Lochalsh in the early 1990s, particularly in the summer months when Skye was still being served by ferries. This was seen to be a major constraint on the social and economic development of island. The introduction of the 24 hour ferry made little difference to traffic growth, but a significant jump of about 20 per cent was experienced as a result of the change from the ferry to the tolled bridge.
The first toll charged in October 1995 at £4.30 a car each way was cheaper than the ferry by 10p but in the summer months it was increased by one pound making the crossing the most expensive in Europe. Despite that the traffic rose to almost 800,000 vehicles per year, helped by the later introduction of books of 20 discount tickets which meant regular users were only paying £1.30 each way.
However by 2004 the summer motorist was paying £5.70 each way while for a bus it was a remarkable £41.20. Since the removal of the tolls in December 2004 the traffic has increased even more dramatically getting towards 1, 200,000 vehicles per year.
Free passage across the bridge was found to have stimulated an improvement in the labour market, as people began to cross to and from the island for work, without incurring disproportional travel costs. In a single year, the cost benefit comparison of the free bridge with the ferry services was £12.2 million, with half of this benefit from the removal of the tolls.
The survey data, however, did not identify any significant positive impact on business profitability and employment from the removal of the tolls possible because of the short time since their removal or because it coincided with fuel prices increased rapidly.
The study found that local feelings about the bridge also changed; "The removal of the bridge tolls has changed the perspective of households in relation to the bridge. The bridge is almost universally supported as an asset to the area, whereas it was previously viewed negatively by many."
Many islanders' views of the bridge were shaped by the long running anti-tolls campaign which was condemned by government. But the consultants took a different view: "The bridge, and the controversy relating to the tolls, has helped to market Skye across the UK and overseas. Visitors are well aware of the Skye toll controversy, suggesting that the area has derived significant benefit from this marketing. "
One who is not surprised by the findings is Robbie the Pict, the veteran anti-tolls campaigner: "We knew the tolls were putting visitors off because they were contacting us and telling us that they wouldn't be back until these ridiculous toll were removed. We knew of people turning at the bridge. Meanwhile I think the Scottish David and Goliath story of islanders fighting against this PFI appealed. Over the years we had messages of support from all over the world."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article