A CONTENTIOUS report claiming that tolls will not cover the cost of building and operating the new second crossing, have been slammed by the Mersey Gateway team.

Opponents of the £604 million bridge claim revenue will be much lower than predicted, because 90 per cent of users will be local motorists, promised a discount scheme by Halton Council.

Mersey Gateway’s team branded the report as “fundamentally flawed” and full of errors and incorrect assumptions.

The charity, Campaign for Better Transport and the North West Transport Activists Roundtable, who published the report, also claim that the increased cost of private finance since the original proposal means the project could be a huge financial risk.

They are calling for an independent assessment into the risks, once bids have been received.

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

“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 the underwrite the costs of any discount scheme.

“There is a real danger here of ‘adviser-driven’ processes, where nobody checks if the public interest and value for money are being safeguarded.

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

The report was written by Chris Castles, a specialist in transport policy, and David Parish, an infrastructure economist.

Steve Nicholson, Mersey Gateway project director, said: “This report is fundamentally flawed.

“It is regrettable that the authors did not check theri assumptions before drawing conclusions.

“Iti s misleading and a deliberate attempt to undermine the delivery of a project that benefits from widespread support across the region and in government.

“We contest so much of this report that it is neither sensible nor productive to list all the individual issues.”

He dismissed allegations about not disclosing adequate commercial information.

He added: “Both the planning inspector and the report’s authors recognise the desirability of confidentiality around the council’s negotiating position, which is essential to ensure we secure the best possible financial deal for the public purse.

“The long list of private sector firms, including sponsors and lenders, who are interested in competing for the project contract, demonstrates that we already have market confidence.”