Toll Restructure For Broads

[ExMemberBobdog]

8 hours ago, kfurbank said:

BA have allowed for an increase of 1% in salary costs which is about the average, so how can they justify a 16% increase in tolls?

Because there isn't an increase in tolls overall.  The plan is for the total revenue raised from tolls in 2017/2018 to be pretty much the same as for 2016/2017.  The plan is to simplify the tolls structure to make it more clearly understandable and to eliminate anomalies.

[ranworthbreeze]

Whilst the B.A. are reinventing the wheel, would it not be an idea to have a toll system where toll users who have more than one vessel have a discount for additional craft, the most common is having a tender or dingy. 

Lets face it we only use one at a time. After saying that we got rid of our dingy it was not worth the toll paid for the times it was used.

Regards

Alan

[JennyMorgan]

1 hour ago, Bobdog said:

Because there isn't an increase in tolls overall.  The plan is for the total revenue raised from tolls in 2017/2018 to be pretty much the same as for 2016/2017.  The plan is to simplify the tolls structure to make it more clearly understandable and to eliminate anomalies.

Sorry, Bob, but I'll only believe that when I see it, at the end of 2017! 

[Timbo]

Massive increase for me...and RT is not what I'd call a big boat at 31' x 10'2". Unless you are plonking around in something of the size of a tin bath you will have a big increase.

To be honest the whole document makes no sense at all and I'm sure a few '0's have been missed somewhere along the line.

Who is this Prof person? 

Next on the agenda...can anyone point in me the direction of the money paid into the kitty by the Norfolk Wildlife Trust? It should be in the region of £3.18 million?

[kfurbank]

1 hour ago, Bobdog said:

Because there isn't an increase in tolls overall.  The plan is for the total revenue raised from tolls in 2017/2018 to be pretty much the same as for 2016/2017.  The plan is to simplify the tolls structure to make it more clearly understandable and to eliminate anomalies.

That is where you are wrong. Push too hard and the fight back starts. I will not be paying a 16% increase next year, I don't care how you try and justify the anomalies. Would rather see it on the hard for a year. Unless they have factored in those that think the same, or move to different waters, then you will see a decrease in the tolls collected next year. 

[JennyMorgan]

Okay, square meterage, at the waterline or the gunwale? Let's judge that one when we know the facts.

A point rather closer to home for me is Mutford Lock:

The Members recommended that the income should ideally balance the annual costs of operation, i.e. approximately £30 for a one way passage and £45 for a return ticket. In order to encourage some owners to use this access to the Broads more frequently, a multi-trip discount should be investigated.

A number of coastal type boats moor at Oulton Broad yacht station because the present lock fee of twelve, or is it thirteen quid is seen as reasonable, especially for a day trip out to sea. £45.00 may not be so acceptable. Many Brundall boats also go to sea through Mutford Lock. I can see this as being the needle that breaks a camel's back with a number of boats moving base to one of the Lowestoft harbour marinas. Not only a loss of lock income but also a loss of tolls. Just a couple of day trips out to sea via Mutford Lock a year looks to add £90.00 to the cost of keeping a coastal cruiser on the Broads. In my case those two day trips would effectively add roughly 50% to my toll. 

[JanetAnne]

Just worked mine out...  

It will be one boat less for us in 2017 and one toll less for them. 

[JennyMorgan]

Having given this some thought I do wonder how square meterage is going to simplify matters. Length times width does not give the square meterage of a boat, unless it's oblong and few boats are. Some boats have greater overhangs than others, indeed some sailing boats, in comparison to motor boats, have quite extreme variations in hull shapes. Hull length is simple, square meterage is not, surely a common sense conclusion.

Then of course, unless boats are of the same class or out of the same mould, it means that boats will need to be measured before a toll can be demanded. So, will simplification simply mean length X beam at deck level or perhaps at the waterline? Whatever, neither gives  an accurate calculation of the area of a boat. Perhaps we should return to the Thames tonnage calculations?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Measurement

No mention of displacement, a relevant factor in regards to wash and subsequently erosion and dredging. 

Then of course we have the muddling percentage claims in regard to winners and loosers. No mention in the 43% and 57% of those who will neither win nor loose, those in kayaks or rowing boats who, allegedly, will be paying the same next year as they did this. This is classic Packman obfuscation, in my honest opinion.  

[MauriceMynah]

I'm not crossing swords on what Packman's motives may or may not be, but I must take issue with your assertion that length or beam are too vague for dimensions on which to base the tolls. We know that boats have these dimensions, and they are used when establishing all sorts of other bills or services. Anyway, do you not already have to make this calculation for the tolls? or do you argue with the BA each year as to what they mean exactly.

 

[JennyMorgan]

34 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I'm not crossing swords on what Packman's motives may or may not be, but I must take issue with your assertion that length or beam are too vague for dimensions on which to base the tolls. We know that boats have these dimensions, and they are used when establishing all sorts of other bills or services. Anyway, do you not already have to make this calculation for the tolls? or do you argue with the BA each year as to what they mean exactly.

 

The claim is that the new calculations will be both fairer and more simple, fairer maybe but arguably less simple and certainly not accurate. Argue each year? Not so far! At the moment I have my boat hauled out and stored, the charge is based on length, that's it, nothing complicated, I just ship the bowsprit, couldn't be more simple. Call it the Broads calculation if you wish, beam times length, okay can live with that, but to suggest that that gives the area in square meters is patently incorrect, it doesn't.

[quo vadis]

How about this method, undeniably fair for each and every vessel.

The toll is calculated on the TOTAL length of all pieces of rope, string or cord needed for the vessel at say £10.00 per metre simples

 

[JennyMorgan]

21 hours ago, Bobdog said:

Because there isn't an increase in tolls overall.  The plan is for the total revenue raised from tolls in 2017/2018 to be pretty much the same as for 2016/2017.  The plan is to simplify the tolls structure to make it more clearly understandable and to eliminate anomalies.

JP has written this statement elsewhere:

So overall the incomes from the two fleets, hire and private, predicted for next year, using the proposed structure, are broadly in line with this year’s income under the old structure +3%. 

Plus 3%, surely that is clear enough? Other than in regard to Mutford Lock it would seem that I am one of the 40% that will benefit but that aside I would like to know how it can possibly be fair that some folk should have to cough up an extra 16% or whatever?

Changes are needed, our old friend Strowager was adamant that the balance between small and large was totally skewered and he backed that up with convincing arguments. However a one off 16% hike is not fair, even for those that can afford it.

3% increase, what is the official inflation figure?

[kfurbank]

Peter,

As I have just pointed out to John, the same size hire boat sees a paltry 2.7% increase!!!!!! They have done absolutely nothing to discourage the building of ever bigger hire boats. A 44ft hire boat will see an increase of £75.54, just £7.26 more than a 35ft private boat. A 44ft private boat will see an increase of £101.48 which is £25.94 more than the equivalent sized hire boat.

John was very kind to point out how much it would cost me to moor on The Anglian Waterways or The Thames which has absolutely naff all to do with the points currently under discussion. An arrogance beyond belief.

[Baitrunner]

Just going back to Mutford lock. Did they not think revenue would go down when it spends months out of action?

most of us don't bother anymore as it's free to use GY and from Brundall closer. 

£45 return will see it rot which again is maybe what they want?

[Baitrunner]

Oh and I'm £75 down 

Down £100 on one and up £25 on the other. 

[BroadScot]

33 minutes ago, Baitrunner said:

Oh and I'm £75 down 

Down £100 on one and up £25 on the other. 

One bottle of Bollinger less then to sup ! 

[JennyMorgan]

The NSBA has responded, but will Packman listen?

http://www.thegreenbook.org.uk/default.htm

[kfurbank]

The EDP is to run another story on this issue later on in the week. Now is the time to make your comments and feelings known to them on this subject. Lauren Cope's email address can be found on the original article page linked to at the top of this thread.

[senator]

Made mine known last year. Ipswich is Lovely, no toll either.

 

[johnb]

Reported in another place that facebook entry states that Navigation Committee has endorsed the BA proposals

[JennyMorgan]

Navigation Committee members should question both their motives and who they actually represent. 

[vanessan]

I thought the Navigation Committee meeting is set for tomorrow evening or have I got that wrong?

[JennyMorgan]

You must be, it was today. 

[Baitrunner]

Yep. Seen that they agreed it elsewhere (no not there). 

they posted a list of members of the committee. Slight conflict of interest if you ask me. Just like the local council planning committees!!

how the heck do they get away with it? Sounds like an old buddies club.

if anyone on here is a member id like to hear the rationale?

 

[JennyMorgan]

3 minutes ago, Baitrunner said:

Yep. Seen that they agreed it elsewhere (no not there). 

they posted a list of members of the committee. Slight conflict of interest if you ask me. Just like the local council planning committees!!

how the heck do they get away with it? Sounds like an old buddies club.

if anyone on here is a member id like to hear the rationale?

 

So would I, reckon they'd be hard pushed though.