Broads Toll 2019

[Poppy]

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/broads-authority-2-6pc-toll-charge-increase-agreed-by-committee-1-5792913

I trust that the entire income from the increase will NOT be funding more electric charging points ! 

Used by the minority, there must be a fairer way of doing this to ensure that those who want them , pay ?

[JennyMorgan]

Whilst I agree to the principle of what you are saying we mustn't forget that our stink-boat cousins don't require de-masting facilities for which I suspect their owners share the cost. 

Back to the cost of charging points, the price could be loaded in order to pay for their installation.

[Vaughan]

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

Back to the cost of charging points, the price could be loaded in order to pay for their installation.

That is much more logical. Sure the price of any product sold by a vending machine - reflects the cost of its installation.

[Poppy]

6 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Whilst I agree to the principle of what you are saying we mustn't forget that our stink-boat cousins don't require de-masting facilities for which I suspect their owners share the cost. 

Back to the cost of charging points, the price could be loaded in order to pay for their installation.

I don't require de-masting facilities. I have a mud weight

[MauriceMynah]

Surely, a bridge in itself is a fine de-masting facility.

As far as the tolls rise goes, at least it's not wildly above inflation.

[grendel]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Back to the cost of charging points, the price could be loaded in order to pay for their installation.

Thats the one thing you are not allowed to do within the electricity supply regulations, they are very specific as to how much more than the rate you pay, you can resell the electricity, this was mainly done to stop the exorbitant prices landlords were recharging their tenants, I seem to recall this being brought up when we were discussing the new posts in the past, they are covered under the strict regulations governing marinas and caravan parks.

[ChrisB]

The problem is the Electric posts are not being used as originally envisaged.

The were to provide charging for pure electric boats and plug in hybrids.

Now their primary use is boiling kettles and firing the magnetron to heat ready meals, not to mention electric hobs.

[annv]

Surly everybody gets some benefit from electric posts evan sailing boats if it only means they can moor in peace and quiet next to a boat that is plugged in and not running its engine to charge batteries, which it would do in the absence of a charging post, any sceam to lower engine pollution however small must be good for every body.A electrice ring in a sailing boat must be better and safer than using a paraffin cooker. John

[ChrisB]

Induction must be the safest way of cooking. Small single induction cookers are very cheap now.

[rightsaidfred]

2 hours ago, Poppy said:

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/broads-authority-2-6pc-toll-charge-increase-agreed-by-committee-1-5792913

I trust that the entire income from the increase will NOT be funding more electric charging points ! 

Used by the minority, there must be a fairer way of doing this to ensure that those who want them , pay ?

And there was me thinking boating supposed to be all about all for one and one for all

Fred

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, ChrisB said:

The problem is the Electric posts are not being used as originally envisaged.

The were to provide charging for pure electric boats and plug in hybrids.

Now their primary use is boiling kettles and firing the magnetron to heat ready meals, not to mention electric hobs.

I am getting into something I only half understand here, but there is a big difference between a charging point specifically for charging pure electric boats, and a simple 32A shore power point that can charge your domestic batteries and boil a kettle :

 

I took this photo last year, of charging points for electric cars being installed at Fleet services on the M3. The row of white cabinets behind are there to provide the power necessary and I suppose they amount to a sub-station in their own right.

 

Just look at the figures on that plaque. Work out the kilowatts for yourselves!

I admit these are fast charging points rather than overnight ones but the power required will still be enormous. This is the sort of thing we will need if pure electric propulsion hire boats ever come to the Broads. Is this what we want to see on the Maltsters Quay at Ranworth? And can we imagine the scramble which will ensue when 6 electric boats all arrive to hook into only 3 charging points, and those mooring places have already been taken by other boats who refuse to move?

[marshman]

Oh dear - it must be winter!!

There are many many facilities as a taxpayer I do not use, and equally as a council tax payer - but I cannot apportion the bit I choose to pay! Thats how life works I am afraid! Next we will have people saying they only want to pay half the toll as they only use the boat half of the year - which they frequently comment on and then there are those who only use part of the system or drivers who never drive on moterways.

Its the way of the world - may I suggest you organise a hook up system for you boats so you can take advantage of these points! ( Which incidentally I do not use either!! )

[ChrisB]

There was much said by the powers about electric boating on the broads. They even had an Electric Boat Show, I think at Salhouse. 

I think they were intended for slow overnight charging.

My cousin has a Nissan Leaf and for £1000 extra it has a unit onboard and he can plug it into an ordinary three pin plug when visiting friends overnight.

[Islander]

Well, 6% equates to about £50 extra for us . I'd like to see it spent on replacing and adding to the number of moorings or at least rubbish disposal points.

Colin

p.s. 1 less can of beer a week isn't to bad. 

[Poppy]

4 minutes ago, Islander said:

Well, 6% equates to about £50 extra for us . I'd like to see it spent on replacing and adding to the number of moorings or at least rubbish disposal points.

Colin

p.s. 1 less can of beer a week isn't to bad. 

It's actually 2.6%.

[Islander]

Thanks Poppy, I tried to edit but lost my connection and was too late. 2.6% not too bad but would rather see mooring and bins.

Colin

[MauriceMynah]

Bins are nothing to do with the BA. They (BA) can put bins all over the place but it will be the council (Town or County) who would be responsible for getting them emptied.

[Vaughan]

I really don't understand the "gist" of this. Why not simply state that river tolls will be going up by 2.6% next year in line with Government figures for inflation? Why invite controversy by suggesting that this extra amount can be spent on electric posts on the moorings at Acle, which we know will only be used by a very small proportion of toll payers?

This is not a fine example of public relations.

I also notice something else from the EDP article : Haydn Thirtle is quoted as saying "The BA is entirely dependent on the income from boat owners to fund the costs of maintaining the navigation area of the Broads National Park. It is the only major navigation authority in the UK that does not regularly receive central funding for this role".

So what on Earth does this mean? Is he saying that maintenance of the navigation is only funded by the half of the BA revenue which comes from river tolls? In which case what happens to the other half, which does indeed come from "central funding"? What do they spend that on?

If he is really saying that their responsibility for the navigation is wholly funded by those who use it, then those stakeholders should have a great deal more say in how that money is spent.

 

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

If he is really saying that their responsibility for the navigation is wholly funded by those who use it, then those stakeholders should have a great deal more say in how that money is spent.

Wise words indeed, won't happen though, not under the existing set-up.

[Islander]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

Bins are nothing to do with the BA. They (BA) can put bins all over the place but it will be the council (Town or County) who would be responsible for getting them emptied.

MM, it may not be the the BA direct responsibility but maybe a cost sharing between the local council and the BA would work. We all know the locals used the bins at Bramerton as there were often items you would not expect to find in boat waste but then there will always be abuse made of anything free. The rubbish bins on the green here at Thorpe often have large black bin bags left by them yet are clearly marked ' No Boat Rubbish'. Tourists will create rubbish and the 'Broads National Park'  are trying to encourage more of them to the area so the BA must take some responsibility. 

Regardless of my previous comments, I would rather see the money spent on MORE moorings and some sense over the rubbish situation. Is that too much to ask?

Colin

[annv]

And Colin If there was electric as well they could have a large bin that compresses the contents which was operated by a  key that boat owners/hires could buy/pay a annual fee to stop householders filling it with garden rubbish, much like the AA had for there phone boxes which were only for members use . John

[YnysMon]

All  I can say is...phew...not getting into any of this at all...just that on frosty early/late hires we are glad we can plug in!

[MauriceMynah]

Colin (Islander) Please don't get me wrong, Obviously I'd love to see the "rubbish" issue get sorted but there are other side problems that although seemingly chicken feed could lead to a far greater problem.

It needs to be remembered that rubbish collection is a council responsibility. It also needs to be held firmly in mind that councils are democratically elected. Rubbish collection is paid for by the local rate payers.

Think not just of riverside properties but instead think of all the rate payers in any given broadland area. Consider what those residents may have as their top priorities. More public transport perhaps, or better primary education.

Imagine how you would feel if some non elected body comes along and tells your council not to spend on local health care but spend on removing holiday makers rubbish instead.

Suddenly the whole issue takes on a far less clear standpoint. Yes the problem needs sorting, but not by the BA, who should at most, be there in an advisory capacity alone.

[Vaughan]

4 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Yes the problem needs sorting, but not by the BA, who should at most, be there in an advisory capacity alone.

I agree.

But from the practical point of view, the infrastructure is already there, as the council bin lorries are already going round the riverside villages collecting household waste. So it is really a matter of working out who should be paying for them to make a few extra collections on their route.

Toll payers perhaps? but then that leaves out all the ramblers, canoodlers and orny-whatsits who are also using the bins.

If the BA are promoting tourism in the Broads area then maybe they should pay out of their central funding, without it being specific to boat tolls.

One way or another it is a visual and un-hygienic disgrace which must be addressed.

[MauriceMynah]

Perhaps the National parks authority should pay, or perhaps the RSPB. The Environment agency should put some of the rod license revenue towards the solution and of course the national tourist board. Yes, the BA should make a contribution, as should that canoe club I've heard mention of. The footpaths association shouldn't get off scot free and it's about time those supermarkets and shop keepers put their hands in their pockets, after all, they're the ones selling us the rubbish in the first place.

But Vaughan, whilst we all agree that the "Unhygienic disgrace" should be addressed, where we seem unable to agree is,,,,, by whom!