Who should pay for the Broads ?

[Boaters]

Another slant on this contentious subject.One day there may be a system to keep every body happy.? Maybe the combination of engine size rather than just length ,as many 45 footers have the same engines as some 25 feet boats. And are not capable of more than 7 MPH ?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/who_should_pay_for_the_broads_1_2935572

[Guest]

Another slant on this contentious subject.One day there may be a system to keep every body happy.? Maybe the combination of engine size rather than just length ,as many 45 footers have the same engines as some 25 feet boats. And are not capable of more than 7 MPH ?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/who_should_pay_for_the_broads_1_2935572

 

Yes, a very contentious subject Roy.

 

Why would basing tolls on engine size rather than just boat size be any fairer though?

 

My boat has a 200hp engine, but is only 23 ft long. ( I need the power for safety for occasional Sea use).

 

I am legally constrained to not exceed 4,5 or 6mph anywhere on the Broads except Breydon, exactly the same as any other engine size or length of boat.

 

I take up minimal space on Public moorings, and my engine has very low emission and sound levels, much less that a typical 1.5 bmc diesel engine.

 

What additional impact do I have on the BA's Navigational overheads to justify paying extra tolls purely on my engine's reserve power ?

[Maxwellian]

What are the main costs driving the tolls and what impact do individual boats have on those? If it were the cost of maintaining the public moorings then length would impact, engine size would not. I can see why hire boats have a multiplier as they are in use a lot more than private boats. One thing that seems to be certain that it is an emotive subject and that whatever they do someone will be upset.

[Matt]

I know people say that hireboats are used the most but i can't see how that can be proved or even measured? I would have thought the most "used" boats would be the liveaboards with no home mooring? Or even syndicate boats?

No real answer to how we measure usage though? You could to away with tolls on motorised boats and then add a surcharge to fuel sales but you could easily get around this.

[LondonRascal]

I too thought why not charge by emissions or engine size rather than the size of the boat.  A 200HP engine would produce more emissions than a 40HP engine and since in main the Boards in an inland river system it would reward those with smaller more efficient engines and yes, those with larger boats with several hundred horsepower or even smaller ones which can use their larger power at sea would be penalised.  

 

This is what my local council has done with cars – a small car with a larger engine will pay more to park in the borough than a larger car with a smaller engine would – so it is about carbon emissions and encouraging (pushing) people to change their habits.

 

It is not a happy medium of course and makes a lot of people angry as they feel they right to choice and freedom has been taken and now are having to pay so much over the odds – but then it is a choice want a powerful car pay an extra ‘tax’ to park it – want a nice powerful boat pay extra to be able to legally use it on the rivers.

 

Further with the Broads - it has been the case where the hire industry has taken the brunt of tolls increases for years, and indeed surely contributes a lot not only to the Broads Authority coffers but to the area as a whole.  However the size of the hire fleets continues to reduce – you therefore cannot just keep expecting those who remain hiring boats to pay ever more in tolls when the public want to pay less and less to actually hire boats.

 

This is something where you cannot ever make everyone happy – now accepted it does not directly affect me, I do not own a boat.  However I confess to being a touch perplexed by the feelings over how much one pays for tolls.  You see boating (especially ownership) is a choice, and so if you have people who having spent thousands of pounds on buying a boat, then the next largest cost annually is their moorings fees, then probably fuel and running costs then insurance and tolls being just a few hundred pounds a year seem pretty small fry compared to the cost of buying and just keeping the boat tied up somewhere.

 

If I had bought a boat it might be an annoyance to have to pay someone money each year to use it on rivers that in the main are kept reasonably well, moor at moorings freely over night it would not make me as upset as the fact the fuel that goes into the boat from boatyards invariably now costs more than fully taxed roadside fuel, or the marina where the boat may be berthed costs so much and is charged by length despite many boats mooring stern on so a fairer system would be by their width and flat fees being applied.

 

So in the general scheme of things, are tolls really for some the ‘straw that broke the camels back’?

[Oddfellow]

Why not have a sliding scale of charges according to market value? Works in other government taxation systems....

 

The charge based on emissions has been ruled out before on the basis of it being virtually unworkable.

[C.Ricko]

Hi Robin,

Although you don't own a boat, it does affect you almost directly..

just for some idea on the cost of tolls to the hirer,

How much did you pay to hire Mystic Horizon? (I could find out but it is your business to publish if desired)

we averaged 20 weeks with this particular boat with a toll of £784.74 that works out at £39.25 per week.

don't forget to take the VAT off the hire charge to work out how much we get to pay our bills with.

[Guest]

 

....I too thought why not charge by emissions or engine size rather than the size of the boat.  A 200HP engine would produce more emissions than a 40HP engine ....... 

 

 

That would only be true only if they were each running at the same revs. 

 

In reality the more powerful engine is running at a much lower rpm to achieve the same power output and speed.

 

When running at  low power cruising rpm to abide by inland speed limits, the emissions would be far more dependent on the efficiency of the engine, rather than it's cubic capacity.

 

On each of the forums, this subject is still being perceived by each person from their own favourite corner, large or small, hire or private.

 

 

 

 

Why not have a sliding scale of charges according to market value? Works in other government taxation systems....

 

The charge based on emissions has been ruled out before on the basis of it being virtually unworkable.

 

Now I agree there,  that's a factor that is perhaps the unfairest of all at present.

 

A tiny inflatable with a 2hp outboard is currently tolled at around 25% of it's total market value, whereas a typical 40ft ex hire craft pays around 1% of it's market value, and a 40ft Broom's gin palace pays around 0.3% of it's market value.....

[C.Ricko]

Why not have a sliding scale of charges according to market value? Works in other government taxation systems....

 

The charge based on emissions has been ruled out before on the basis of it being virtually unworkable.

 

Now a few years ago I may have agreed with this, although we would all be arguing that our boats were in a bad way and not worth much, then telling the hirers another story.

I feel now that the larger the boatyard the lower the tolls should be.

[littlesprite]

Andy/Clive,

If in the above example £39.25 was the cost of tolls over a 20 week hire period (20 weeks sounds like a good  year) would it be a fair system for yourselves to only pay for the weeks a boat is on hire.  When you have poor bookings, the toll for that boat would be less, equally if bookings are good the cost would increase but you would always know what percentage of the hire price is needed for the toll. 

I used the £39.25 as an example it could be any agreed figure.

[ranworthbreeze]

You would think that there ought to be a quantity discount on multiple registrations for day boats, hirecraft or for that matter private owners who can only use one vessle at a time.

The comercial users on the Broads pay the highest fees of all.

The Broads would be a sad place without the dayboats, passanger trips and hirecraft and without all of the above the Broads would vertually close shop.

The bottom line is not who pays what but should be are we getting value for our River Tolls. IMHO we are; but it could be a lot better with more indians and less chiefs within the B.A., that was more accountable to its paying members.

Regards

Alan

[Guest]

Andy/Clive,

If in the above example £39.25 was the cost of tolls over a 20 week hire period (20 weeks sounds like a good  year) would it be a fair system for yourselves to only pay for the weeks a boat is on hire.  When you have poor bookings, the toll for that boat would be less, equally if bookings are good the cost would increase but you would always know what percentage of the hire price is needed for the toll. 

I used the £39.25 as an example it could be any agreed figure.

 

I think that's a very good idea for hire craft tolls.

 

That way the hire fleet operator wouldn't have to pay for any "unused" weeks where the boat is left in the yard, not earning any money.

 

It would be a very precise way of charging for the actual use of the Navigation facilities.

 

The bookings are presumably already detailed in the VAT returns, so it should be fairly easily audited.

 

It wouldn't be practical to monitor privately tolled boats in the same way, but as has been said, the amount they are used is up to the owner anyway.

[Matt]

Sorry bit no way would a system where hire boats only pay for when they are on hire work. It would be an administration nightmare and as revenues still need to be maintained it would only rack all the prices up, no?

How about toll booths on the new cut?

[Maxwellian]

How about fitting the little black boxes that Car Insurers are now fitting, other colours are available I,m sure. Tolls could be charged on usage. Then the BA could also send out speeding tickets without leaving the office. They could also charge by the foot when you use the 24hr moorings.

Just before anyone reacts I am joking.

[littlesprite]

Sorry bit no way would a system where hire boats only pay for when they are on hire work. It would be an administration nightmare and as revenues still need to be maintained it would only rack all the prices up, no?

How about toll booths on the new cut?

Revenues will still need to be maintained if the hire yards go out of business.

[Matt]

Would they though? Less boats surely means less to maintain? Less moorings needed, less patrolling needed, less BA admin in areas like tolls, less bank erosion caused etc etc.

[littlesprite]

Would they though? Less boats surely means less to maintain? Less moorings needed, less patrolling needed, less BA admin in areas like tolls, less bank erosion caused etc etc.

 

 

I can't work out whether your being serious our just winding me up!

 

Hundreds of boat yard staff put out of work, thousands of holiday makers going elsewhere with their money, multiple other businesses closing due to the lack of custom. 

 

It's definitely a wind up, but you had me going for a while.

[senator]

Price per linear foot is the only way to go.

 

narrow boats on the Broads use 60 foot of mooring but pay for only 30' by virtue of being half the width they should be.

 

As for hire boats only being charged while in use is a great idea, can we also apply it to all other areas of business so if there is a quiet week the company pays no business rates? Not sure the authorities trying to set budgets are going to be that in favour of it.

 

Charging by horsepower is a shame. Jealousy is a very ugly emotion but unfortunately there is no other reason for suggesting it.  

[Guest]

.....Charging by horsepower is a shame. Jealousy is a very ugly emotion but unfortunately there is no other reason for suggesting it.  

 

Probably true, unfortunately.

 

This topic has revealed so much about what so many people think about "other" Broads users.....

[Oddfellow]

Would they though? Less boats surely means less to maintain? Less moorings needed, less patrolling needed, less BA admin in areas like tolls, less bank erosion caused etc etc.

 

Matt,

 

Not really:

 

• Reeds and other foliage will still grow and turn river into carr
• Silt will still build up (arguably more so)
• Moorings will still collapse (Ludham bridge holes?)
• Patrols will still be necessary for private vessels
• Other active management of the wetland remains necessary

The list goes on.

 

Tolls office has but a couple of staff; Fewer patrols? That's a laugh! If they have fewer patrols, they might as well sell the ranger launches!

 

The BA *MIGHT* be able to save the equivalent of the hire tolls, but the local economy wouldn't find it so easy.

[ExMemberBobdog]

Mmm, so approximately £40 of the weekly hire fee of a motor cruiser is to pay the tolls?  So £40 gives a holidaymaker (and his family) access to nearly 200km of waterway for a week?  Put this in some perspective:  SWMBO and I will go skiing in January, to a French ski resort, and we'll pay about £250 each for a liftpass to give us access to about 200km of pistes for a week.  

 

Any system of tolls is bound to have people complaining - none of us likes paying out, and we'd all prefer to get stuff for free.  The present system does have the benefit of simplicity, one of the guiding principles of taxation (forgive me, I used to teach Economics before I retired) is that a tax system should be 'efficient', i.e. that the costs of collecting the tax should be small relative to the amount of tax collected.  It seems to me that all of the alternatives to the current system suggested above would involve higher costs of collection, and the collection costs would be added to the overall tax burden.

 

The biggest bone of contention seems to be the relative tax burden on smaller/larger boats and whether the scale of charges differential is proportionate/fair, and the size of the multiplier paid by the hire fleets, and obviously ones perspective on this is going to be influenced (for boat owners) by whether we have a small or large vessel, and/or if we're in the hire business.

As the owner of a small sailing yacht (with a small electric motor) I have no complaints about my existing toll.  Compared to the price I pay for moorings, insurance, winter storage, maintenance etc it's pretty insignificant.  The article linked to above suggests my toll will increase more than proportionally next year, which I'm not thrilled about, but it seems that this is to redress a perceived unfairness about last years increase which, apparently, impinged more heavily on larger boat owners.

Anyway, it's a lovely day, and I'm off to paddle my kayak (for which I pay no BA toll at all, because I'm a member of the British Canoe Union)  

[Guest]

...... it's a lovely day, and I'm off to paddle my kayak (for which I pay no BA toll at all, because I'm a member of the British Canoe Union)  

 

As am I as also Bobdog, because the Adult basic BCU membership is far more cost effective than the BA toll for canoes.  

 

For £39.75 we get a license to paddle almost every inland waterway in the UK, the Canals, the Fens, the Thames etc., as well as the Broads. Plus free third party liability insurance, and the single subscription entitles us to use any canoe that we posses, because it is the paddler that is covered, rather than just a single craft.

 

In contrast, even though it is the lowest possible BA toll, their fee is £28.88, for a single specific canoe, just for the Broads, and no insurance included.

 

If only there was a similar alternative national licensing scheme for small dinghies and inflatables. I own a small inflatable, a small sailing dinghy, a canadian canoe and a rigid kayak, and a folding kayak, and yet the BA would force me to toll each one at £28.88, even though I can only use one at a time, and they are all stored at home, and have no more impact on the system than just one vessel.....

 

(and I do also always toll a motor cruiser anyway)

[C.Ricko]

As am I as also Bobdog, because the Adult basic BCU membership is far more cost effective than the BA toll for canoes.  

 

For £39.75 we get a license to paddle almost every inland waterway in the UK, the Canals, the Fens, the Thames etc., as well as the Broads. Plus free third party liability insurance, and the single subscription entitles us to use any canoe that we posses, because it is the paddler that is covered, rather than just a single craft.

 

sound like you are in the same league as Google and Starbucks

 

Anyway, just to clarify, I am not against any river users weather private hire, powered, not powered big engines or sails,  I am sure everyone feels a bit hard done by at times, I have private tolls hire tolls and saily tolls, I did wonder about the cheapness of a saily toll though as they draw more water than most and make one hell of a wash when they get going although I wont mention this much due to being part owner of a boat which draws about 5 foot and washes boats out of the water  

my business revolves around all sorts of users, so I bear no grudges

The toll example may sound cheap but that is a 30ft boat, I know some larger boats from Wroxham which did just 6 weeks this year.

Value for my toll money is really what we all seek I think

[Guest]

sound like you are in the same league as Google and Starbucks

 

No Clive, that would mean I'd found a way of cheating on other BA toll payers by using the navigation without paying my way.  

 

The way the BCU scheme works is that they pay a block fee to each Nav Authority to cover their members potential usage of their systems.  Apparently the BA do quite nicely out of it, because every BCU member contributes to every Nav Authority area, even though few use them all.

 

The regular block fee that the BA get from the BCU is judged to be greater than they would likely get from the tolls they would receive from the smaller group of BCU canoeists that would actually pay £28.88 to just use the Broads area.

[C.Ricko]

 

 

I Am just pulling your leg,

I have never heard of the set up but it seems like it would be a lot easier to take one block payment than mess about with lots of small payments..