Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Very well, I have ships, for which I provide Marine Operations and stowage functions, calling at Dunkerque and when the rest of France and French ports are on strike, Dunkerque remains open and working. The key is that whilst it is State owned, it is not State run. Productivity at the container terminal is comparable with Rotterdam City Terminals and Hamburg, better than Felixstowe, Tilbury, Le Havre and Southampton and not as good as at Antwerp or Zeebrugge.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
interesting stuff neil, i have noticed over the years they do not seem to have the same industrial relations problems as calais.
different union maybe?
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Always a mine of info. Ed. Thanks for adding to French factor.
Watty
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I think they are in the same Unions Howard, but in 2005-2006 their local reps signed local agreements which didn't happen at the other ports. There was a major shake up of port employment laws and contracts in France between 2005 and last year which, Nationally, caused huge disruption to port and terminal services. This disruption left Dunkerque pretty much untouched because locally they had already signed off on the changes.
Le Havre was on strike again just this last Tuesday, as was Fos, Rouen, Marseille, St Nazaire, Montoir...etc.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i would be interested to know what they signed up to, it sounds like they were offered some sort of productivity deal and common sense dictated that if they took more money home then they would be less disruptive.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Hopefully this discussion proves fruitful.
I will add, that in European countries, road tax is paid, fuel tax is paid, and even then they still charge for motorways and numerous tunnels, such as those passing through the Alps.
There is no reason why European countries should object to Britain doing likewise, such as charging a road/port toll.
The idea of a part of road/port toll revenues going to local authorities is perfectly sane, in line with economic regeneration, and would probably be welcomed by European governments as a good idea for Britain to adopt.
As for hauliers, any increase in transport costs can be passed on to the importers of the transported goods, who in turn can pass on the increased expense to the retailers.
So the hauliers have no reason to complain, they would not lose out.
As I've explained before on the Forum, on the Dover Mercury (2010) and to the DfT, the impact of a port toll (£50 per lorry) would be too fractional to actually affect retail prices, as it would amount, on average, to quarter of a pence per kg of transported goods passing through ports. This is calculating an average of 15-20 tonnes (15,000-20,000 kg) of goods on an HGV trailer.
The alternative is, in order to pay for road facilities (ports, roads etc.), the State will just go on indiscriminately taxing individuals and businesses, because from somewhere the money has to come.
So the pay-to-use idea is by far better, and it is by far fairer.
And providing the Government realises that Localism can only function if local communities also get a share of revenues on Port traffic that directly affects them, then Dover can succeed.
And this is what we need: a fair and reasonable local revenue from the Port on a continuous basis, not by taking the money from DHB revenues, but through a specific Port toll intended as public revenue to be divided between the Treasury and the local communities (Town, District and County).
The same would apply for Shepway with the Channel Tunnel, and for all British ports.
This would be perfectly in line with pay to use tariffs charged by European countries (motorways, tunnels).
Guest 722- Registered: 23 Aug 2011
- Posts: 97
All vehicles and passengers traveling through Dover already pay a toll. Port tax. This goes into DHB's coffers !
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
We know that, Andy, but we need a public revenue too, separate from the DHB revenue.
Otherwise we will never get anywhere economically! Local regeneration!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#186 - "impact of a port toll (£50 per lorry) would be too fractional to actually affect retail prices"
Neither should lorries using lorry parks rather than using sideroads as car-parks and toilets, but they still do the latter !
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 776- Registered: 1 Oct 2012
- Posts: 95
All vehicles and passengers traveling through Dover already pay a toll. Port tax. This goes into DHB's coffers !
So how much is owed to the Town for that inconvenience
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
For the sake of less than US$50 per 40ft unit shippers change shipping lines, route their cargo through different ports and switch main transport mode. Happens often and sometimes for even less than US$10 on the rate. Hauliers already operate on extremely small margins, additional costs will lead to industry consolidation, reduction in competition, and increased prices which will then have a disproportionate effect on retail.
Anything that French, German, or other EU nations perceive as being detrimental to their transport industry interests gets challenged Alexander. They will definitely not welcome it.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Counted as DHB revenue and part of their tariff Christine and the terms of their foundational documents which removed the port from the community, mean that DHB, as a Trust port, are not obliged to pay a copper penny to the Town. Modernising Trust Ports 2 requires them to serve the best interests of all of their stakeholders equally, but it is left up to individual Trust Port executives to decide how they can do that.
Guest 776- Registered: 1 Oct 2012
- Posts: 95
Just imagine this.
We could be thriving,bustling,active alive. A seafront with commercial activity, lots of seafood outlets and foodoutlets, open from am to pm. Boats and floats, like Ostende. Dismantle this DHB, it is corrupt, outdated and incestuous.Bloated with self-importance, and inadequate managers. Creaming and ripping us off.
All along this South-Eastern Coastline there is activity and wealth...except us!
Oh, please get angry about all of this, because this is the Gateway to the UK, and it is Rusty and asleep....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, you stated you read my representation, perhaps those from 2010, but they all have the same proposal as that of 2012, so you should know, also because I've written it on the Forum many times, that this Port Toll I proposed is for all British ports. This categorically excludes the possibility of hauliers who use Dover's Port deciding to avoid the Port of Dover, as the Toll would be the same in every British port.
And it would obviously apply to freight by rail too, in the same proportions as for road haulage, ie calculated on tonnage.
This seems pretty obvious to me.
If we just go on flinging spanners in the project, we won't get anywhere!
Would be nice if there was something we could actually agree on for the common good.
And no, I can't see European governments opposing an intelligent proposal that would bring Britain on an equal level with European countries in terms of transport fees.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Christine, DHB could not afford to use any significant amount of its income from the Port to give to the town, as they have to finance port maintenance, pay the salaries of their staff and also service their pension scheme.
Hence we need an additional Port Toll as a public revenue, completely separate from that of DHB, such as Calais has, for example. Ours is probably the only Country in the West that does not charge any kind of toll for road transport, and ports are clearly connected to roads and transport.
The port is a transport facility as is a tunnel, and all tunnels in the Alps charge a considerable sum for passage of vehicles, adding to the road toll.
It would be nice if DPPT, instead of just flinging spanners in the only feasible proposal for local regeneration, would actually cooperate!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Actually, Neil, reading again your post 191 "additional costs will lead to industry consolidation, reduction in competition, and increased prices which will then have a disproportionate effect on retail", I think you are deliberately going out of your way to sabotage a proposal for local regeneration by using scare-mongering tactics.
As I've clearly explained, the effect on retail prices will be too insignificant to even be noticed.
As for reduction in competition, this is just a mere invention! Freight travels both ways, be it imported or exported, and fifty pounds more on 15-20,000 kg of transported goods is practically a nothingness when translated into retail prices.
I think you are just trying to mislead people here with big words void of any reality.
For me it is clear to see that DPPT is just obstructing local regeneration, and quite frankly, what DPPT proposes is just borrowing money for a one-off payment to Dover (£50 million), and Amen! That would be the end of it.
The £1 million a year there-after is just nothing!
There is no way the ferry companies, which cater for petrol-dependent road transport, are ever going to manage to cover the enormous debt DPPT would get Dover Port into. Ross' fag-box sums the other day, where-by in 30 years DPPT would have pulled clean with a profit, is absolutely unrealistic.
One has to assume, that with such sums, DPPT have excluded a T2 and excluded any major Port maintenance.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Here is a copy/paste from the latest Dover Chamber of Commerce newsletter produced by the Chief Executive, David Foley, on this subject...
----
On the BBC 2 Newsnight programme on 3rd October 2012, the MP for Dover and Deal, Charlie Elphicke, made a dramatic announcement about the port of Dover. W ith Waterloo Bridge in the background, he suggested that the demise of the Dover Harbour Board might be drawing nearer. If not quite yet 'the nearest run thing you ever saw'. The President of the Dover District Chamber of Commerce said: "If we look at what is happening in Dover with the People's Port project to take over the Port of Dover, we are expecting a decision in the next month." He then listed some of the government's recent other initiatives to devolve power away from "centralised departments or localised authorities". Back in the studio, a subsequent interview provoked the comment from Phillip Blond, the Director of ResPublica and arch champion of Big Society initiatives, that: "If Dover gets its People's Port - brilliant." Charlie Elphicke's words mark the first public statement from Westminster that the extensive consultation over the future of the Port of Dover may be reaching a conclusion. Bidding to buy the port is Dover People's Port Trust Ltd (DPPTL) which has the fulsome support of the union Unite and the Labour peer Lord Glasman. In March last year, 97.5% of the Dover population who cast their vote in a parish poll opted for a community owned port rather than see Dover Harbour sold to remote interests, most likely overseas. DPPTL has set itself the target of ensuring that more of the passengers passing through Dover should become customers of East Kent companies and aims to reverse the decline in traffic which, with the exception of road haulage vehicles, has fallen steadily since 1997 as the following data shows.
Year
Passengers
Tourist Cars
Coaches
Lorries
1997
21,463,570
3,558,355
165,002
1,602,863
2011
12,764,699
2,653,127
84,938
2,069,945
Change
-41%
-25%
-49%
+29%
Source: Annual Traffic Statistics, Port of Dover 2012.
------
Sorry the chart did not paste properly but it can be read by comparing the top line under each , the second and so on.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#196 - looking forwards to Neil's responses to that !!
"For me it is clear to see that DPPT is just obstructing local regeneration"............
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I promised myself Paul and I'm not going to break my promise.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
if the dppt bid fails then alex will be proved right.