The Douglas Bay Horse Tramway

Which begs the fundamental question for me about the CBA methodology - it assumes that there is sufficient tax money available to enable tax funding of something that returns value to individuals and businesses. I would be more impressed if it demonstrated a corresponding return to the exchequer.

 

Some of the money spent by those visitors whose decision to visit the Isle of Man has been tipped by the tramway feeds the local economy and gets back to the Government via taxation. The remainder of it contributes to the income and hence livelihood of traders and ultimately works its way back into public finances. The Douglas Council's approach is the depressing one so prevalent in local government of trying to create prosperity through retrenchment and, most particularly, by opting for closure as its first option rather than launching a consultation for alternative ways of providing the service.

 

A quixotic argument indeed.

PH

 

I take it that you don't accept how a tourism economy works.

 

Not quixotic, but chock full of assumptions, not least that it is in taxpayers collective interests to fund activities that benefit individual businesses and their employees regardless of the affordability or net cost to the exchequer.

CBA is a useful tool and can help guide prioritisation, but it's elevation to gospel is IMHO wrong.

 

I happen to live in a seaside resort and have long been a volunteer on tourist railways. It would seem that neither would apply to you.

PH

 

It is worth making the point of course that many of our seaside resorts were developed by the Local Authorities with money raised from the rates, in recognition of the wider benefits - for example The Winter Gardens in Weston Super Mare

 

The fundamental point people are missing in this debate on CBA is that a lot of the indirect income in the calculation goes elsewhere than to the Council that has to pay out the subsidy. That is just the same as in the rural bus subsidy that is on the news currently. Centre collects locals pay out.

Local ability to raise revenue is capped and finite. Until the centre agrees to fund the shortfall what else is the local council supposed to do but shut the service. If they don't cut service X (in this case the tram) then service y has to be cut instead.

CBA as a tool only works properly when all parts of the equation either fall within one jurisdiction or the varied parties agree to fully cooperate in a joint undertaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Agreed. The problem is the British obsession with every activity having to make a profit, and not looking at how an apparently unprofitable service can contribute to overall prosperity. The horse trams very definitely are part of the IoM ambience. Ask anyone who has been to Douglas, what they most remember about the town. My wife and I are not the only ones who would immediately say it was the horse trams.

John

 

The "problem" with the Stables is that the redesign of the prom incorporates a roundabout or similar roughly where they used to change the horse on the trams. This was basically done outside the stable. The Corporation state that the new design of the prom makes changing here too dangerous, hence the requirement to move the stables. The idea that they walk the horses a 100 yard to the terminus and change them there is apparently beyond their level of thinking! This does tend to reinforce the idea they were looking for reasons to stop the trams.

Additionally whilst the stables are apparently fine the connected buildings are pretty run down. The corporation would like to sell to a developer but they nobody would be interested in with stables next door due to the smell etc. I am not sure this really stacks up as they are only occupied for 4 or 5 months of a year and I see plenty of people happy to live in rural communities next to "smelly" farms etc. I have also not seen that when the costs for the new stables have been discussed the income from the sale proceeds from the current properties has been offset against the costs.

 

Can anybody say whether the horse trams will or won't be running this year? If there has been an announcement, I've missed it.

 

I heard, yesterday, that the Isle of Man Railways 2016 timetable leaflets have not, yet, been distributed pending a decision re the horsetrams despite IMR services commencing next Saturday. Rest assured Ron, as soon as anything is announced , I'll post it on Nat.Pres.
Ray.

 

A bit late to the party but places like Eastbourne, Blackpool, Weston-super-Mare and Southport (other resorts are available) underwrite the cost of their air shows because of the large number of visitors they attract and thus spend money in the resort so I can see where you're coming from.

 

While that may be true it is dependant on the LA having the resources available to undertake the funding. As a now retired LA manager I know that often the criticism of authorities for inaction/cuts in optional activity is not because the will to retain the activity is lacking but because funds are going on other statutory and mandatory functions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I agree. Some seaside shows are no more purely because of LA cutbacks. Thise that still run do get some of their costs back through programme sales, sponsorship and trade stand rent but that's somewhat different to the situation facing the Douglas trams.

 

Thanks Ray. Fingers still tightly crossed...

 

I don't want this to stray too far off the topic of the IoM but it is a much wider issue than the odd seaside show. It is closing most of the public toilets, the whole Theatre, closing sports centres in total, cutting bus subsidies across wide swathes of the country etc. Reason statutory services like housing benefits not fully funded centrally and the high outgoings on that due to poverty from low wages in seaside towns. All issues that can easily be searched for in reported news items.

The bottom line with the trams appears similar to our local Theatre here in Weymouth. It got shut because with paid labour it needed a subsidy not because of lack of use. Reopened with a trust running using substantial volunteer labour input it can survive? The crunch will be who pays for the new roof (it leaks badly) landlord or tenant and in the Douglas case isn't the similar issue track and road repairs.

As a researcher into horse railways I hope it survives although I have never visited the IoM. I am certainly not anti the tram, just mindful of how cash strapped local authorities are currently and trying to show some realistic issues around the funding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Actually John, the entire cost of the new track and road reinstatement would have been met from Government funds not Douglas Corporation's. I still suspect that the sudden closure announcement was an attempt by the Corporation to off-load the loss making operation to the Gov't whilst retaining the valuable stables etc for sale as a desirable (i.e. valuable) development site. Whilst visitor numbers are not what they were in the 50's & 60's all the Heritage Railways showed an increase in ridership in 2015. The IoM can never compete again for 'mass tourism' but it has a lot to attract visitors with particular interests such as history/culture, wildlife and, of course, heritage railways/tramways where we can offer something different to other destinations. The horsetrams are part of that 'package' and their loss could cause potential visitors to ask themselves "is it still worth the not inconsiderable expense of travelling to the IoM or should we just jump in the car and spend our money elsewhere?"
Ray.

 

No matter how much special pleading, "somebody" has to pick up the bill. In this case that "somebody" is the I.O.M. taxpayer in one form or another. Better get busy shaking the collecting box!

PH

 

My point exactly.