> Julian wrote:
>> Anderton and Standedge should have been left as pay per use.
>> Why should I have to pay for something that in one case I can't use
>> and in the other I am very unlikely to use as I cant get very far
>> when I get to the top!
>
> Sorry can't go with that logic. My boat is 70ft long (no northern
> waterways) 7ft wide (no Llangollen) draws almost 3ft (allegedly no
> southern Stratford) and has an undersized engine (no rivers). To be
> really pedantic I also single hand so probably no wide canals either.
>
> What proportion of the licence fee would I pay following your logic?
> I'm of the view that this would be the first step down the pay per
> use
> path across the network and I for one am completely opposed to this,
> even though I won't ever use over half of it.
Those considerations (both Steve's and Julian's) aren't actually anthing to
do with pay per use, but with pay per potential use. What the advocates of
pay per use want is payment per lock-mile, quite possibly at a differential
rate where busy canalsw are more expensive to use. And this would not be on
top of the licence fee but instead of it (or possibly on top of a much
smaller licence fee). Not that I'm particulayl impressed with the
advantages of the system, which would mean that people who leave their boats
moored on their official on-line moorings for 50 weeks of the year would get
away very cheaply, when, to my mind, they ought to be paying a heck of a lot
for the inconveniencde they give to people who actually move about.
Mike Stevens
nb Felis Catus III --0 currently ob the Wey to the BAsinsyoke Canal
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
SPONSORED LINKS
| Sports fund raising | Sports psychology degree | Sport psychology college |
| Sport psychology course | Sport nutrition | Outdoor recreation |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "canals-list" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
