Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>(W)ith the cuts there is even more reason for
>BW to increase license and mooring fees. No amount of lobbying
>is going to change that simple fact. On the other hand if they
>were adequately funded they might have more reason to keep
>license fees etc at levels that would atttract more use of
>the waterways not less.
Yes.
>But then, of course, some would argue
>there are two many boats already; and the simple answer to that
>is increase the license fees.
I think "some" would have a hard time supporting that argument.
For example, use of the Thames (especially by hire boats) has hardly
been booming.
In fact, most waterways are quite lightly used. There are a few hot
spots (e.g. Braunston, Hurleston on sunny long weekends), but these
could easily be dealt with by a "congestion charge" type of approach,
to spread out the demand to other routes and to less busy times.
I can't envisage any navigation authority trying to discourage craft
from being their customers at all.
OTOH, it is clear that inland navigations cannot survive solely on
income from boaters. After all, the canal companies went bust trying.
I'm quite sure that an attempt to do so would soon run into the law of
diminishing returns anyway -- i.e. higher navigation charges would
actually result in less total revenue from them.
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
