"Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Put simply, I believe that the waterways are a national asset that ultimately >will have to be financed nationally.
I think we agree that that should read "partly" financed nationally? >BW have concentrated its efforts on maximising its revenue in ways that >ultimately threaten what we most >value about the canals. I think that's incorrect. Could you substantiate it, please? >What each user to the canals contributes to their >upkeep is a debate we just haven't properly had, and it's one I fear because >it will detract from the basic fact that canals cannot generate enough >direct income to entirely finance themselves; and the debate - like all this >talk from Watford of 'self sufficiency' - suggests that they can. ISTM (see "partly" above) that even the maximum income that can be generated from those types user which it is feasible to charge directly is insufficient to run the waterways. However, overall, the waterways provide enough benefits to others (i.e. those it is infeasible to charge directly, and non-using beneficiaries such as riparian owners) to more than justify payment by those others towards running the waterways. So, the government should tax those others and use the proceeds to provide financial support to the waterways to fill the funding gap. Again, I think we (and possibly most people in this ng) agree on that too? However, we may not agree that chargeable users should pay the market-clearing prices for their use (which I think they should). This would probably result in fairly close to the maximum income obtainable from them for BW. But if they pay less than that, they are in effect being subsidised. I can't see any way in which they (e.g. boaters) merit such a subsidy, although like any other boater I would be/am happy to receive one. In other words, from the point of view of the public good, and the good of the waterways, users should pay market prices. From the point of view of the user, they should pay as little as possible. Which side are you supporting? >I would like the usage to be planned. Like, how many boats CAN the system >reasonably be expected to support? How much SHOULD walkers pay to use >towpaths and how? etc etc But Adrian calls this 'stateism.' He believes >that left to itself the free market will sort everything out magically. Not magically, but by the market. I agree that BW needs to plan, e.g. to ensure it has enough water supply to allow navigation by the traffic that will optimise its income. Businesses generally need to do that sort of planning. That's management. But there is no need for government to do it - that would be stateism. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
