Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adrian Stott wrote:
>> For example, for moorings in a basin, it is appropriate to charge by >> length x beam,, because some of the (limited) area in the basin is >> consumed by mooring the boat. > >That applies to mooring on any part of the waterway. Especially >at busy moorings where boats breast up and where two boats going >in opposite directions cannot pass because of limited width. I know some places where it is hard to a single craft to get through without touching craft inappropriately moored craft on both sides. > >> One could argue that a larger vessel takes more room in a lock, and in >> the extreme one such vessel requires a lock(ing) all to itself while >> two smaller ones could share. > >It is not only about locking. It is about getting through bridge >holes, passing in narrower stretches of waterway. Just like a >wide-load on the road, special care needs to be taken passing >wider boats. Since most of almost every waterway was built to allow two gauge-beam craft to pass, and since very few bridges were designed to craft to pass in them, I think it actually is, effectively, only about locking. >> However, BW has calculated that the >> marginal cost of of any vessel navigating a waterway is so small that >> it is not worth charging for, so the difference between "so small" and >> "half so small" is not significant enough to reflect in the charges. >> >You keep saying that. Could you please provide a reference/quote? There was a statement to this effect made by BW during a consultation meeting on the 2002 charges review. Perhaps you should ask Ms Ash for a copy of the paper. >> Also, two vessels which could share a lock may actually not do so but >> each lock through by itself. > >And how many times does that happen? Any time a boat is travelling by itself. Certainly this is the majority of the boats that pass my mooring (about six today, all single narrow boats, on a wide navigation). >> The same arguments apply to length as to beam. So there is no logical >> argument for the current BW practice of levying a higher navigation >> charge on a longer boat than on a smaller one. > >Oh, really? And have you made that case to BW? And if that is so, >do you claim that BW have calculated this to be so? I quote from "Reviews of Craft Licensing -- Final Report and Conclusions", BW 2003 January, page 3. "We concluded that ... in principle the rationale for charging (by) length was not particularly strong" "Roger Millin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adrian wrote: >> It is appropriate to have a charge related to size only where, er, >> size matters. To have one where size does not matter would be like >> charging people with red hair more for cinema tickets than those >with other colours. > >As I expected you use an argument that attempts to justify your >preferences. Actually, it is the other way round. My preferences have been derived from understanding the grounds for justifying charges. >> However, for navigation, it is not appropriate to charge by craft >> size, > >Up to a point Sir Humphrey, but a wide beam craft will always require >dredging to a wider(better) standard than could be 'got away with' >for narrow beam craft. I'm not encouraging poor dredging standards, >only pointing out that more significant dredging will be required for >your type of craft at a time when waterway maintenance budgets are in >free-fall. Not true. It costs little if any more to keep a waterway dredged to original profile than it does to maintain it to a smaller profile. This is because for most navigations (i.e. excluding some river lengths) the same amount of silt accumulates in a given length of waterway each year, irrespective of its profile, so that is the amount of silt that must be removed on average each year irrespective of the profile maintained to. OTOH, the presence of full-gauge traffic ensures that the channel has to be kept in good condition for all traffic. >So, in the case of a broad beam craft wishing to navigate Braunston >tunnel, for example, the cost of providing two waterways employees to >close the tunnel to other craft and usher the broad beam through the >tunnel early in the morning, isn't classed as a significant cost in >your eyes? Perhaps, in that case, a prohibitively high passage-charge >would be a more appropriate solution than an area-based licence to >discourage the use of the tunnel by such craft? I am, in principle, in agreement with user charges where staffed facilities are used. However, the waterways community has proved to be strongly opposed to such charges, and successfully lobbied for their universal cancellation. Would it be churlish to suggest this is because some of these charges fell on those with narrow boats too (e.g. Anderton lift)? OTOH, it would be easy to come up with a scheme for broad craft usage of Braunston tunnel that requires no BW staff involvement, as just such a scheme operates at Foulridge. Martin Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adrian Stott ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >>It is appropriate to have a charge related to size only where, er, >>size matters. To have one where size does not matter would be like >>charging people with red hair more for cinema tickets than those with >>other colours. > >A logical statement, but akin to the argument of poll tax vs council >tax. Both are logical ways of funding local government, and both have >their positive points. In the same way as with houses, very crudely, the >size of boat might be supposed to have a rough correlation with ability >to pay. First, why should navigation charges be related to ability to pay. Whose ability (owner? user? hirer?). Do you expect better-off people to pay more for cinema tickets? They use the same seats as the worse off, you know. Second, the size of boat is not usefully correlated with ability to pay. The largest craft tend to be used for residence, and so represent a significantly larger proportion of the owner's total wealth than that of the strictly recreational vessel. And anyone who owns a large craft knows that its maintenance is very effective at reducing his wealth. Finally, I think that neither poll tax nor council tax is a logical way of funding local government, but this is probably not the place to discuss that (much). Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
