dave hearnden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adrian Wrote: A long peice to justify why Boats should not be charged on >thier >area. >Your comments which I'm almost certain that I have read before, tries to >justify, why its not worth charging by the area of the boat as these people >say there is no added to cost having a narrow boat or a wide beam. But does >that matter! I have great trouble understanding where they get thosed idea's.
First, the cost to the navigation authority of any vessel passing along a waterway is almost nil. Almost all of the authority's costs are fixed (i.e. they are almost the same whether or not any navigation takes place). So, since the cost imposed by a boat's moving is such a negligibly small part of the total costs of the waterway, it is not sensible to vary the charges on craft with respect to whether, or how much, they navigate. There is certainly no justification at all for varying them in proportion (i.e. to insist that a craft twice as big should pay twice as much). There are plenty of other things we buy that vary in size, but not in price. Think of (men's, because I'm more familiar with them) shoes. A large pair is the same price as a small one of the same model/style. And, I guess of more relevance here, a narrow fitting pair is priced the same as a wide pair. T he cost of the shoes is mostly in the manufacture, shipping, and marketing, which don't vary with size; a tiny proportion of it relates to the materials, which do. It is far more sensible to divide them equally among all craft, or to divide them with respect to the "service" they receive. My idea of what that service is is the distance of waterway the craft is able to navigate to from its home mooring. Also, the cost a craft imposes when moving varies hardly at all with the size of the craft. A big boat doesn't wear out the waterway any more than a small one. However, the larger a vessel is, the fewer waterways it can fit into. So, given my concept of the service being purchased when you buy a boat licence, it is clear that the bigger the boat, the *less* it should pay. My barge cannot fit in the narrow canals -- why should I pay towards them? >Lets be honest, Nice idea! > BW who we all will admit need money which ever way they can get it, why have > they not charged on area. Because it would an arbitrary charge that it could no justify. It bears no relationship to any cost to BW. You might as well have a charge that varies with the height of the boat owner. Also, why do you think an area charge would result in more revenue? Such changes are usually required to be revenue-neutral, so if wder boats paid more, then narrower ones would pay less. Hmm, do you have a narrow boat? Maybe that explains your keenness for this idea? > If they were to bring in the charge I for one would be very happy for it. > Not that Im against the > wide beam etc it is because the space they take up should be paid for. Of course it should. Where it matters. And that is only for moorings, for which I agree the rent should vary with craft size. > Oh by the way I agree with a longer boat paying more than a shorter boat, > again due to the space taken up. No doubt. It makes exactly as much sense as your area proposal. Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Adrian Stott wrote: >> Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> 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. > >Exactly. And wide beam boats make that a more common circumstance >and so, IMO, a wide boat should pay for the inconvenience caused. The problem isn't caused by the moving boats. It is caused by the static ones, moored in inappropriate places. The solution is to remove those moorings, which imped all traffic irrespective of the size of the moving vessels. >> 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. >> >It isn't about numbers. Otherwise you could just say there aren't >many wide-beamed boats, just ignore them. The point is that one >wide beam boat effects the passage of every other boat on the >same waterway. But not significantly more than a narrow boat does. >>>> 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. > >Sorry Adrian. It is you that keeps quoting this 'fact' so it is >up to you to supply the reference or stop quoting it. Nah. I know it's true. If you think it isn't, show your workings. "Strudwick.Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >My understanding is that heritage boats already get a discount so the >proposal does no affect them. :-) The current heritage discount is a daft arrangement. It is tiny (and so an insignificant help in maintaining such craft), and goes to all craft over a given age (irrespective of heritage value). Much better to replace it with a much larger grant, targeted on fewer but more important vessels. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
