"Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The problem is Julian that even though your suggestion is born out of a >genuine concern for fairness, it is nevertheless also born out of your own >circumstances which make your 'cruising range' solution more beneficial to >you than it would be to me.
The only issue when a point is made is whether it is valid. The identity of the person making it is irrelevant. Attacking the person is a long-recognised debating flaw, called "ad hominem" (Latin for arguing "to the man", as opposed to "to the point"). >After all, we wouldn't expect other national asset sites like Stonehenge to >be economically self-supporting, would we? We wouldn't expect them to be >commerically developed to the point that what we value most about them is >destroyed which is what is happening on the canals. That's a different issue, albeit an important one. My solution to the funding of BW overall it is on record -- a major additional one-time capital endowment to BW which it can invest to generate the extra income which it needs and which is beyond the point of diminishing returns from charges on boaters. Once that endowment is transferred, BW's annual grant from the government would cease completely. However, the current consultation is not about that, nor about the total take from boaters (which BW has already fixed). It is about only how to distribute that take among the boats. The majority of craft are narrow. The majority of representation on BWAF is of organisations which speak for those with narrow craft. And, guess what? BWAF wants to increase the charges on non-narrow craft. This will reduce the charges on narrow ones, of course. Now *that's* self interest! "qwertybjg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >How about having a fixed rate which any boat on BW water pays (like >the current licence fee, but possibly less). This entitles you to keep >your boat on BW water as long as you keep within the moorings rules >(e.g. 14 day maximum stay at any point or 48 hrs at a visitor mooring >or whatever). > >Then also have tolls to be paid when a boat moves and uses the system. > >I think this would be fair as a boat which does not move does not >contribute to the wear and tear of movable bridges, locks etc. as much >as a moving boat does. That is logical, but fails because BW has discovered that the marginal cost to it of a boat moving a km along a waterway is effectively zero. In other words, for this discussion, BW's costs are effectively almost entirely fixed irrespective of how many boats there are, how much any of them moves, and let alone how big they are. Since there is no marginal cost, there is no justification for a usage-based charge (toll). Except in dry periods where back-pumping is required, when I would support a charge for each time you fill a (key) lock on the route concerned. If two boats can share that lock, then they can share the toll. So we come back to your "fixed rate". With which I heartily agree. £0.X per km of cruising range per year. "Glen Peckett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Payment by length was always, realistically, simply a means of charging the >"better off" more money. I don't see anything to justify the wide beam >premium. Two problems there. First, why should the better off pay more? We don't do that for e.g. cinemas, ski lifts, groceries. And besides, I think BW is not empowered by the government to redistribute wealth in that way. It is a navigation authority, not a social services agency. >I do, however, see a justification for the continuous cruisers premium - Me too. But for *mooring*, not for access to the waterways. I've proposed that a licence should come with a maximum of two months per year use of public (e.g. towpath, or visitor) moorings. If you don't declare you have a private mooring, then a charge for ten-months-worth of moorings at a market-comparable rate would be added to the price of your annual ticket. >The overhaul I've suggested previously would be for BW to remit all >connection fees for marinas (other than a small "permission fee", the "non >service" part of their own mooring fees, etc. and add it to the license >fees. That way everyone would be paying an equal share of the cost of the >system. I'm afraid that would make no difference to the mooring charges of the marinas, which are set by supply-and-demand, not by cost-plus. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
