"George Pearson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 23 Sep 2008 at 12:28, Adrian Stott wrote: > >> But increasing the supply of moorings at honeypots is typically very >> expensive. So reducing the demand is usually the better alternative, >> at least in the short/medium term. I think that the fairest way to >> reduce demand, and to help fund an increase in supply, is to charge >> for the moorings. > >I don't see anything "fair" in this. In the extreme case, it would mean >only the well-to-do could justify mooring at a honeypot site. Free >market pricing is fine in commercial business, but not when imposed by >an organisation you've already identified as a monopoly, and not when >it applies to property theoretically "owned by the public". Instead, >strictly enforce short stay requirements. If demand is way too high, >allow pre-booking with a possible lottery component.
BW *is* a monopoly with respect to the right to navigate. However, it is *not* a monopoly with respect to moorings. The identify of the owner of what is being priced simply isn't relevant, because the issues of return on investment and allocation of goods does not vary depending on ownership. If I were approaching e.g. Llangollen (but not in my barge, of course!) on a leisurely and unprogrammed cruise, and wanted to stay for a couple of nights, what good would a lottery system do me? I wouldn't have known which day I was going to arrive, and I wouldn't want to gamble on getting mooring when I actually did arrive. I would want to be sure of getting one no matter what day I showed up. Although a short stay would suit those people who want to stay for a short time only, it would exclude those people who want to stay for e.g. three or four days. Why should the former have priority? The best allocation method seems to be to price the moorings per day at a rate that reduces demand just enough that there are always a few moorings vacant. Then anybody can simply show up and moor, and stay as long as he wants. And BW's revenue, which it needs so badly, is maximised this way. Of course, where the demand is very low, the price per day would be £0. >On 23 Sep 2008 at 12:28, Adrian Stott wrote: > >> I think it is very *un*fair to charge large boats more. They impose no >> added costs on BW, and their cruising ranges are smaller so they >> should actually pay less. > >I think I missed something. Two thought experiments: > >1. Suppose BW licensed canoes. Then canoes should pay the largest >charge, because they have the largest range. Yes, their per-day rate would be the maximum. But, since they are usually kept in the garge and thus would pay for only those days they are taken to the water, the number of days they would pay for per year would be small so their total annual payment would be small. >2. Suppose BW licensed boats on the Thames. Then a big gin palace on >the Thames should pay a very low fee, as they have such a limited range. What's wrong with that? If the boat is so big it can't get through Windsor bridge, its owner naturally wants to buy the right to use only the Thames below Windsor. Why should he be forced also to buy the right to navigate on other waters that his boat can't reach or fit into? If I go to a restaurant, but am not very hungry, I buy a small meal and pay a small price. I'm not forced to pay for everything on the menu. >Forgot to mention: I guess this means the cruising range charge >for those with boats on the Mon & Brec would be minimal. Of course. Also the Bridgwater & Taunton, the Forth & Clyde, etc. etc. Same like for the gin palace above on the Thames. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
