Replies interleaved: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 9:17 AM Subject: [canals-list] Re: Working narrowboats to pay the £50 "broad" beam surcharge?! (XP)
> Brian from sunny Suffolk > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Iain Street explained : >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Stott" >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 3:14 PM >>> Subject: [canals-list] Re: Working narrowboats to pay the £50 "broad" >>> beam >>> surcharge?! (XP) >>> >>> >>> (snip) >>>> 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. >>> Fair enough, but only applicable to "honeypot" sites, >> >>I object to this and is why I would not overnight in Llangollen. If I >>want to stay in the marina (hole with water and landing stages no >>security like a proper marina) I will happily pay for it, but I object >>to pay to moor on the towing path, that IMO is one of the things my >>licence buys me. So charging for the Llangllen moorings does regulate demand :-) > > And if all the towpath moorings are already occupied when you get > there? > > "Iain Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>If the cost of a boat navigating a km is £nil, what is the cost of >>mooring? > > The two situations are very different, so different economic rules > apply to them. > > 1. Where by consuming a product (particularly one for which there is a > large potential over-supply) a consumer imposes costs on the > (monopoly) supplier, it is reasonable for the user to pay a cost-plus > price for it. What cost does the moorer impose on the supplier? (If we include the capital cost of rings,etc., the argument that the cost of moving is £nil is untenable.) > 2. Where a consumer consumes a product in limited supply (such as > moorings), then it is reasonable for him to pay the market-clearing > price for it. Usually, if that price is higher than the cost of > providing additional supply, that supply will be created. For > moorings, the cost of providing additional ones is actually rather > high, as BW found when it created the basin at Llangollen. I actually find myself agreeing with this, provided that the moorings in question actually are in limited supply and subject of high demand. > > 3. BTW there is a third situation, which is when the consumer > purchases a supply of a product in advance of use. In this case, he > should pay for only the amount of the product he wants to purchase > (i.e. expects to use). It is violation of this rule that is a major > flaw in BWAF's proposals to charge wider craft more. The owners of > those craft want to buy access to only the wider waterways; BWAF is > insisting they also buy access to the narrow ones, which they can't > use. This looks horribly like an argument for tolls to replace licence. The amount paid would then closley match the amount of product the purchaser expects to use. (Also, the subject has changed!) > >>> Of course, where the demand is very low, the price per day would be £0. > >>Fair enough, but only applicable to "honeypot" sites, and liable to misuse >>(Let's charge for the moorings for 5 miles either side of ever canalside >>pub.........................) > > There's no need to be specific. The functional rule is simple -- > wherever there are no visitor moorings available where visitors with > to moor, the price is too low. And vice versa, of couse. > >>> 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. >> >>But you seem to be in the position of having ordered the mixed grill, >>which >>you can't finish, and want to pay the same price as the peeps who just >>had >>the sausages :-) > > Nah. I ordered "broad and wide routes only", but the waiter brought > "rivers only". This is unappetising, and reveals incompetence in the > kitchen, but I'm eating it anyway because I'm hungry and because > spicing it up with "narrow canals" makes it indigestible. But "Broad and wide routes only" was never on the menu. Or perhaps it was, and the seasoning of "narrow canals" comes with it. Or perhaps we've pushed this metaphor too far. > > Trouble is, BWAF wants to make the last the only item on the menu in > future. That would really give me stomach trouble. If there is a demand for "rivers only", then I agree the restaurant should keep it on the menu. > > Unlike elastic socks, one size does *not* fit all. But you expect to pay a bit more for the larger size. I can see the logic of varying the licence cost by length; these were the rules when we started to play, after all. I can also see the logic of charging by area, or displacement. Including "area available to cruise" is more difficult, and, if taken any distance at all leads to all sorts of unfortunate outcomes, which would upset a lot of people. A canoe should pay a lot less than a cruiser, not more, as would the ase if the licence was based on "available area" :-} -- Iain
