Brian
To be honest I don't know but the figures would be very different
because, most unlicensed boats are, in general, not moving every few
days. They are therefore easier to find on an irregular sweep pattern.
Then the return are also far higher in the hundreds of pounds per boat.
Picking up Bruce's point I agree more could be done at local level.
Popular moorings can be monitored easily using part timers, mooring
wardens etc. to reduce overstaying. But the revenue would still be
small, it would be more about fairness of allocation the scarce
resource than a revenue making exercise .
Paul
Brian from sunny Suffolk wrote:
> Strudwick.Family wrote on 30/09/2008 :
>
>> IMHO it will never be possible or economic to introduce such a charge
>> nationally except at high density = popular mooring sites. To introduce
>> it nationally would require an enforcement officer to visit every part
>> of the network every day. The maths is simple. There are over 2200
>> miles of canal run by BW, assuming the men used some sort of motorised
>> bicycle and could cover 40 miles (80 mile round trip) a day it would
>> require over 50 officers. Assuming that each man cost BW £15k per year
>> in wages and administration that is a £750k wage bill. Or put another
>> way they would have to charge for 30000 days of overstaying to cover the
>> wage bill let alone fuel, depreciation of bicycles etc.
>>
>>
> How does that compare with what is required to check boats have current
> licenses?
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
