Steve, No, they would have to introduce a reduced flat rate licence, maybe include some free miles and then charge, LH
--- In [email protected], "Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/11/23 Adrian Stott [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Most of BW's costs are fixed. The number (let alone size) of boats, > > and the amount each navigates, makes almost no difference to what BW > > needs to spend per year to maintain the system > > > > In fact, the marginal cost to BW of a boat navigating a km of waterway > > is *so* small that it does not justify the cost to BW of installing > > even the simplest use-monitoring system. > > > > As a result, tolls are not an appropriate way to charge for boating > > today. The charge needs to be mostly (if not entirely) fixed (i.e. a > > single payment for unlimited use of the waterways concerned during a > > stated period). > > > > > > I couldn't agree with Adrian more on this, especially the views he expresses > later in his posting about the libertarian aspects of monitoring our > movements. There was a naive report issued earlier this year by IWAC (inland > Waterways Advisory Council) which raised the prospect of all manner of > extraordinary methods to monitor us ranging from enbedding microchips in our > licence plates to the erection of road-type cameras at canal junctions to > photograph us. OK, none of these wilder idea was was recommended by IWAC, > but the fact they were on the table at all scared the hell out of me. The > fact is, Laurence, computer-based toll charging would erode the sort of > go-as-you-please canal cruising we all value so much. > > As Adrian says, BW's financing, however it is achieved, essentially needs to > be fixed. And where would toll charging leave the current license? You can't > charge people at the current licence levels and then charge them again to > move their boats. Surely you're not suggesting that, are you? > > Steve > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
