"Neil Arlidge" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why one earth does the head office of a navigation authority need to >> be waterfront? Most boaters never go to such an office, and if one >> does the chances are his boat will be days away from it. > >So boaters can boat straight in, for advice/pay licence/pay fines/complain. >But when why should BW be interested in a minority user?
It shouldn't in this case, because the minority is *so* tiny, being made up entirely of boaters who have a boat that can reach the location by waterway, and happen to be in the vicinity at the time they wish to visit. It is simply a waste of money to pay the premium that a waterfront site commands just to serve that few people. Is the HQ of the Department for Transport (or whatever it's called these days) at an airport? >> I feel BW should choose its office location based significantly on >> ease of reaching it by car and train, and cost. > >and on the waterways...you know...in one of those locations owned by BW! It doesn't matter who owns the site. The opportunity cost to BW is the same. No, BW's HQ should definitely *not* be waterfront. >Have you tried parking for free in Watford? Why should expect to park free in a tbusy own centre? Parking is expensive to provide in such locations, because of the value of the land, and so merits a rent from its users. Why should those who arrive by non-car means subsidise you? >We all know why BW HQ has to be down south..so all the Board members can >earily get in to "work". Er, cause and effect? BW's HQ employees live near Watford because the HQ is at Watford. <thinks> Did he mean "eerily", i.e. recognising that BW Board members surprisingly do do quite a bit of work? Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
