The future of our canals?

[Alan de Enfield]

42 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The consultation failed to gain boater support and so the idea was not implemented.

And, the CCers were not particularly impressed that the proposal of 'those who use the canals most pay the most' and that they would be charge 2.5 times the price of a 'leisure licence'.

 

2. Desirable characteristics of a craft licensing system
Despite its statutory nature, the licence fee in practice is analogous to a sports club membership. Use of the waterways is a discretionary, leisure time activity, unlike use of the roads. This puts it firmly in the competitive arena of consumer spending. In designing a new structure for licensing, we should aim for:
2.1. Value for money: boating’s main competitors are second homes or caravans, holidays on hired boats and other types of holidays. Although the licence fee is only a small proportion of the overall cost of boating, and research has confirmed that the price elasticity of licence demand with respect to price is very low, it is not in BW’s long term interest to pursue a relentless, across-the-board price maximising policy. We should instead give greater attention to understanding the constraints and opportunities relating to revenue raising contained within discrete segments of our boating market. Prices which a large proportion of consumers feel to be excessive, are likely to increase our enforcement costs and yield lower net income.
Customers’ perceptions of value for money are influenced by:

(a) Quality of service provided – noticeable improvements to facilities, maintenance standards.

(b) The costs of service provided: charges linked directly to marginal cost of provision could be seen as fair by users. However, apart from the possible exceptions of special structures which involve manned operation, or where recent restoration costs have been very high and there is justification for recovering specific income from users, marginal cost pricing would result in near zero income because almost all costs are fixed.
However, where there are major differentials in frequency of use of a boat such that over all, wear and tear on the infrastructure becomes significant, a ‘cost incurred’ element within the charge would be sensible. This is the rationale for the current differential between hire boat and private boat licences.

(c) Extent of geographical access. Under the current system, we offer limited choice of access levels – just rivers only, and the EA Gold option. From the user perspective, there is a compelling argument for a ‘pay as you go’ system. In its purest form, this would involve some form of payment per trip related to distance travelled or duration. It would require heavy investment in technology to implement. It would also represent an unacceptably high level of risk to revenue generation since we have no experience of the relevant trip price-demand elasticities. This isn’t considered to be a serious option for the present review. However, we should perhaps not rule out a gradual extension of the current options, with lower charges for waterways disconnected from the main network, or even a zoning system involving lower charges for usage within a single zone. This could be particularly effective in encouraging new entry to inland boating for people who already own small or portable boats.

(d) At the individual level, a consumer’s ability or willingness to pay. The value or size of their boat has been suggested as a proxy for this. The relationship is very imprecise however – wealthy people own small as well as large craft; large craft can be very old and of low value; an impecunious individual may attach a greater intrinsic value to their boating activity etc. Boat size is therefore a very inaccurate guide. Using the leisure club membership analogy, concessions for senior citizens and unwaged might be considered as a means of retaining custom in more price sensitive sectors.

 

3.4. The main drivers for licence price variations should be:
(a) size of boat: but we should drastically reduce the number of length categories and introduce a ‘beam’ factor. There is little rationale for the large number of differentials we have at present. The main reasons for retaining some elements of pricing according to size are:
the practical difficulties of implementing a change involving complete removal of this factor - there would be unacceptably large numbers of losers and winners
*likelihood of sharing locks
*a marketing case for an attractive entry-level rate to encourage new boaters
The ultimate target could comprise as few as three categories, but this would need to be phased in over say, five years. For example
*market entry’ boats, typically under 7m – to encourage new customers
*medium sized family boat, up to 12m – another popular entry level category
*boats over 12m which are typically the choice of people with high commitment to boating.

Initially we would recommend adoption of just 6 length categories, perhaps using the existing short term licence structure, plus a premium factor for craft with a beam over 2.13 m.
(b) Duration of licence: we recommend a relative reduction in the price for short term access combined with a restriction on the number of such licences that an owner could purchase during a year. The purpose of this is to increase visiting craft and new market entrants.
(c) intensity of use: extensive use indicated by continuous cruising/occupancy, commercial hiring, multi-user arrangements etc. should pay a premium
(d) extent of geographic access: craft using only isolated stretches such as Monmouth & Brecon, Bridgwater & Taunton and Lowlands waterways should pay less than those with full access. Consider increasing the number of geographic zones, possibly implemented via card readers at zone boundaries. This could be refined to allow for additional charges for access to particularly intensively used areas, and lower costs for less popular zones. It would involve some users paying more and some less.
(e) Policy objectives such as encouraging new entrants to boating, use of electric power, encouraging hire operators to adopt ETC quality standards, encouraging use of less popular areas. We could also consider verifiable user concessions – dependent on introducing proof of identity requirement. For example, we might consider a lower rate for loyal senior customers – 10+ years or more licensed continuously with no payment defaults and over 60 years old.
(f) The fee structure should be simplified to define a single baseline fee for the most popular size/type of craft. In the following trial example, the baseline is a privately owned pleasure craft over 12 m long with a registered permanent mooring, licensed for 12 months. Note all these figures are hypothetical. If basic principles are agreed, we will construct simulation model with aim of calculating rates that will protect total revenue and reflect policy objectives. Nor is the list definitive – additional criteria may be added as work proceeds on the scheme.

Criteria

Baseline fee to be multiplied by:

 

(a) Size
1. Boat is between 7 and 12 m long x0.8
2. Boat is less than 7 m long x0.6

(b) Duration
3. Licence period 6 months only x0.85
4. Licence period 3 months only x0.6

(c) Intensity of use
5. Boat let out for holiday hire or timeshare x2.5
6. Boat operated for day hire only (no overnight accommodation) x1.5
7. Boat has no BW approved mooring or cruises continuously x2.5

(d) Geographic access
8. Cruising area restricted to rivers x0.60
9. Cruising area extended to EA waterways (cf Gold licence) x1.25

10. Cruising area is restricted to isolated stretches. x0.5

(f) Policy objectives
11. Hire boat not ETC accredited x1.1

12. Licence not renewed promptly x1.1

13. Boat has permanently fitted inboard electric motor x0.75

 

The effect of multiple criteria would be cumulative – eg a 10 m boat licensing for 6 months wishing to cruise rivers only would pay £baseline x 0.8 x 0.85 x 0.6. So, if the baseline were say, £500, the fee payable would be £204. This procedure would also ensure continued compliance with Section 4 of the 1983 Act relating to river registrations.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

And, the CCers were not particularly impressed that the proposal of 'those who use the canals most pay the most' and that they would be charge 2.5 times the price of a 'leisure licence.

Consideration was given to that aspect. However, the main thrust was 'ability to pay'. BW's policy at the time was to charge by length with "the trade" paying 2.47 times a private licence. The waterways ombudsman found that it was wrong to charge private boaters at trade rates simply because the boat  was shared  ownership and had multiple owners.

 

The  consultation failed because many, perhaps most, boats  have multiple owners and legislation made  it difficult to licence on this basis. Perhaps more important joint ownership might suggest an 'inability to pay'.

 

The outcome  from the consultation was that  charging by length remained a reasonable but not perfect proxy for 'ability to pay'.  

 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

However, the main thrust was 'ability to pay'.

It was interesting that irrespective of 'household income' the percentage of boaters with a mooring were very similar, whilst the largest percentage of CCers were in the £15k bracket. 

What didn't appear to be considered was the age profile.

If the 'elderly' on a fixed income (Pension) were the majority who had the time to comply with the CC requirements it would certainly distort the graph.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[GUMPY]

Canals should never have been handed to some two bob limited company to run them.
BW despite their failings were better than cart, oh and the canals should be funded by government not PI.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

43 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Canals should never have been handed to some two bob limited company to run them.
BW despite their failings were better than cart, oh and the canals should be funded by government not PI.

The trite response would be that we all need the benefit of hindsight earlier.

 

Hansard documents that very few boaters opposed the 'dumping' of BW on the third sector.

[peterboat]

23 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The trite response would be that we all need the benefit of hindsight earlier.

 

Hansard documents that very few boaters opposed the 'dumping' of BW on the third sector.

True non of us thought it could get worse did we?

[GUMPY]

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The trite response would be that we all need the benefit of hindsight earlier.

 

Hansard documents that very few boaters opposed the 'dumping' of BW on the third sector.

Indeed we didn't, mainly because we believed it would be better under a trust.

Government now has a track record of conning the public to believe change would be for the better.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

43 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Indeed we didn't, mainly because we believed it would be better under a trust.

Government now has a track record of conning the public to believe change would be for the better.

 

 

Or, you could say that C&RT conned the Government into thinking they would be competent as a 'stand-alone' charity.

[George and Dragon]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Or, you could say that C&RT conned the Government into thinking they would be competent as a 'stand-alone' charity.

Quite sure the govt would have happily colluded with such a con.  There will have been certain requirements to be met for the successor body to be deemed competent. 

 

The ideological thrust towards 'small government' hasn't changed in the past 40 years.

[Tony Brooks]

11 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The trite response would be that we all need the benefit of hindsight earlier.

 

Hansard documents that very few boaters opposed the 'dumping' of BW on the third sector.

 

Of course they did when my MP refused to sign Early Days opposing it on two occasions, once in opposition and once in government as I recall.

[Midnight]

4 hours ago, Loddon said:

Indeed we didn't, mainly because we believed it would be better under a trust.

Government now has a track record of conning the public to believe change would be for the better.

 

We all thought that because under BW the system was going downhill. As it's turned out under CaRT the slide is rapidly continuing - although we do have a nice blue logo, tons of nice blue signs, duck lanes and cycle paths to die for. 

 

There's not too many votes in boating and there isn't a strong lobby group to represent those who wish to actually cruise so unless there's a radical change somewhere the future is indeed bleak.

 

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

We all thought that because under BW the system was going downhill. As it's turned out under CaRT the slide is rapidly continuing - although we do have a nice blue logo, tons of nice blue signs, duck lanes and cycle paths to die for. 

 

There's not too many votes in boating and there isn't a strong lobby group to represent those who wish to actually cruise so unless there's a radical change somewhere the future is indeed bleak.

 

Exactly and higher license fees wont help it will !just go into the property empire 

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Or, you could say that C&RT conned the Government into thinking they would be competent as a 'stand-alone' charity.

I'm not sure how it could have done that as it did not exist until the handover (apart perhaps for a short period)

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

I'm not sure how it could have done that as it did not exist until the handover (apart perhaps for a short period)

But the people did, it was pretty much just a name change with the same people, who instead of 'reporting' to the Government where now the 'bosses' and could build their empires.

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

Exactly and higher license fees wont help it will !just go into the property empire 

I think many of us would agree that may easily be the case (or maybe a million pound marketing campaign). As IanD suggested moaning won't help it's the solution we need to be debating.  Please send ideas on the back of a fag packet (used to work for me)

[Momac]

I expect all the British Waterways people moved over to C&RT - it was just the name on the pay packet that changed. 

People moaned about BW and now they moan about C&RT - Nothing new there.