Enough is enough!

[Mike Todd]

2 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

I totally agree on the general point that lower numbers of users would mean less wear and tear, but I do wonder again if it would be proportional.

For example, with water and elsan points, there is the standing cost of maintaining those facilities, whether for 100 users or 10,000. 

 

I think locks would definitely last longer though if we only had half the current number of boats- so that's got to be a clear win in terms of CRT reducing costs. 

 

Only CRT and their accountants will know how these cost factors will interplay in setting the cost of a license, but we can make some broad assumptions. 

 

But then we get into the personal views on it- and I have to say that in the summer I would like to see fewer boats around (from a purely selfish POV of course, and assuming I'm not one of those who was forced out). 

 

But if a price increase forced a lot of the younger, more quirky characters out of the waterways, and left only the relatively prosperous middle aged or pensioners, I think that would be a sad day. Its one of the reasons I dont mind the Llangollen in summer. Lots of boats, but everyone's in a good mood, there's a holiday vibe, there are young families with kids- its just a nicer place to be than if it were just a floating retirement community.

Nothing against retirees of course- I am one myself- but sometimes too many older people in one place is not a great idea.

 

 

 

 

 

That assumes that length of usable life is just a function of usage. They will also deteriorate with no users at all. (there are plenty of examples to view)

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

But if a price increase forced a lot of the younger, more quirky characters out of the waterways

 

Not sure why you think it is only the younger ones who are the 'more quirky characters'. IME the 'quirky' ones come in all ages.

[Tony1]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

In what way would that be a snag? The number of £200k new boats being launched every week illustrates just how many people find the license fee so very very affordable and the filling up of the canal system with these huge boats is very much a Bad Thing. Stemming would be a most welcome side-effect of massively raising license fees. If that means a few knackered old rust-buckets finally get scrapped this would be a Good Thing too.  

 

This is a very personal view, but some of the nicest boaters I've met have been inhabitants of boats that dont look like they've seen a BSS inspection this century, and are clearly being maintained on a shoestring budget.

Some are just dodgy AF, people who you would hesitate to moor next to with coal on your roof, but the majority are interesting and unusual characters.  

 

[Philip]

The cost of the upkeep can be reduced by not replacing lock gates so frequently; try to get 40 years out of the wooden ones rather than 20 and don't replace steel gates unless they're beyond repair. 

[Tony1]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Not sure why you think it is only the younger ones who are the 'more quirky characters'. IME the 'quirky' ones come in all ages.

 

That should have read 'younger AND more quirky'

 

Some of the quirkiest folks around are the older ones. 

But I feel like many of the quirkier characters (old and young) would be lost if the license went above £5k, and that would be a shame.

 

But we'll see- the government are not in the habit of subsidising quirky people to live quirky lifestyles, so in the longer term the license cost does look like an easy target to gain revenue in difficult financial times. 

 

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Tony1 said:

 

That should have read 'younger AND more quirky'

 

Some of the quirkiest folks around are the older ones. 

But I feel like many of the quirkier characters (old and young) would be lost if the license went above £5k, and that would be a shame.

 

But we'll see- the government are not in the habit of subsidising quirky people to live quirky lifestyles, so in the longer term the license cost does look like an easy target to gain revenue in difficult financial times. 

 

 

Never mind a target, the artificially low license fee looks to me like a problem that if corrected, would solve a lot of the problems on the waterways. 

 

Especially the particularly unfairly and artificially low widebeam license fee.

[Philip]

23 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

In what way would that be a snag? The number of £200k new boats being launched every week illustrates just how many people find the license fee so very very affordable and the filling up of the canal system with these huge boats is very much a Bad Thing. Stemming would be a most welcome side-effect of massively raising license fees. If that means a few knackered old rust-buckets finally get scrapped this would be a Good Thing too.  

 

For some people a canal boat may be the only affordable way to live and not necessarily through their own poor choices.

 

On the other hand, does the retired couple really need a great long 57ft-65ft boat to go boating with, with the massively oversized engine? If the license fee was to go up, it should be looking at this kind of situation, rather than forcing young liveaboards off the canals.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Philip

[Machpoint005]

14 hours ago, Jerra said:

>>with the exception of schools<<

 

Everyone needs schools, even if they have no children themselves.

Schools provide education for the people who will, after they have grown up, provide essential goods and services for all of us.

 

[Tracy D'arth]

14 minutes ago, Philip said:

 

For some people a canal boat may be the only affordable way to live and not necessarily through their own poor choices.

 

 

But why should it be so?  Its not the best environment for the impoverished. They cannot afford the upkeep of a floating home as is obvious looking around the system.

[peterboat]

46 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

In what way would that be a snag? The number of £200k new boats being launched every week illustrates just how many people find the license fee so very very affordable and the filling up of the canal system with these huge boats is very much a Bad Thing. Stemming would be a most welcome side-effect of massively raising license fees. If that means a few knackered old rust-buckets finally get scrapped this would be a Good Thing too.  

I agree let's get rid of all those dirty diesel boats and only allow clean electric ones! Ile get me coat 🤣

30 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Never mind a target, the artificially low license fee looks to me like a problem that if corrected, would solve a lot of the problems on the waterways. 

 

Especially the particularly unfairly and artificially low widebeam license fee.

I keep on telling you you keep to skinny waterways and we will stay on the fat ones for proper boats issue solved

[Jerra]

42 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Everyone needs schools, even if they have no children themselves.

Schools provide education for the people who will, after they have grown up, provide essential goods and services for all of us.

 

You know that and I know that but there are many refuse to accept it and I didn't want to give them an escape route.   To me its a bit like those who live aboard but say they don't use anything provided from the rates. 

[Philip]

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

But why should it be so?  Its not the best environment for the impoverished. They cannot afford the upkeep of a floating home as is obvious looking around the system.

 

Blame the cost of housing for that. It feels from a couple of posts on this thread that some here want the canals to be only available as a hobby for the wealthy, and the cost of maintenance is being used as an excuse with ludicrous proposals such as a £5000 licence fee.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Philip

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

On the other hand, does the retired couple really need a great long 57ft-65ft boat to go boating with,

Why are retired people any different from unretired?   Do we mysteriously shrink on retirement?   Or are you suggesting all couples who go boating shouldn't be allowed "great long" boats of 57 ft.   Personally I don't class 57 Ft as "great long".

1 hour ago, Philip said:

with the massively oversized engine? If the license fee was to go up, it should be looking at this kind of situation, rather than forcing young liveaboards off the canals.

You would then end up with a canal system which was purely residential and few if any leisure boaters.  Is this your aim?  Don't young liveaboards need "great long" 57+ ft boats?   Would you limit the size of boat for the liveaboard if they were single rather than a couple?

[Slim]

16 hours ago, Tracy D&#x27;arth said:

It is little wonder that you are alone, try being sociable outside the pubs, drinking less and growing up.

 

I like a drink as much as many, I cannot drink in pubs though because they are full of lonely idiots who have low social standards.

Either you have extremely high social standards (please expand) or have tried to drink in some pretty  seamy pubs. 

[MtB]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

 

Blame the cost of housing for that. It feels from a couple of posts on this thread that some here want the canals to be only available as a hobby for the wealthy, and the cost of maintenance is being used as an excuse with ludicrous proposals such as a £5000 licence fee.

 

In what way is it ludicrous? CRT is woefully underfunded with license fees being at the rates they are now. Or are you one of those lefties who thinks other people should pay for your chosen lifestyle? 

[Philip]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Why are retired people any different from unretired?   Do we mysteriously shrink on retirement?   Or are you suggesting all couples who go boating shouldn't be allowed "great long" boats of 57 ft.   Personally I don't class 57 Ft as "great long".

You would then end up with a canal system which was purely residential and few if any leisure boaters.  Is this your aim?  Don't young liveaboards need "great long" 57+ ft boats?   Would you limit the size of boat for the liveaboard if they were single rather than a couple?

 

A couple don't need a boat of 57ft in length to go boating with in the majority of circumstances. However, if people in a small party wish to buy such a big boat then that's fine, but it's only fair that they pay a license fee proportionate to the length of the boat, rather than a flat license fee as suggested upthread no matter what length the boat is.

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

In what way is it ludicrous? CRT is woefully underfunded with license fees being at the rates they are now. Or are you one of those lefties who thinks other people should pay for your chosen lifestyle? 

 

You come across as another judgemental character with your latter sentence.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Philip

[MtB]

Just now, Philip said:

 

A couple don't need a boat of 57ft in length to go boating with. However, if people in a small party wish to buy such a big boat then that's fine, but it's only fair that they pay a license fee proportionate to the length of the boat, rather than a flat license fee as suggested upthread no matter what length the boat is.

 

Ok so you agree that £5k is reasonable for a 57ft boat, with longer boats paying proportionally more an shorter, proportionally less. 

 

How about widbeams? One seventh more for every foot wider than 7ft, would seem reasonable. 

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

You come across as another judgemental character with your latter sentence.

 

Good point. "Play the ball not the man" is good internet manners. I apologise. 

[Slim]

14 hours ago, peterboat said:

I think that narrowboats should stay on narrow canals and widebeams on wide canals and rivers! We then pay a normal license very fair as far as I can see

Well, that's my cruising area restricted to one canal, South Oxford.😇

[Athy]

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Why are retired people any different from unretired?   Do we mysteriously shrink on retirement? 

No, they don't, but the family unit often does as offspring fly the nest, so aren't retired people more likely to go boating as just a couple rather than as a family of, say, four people? If so, they can comfortably do so in a shorter boat.

[Philip]

6 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Ok so you agree that £5k is reasonable for a 57ft boat, with longer boats paying proportionally more an shorter, proportionally less. 

 

How about widbeams? One seventh more for every foot wider than 7ft, would seem reasonable. 

 

Good point. "Play the ball not the man" is good internet manners. I apologise. 

 

Yes widebeams should pay proportionately more for the license fee just like longer narrowboats should, however I think £5000 is very excessive even for a long boat. If the license fee was to increase then I think double would be a reasonable increase and then review every year or couple of years.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Philip

[TheBiscuits]

4 minutes ago, Philip said:

If the license fee was to increase then I think double would be a reasonable increase

 

They'll need to triple if the DEFRA grant is stopped, as that's around twice the income from boat licences. 

[TheBiscuits]

 

When CRT did the licence consultation a few years ago they quoted the average fee as being about £640 (from memory) so those quoting five grand are simply plucking numbers from their fevered imaginations. 

 

Water extraction and discharge income won't go away and property income won't go away so boat licences don't need to cover all CRT income, but they will need to cover more than the current  ~20% of it.

[Jerra]

19 minutes ago, Athy said:

No, they don't, but the family unit often does as offspring fly the nest, so aren't retired people more likely to go boating as just a couple rather than as a family of, say, four people? If so, they can comfortably do so in a shorter boat.

Two thoughts.  First should working couple (childless) choose a boat on size rather than what they prefer and feel comfortable with.  Second why should a retired couple downsize just because they retire it may be a boat they are emotionally attached to because of all those happy times with  the kids before they "flew the nest".  They may also want the space to have the same kids on board at times or even the grandkids.

[Captain Pegg]

I don't think there's a whole lot of logic in charging according to size of boat for use of the waterways, other than for mooring considerations.

 

 

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

The cost of the upkeep can be reduced by not replacing lock gates so frequently; try to get 40 years out of the wooden ones rather than 20 and don't replace steel gates unless they're beyond repair. 

Arguably that might appear to be the present policy but in general, maintenance practice is to balance cost reduction against minimising unplanned closures. It is almost always the case that replacing items on a scheduled basis is less expensive and better cost benefit than waiting until they fail and the nearer to the maximum life expectancy they are left the more likely it is that this will become the norm. I do not recall seeing any gate replacements that were clearly taking out still usable gates - most comments are to the reverse.