Anyone passing Barrowford Locks?

[David Mack]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

If they do put the fees up by (for example) 50% on average, to prevent severe impact on those who can't afford it it seems sensible to me to graduate the fees with "income" -- for which boat value is the only available proxy -- so that (for example) poorer boaters pay the same as they do now, typical boaters pay 50% more, and well-off boaters pay 100% more -- yes I realise boat value is not an accurate predictor of ability to pay, but it's certainly coupled to it. This isn't based on any envy or wanting "somebody else" to pay (I'd be paying the highest rate!), it just seems the fairest way to minimise the impact of the license fee increase, without massive administrative cost.

If your suggestion of an ability-to-pay increase in fees is to work, you need to demonstrate not only that offering the less well off a lower increase will encourage them to stay, but also that charging the well off a high increase won't in turn result in a significant proportion of them throwing in the towel.

There may be many middling and well of boaters who would stomach a 50% increase, but if you ask them to pay 100% increase, it won't take a huge number of them deciding to take their boats off the water to negate any increase in the overall licence fee take.

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Any significant change in the basis of the licence fee will, as I understand it, entail primary legislation. At the present time, were this to be undertaken (and there is slim chance of time being made available anyway) any government would take the opportunity to solve its problems not the boaters'. Specifically, it will seek to reduce - or even eliminate - any call on public money other than for very limited social requirements (eg flood control) The result is most likely to be a comprehensive shift towards CaRT being self sufficient with all services being charged at an economic level. There will be no scope for 'ability to pay' in any way. 

 

I had long discussions with Nigel Moore (RIP) on this very subject, basically the existing legislation allow C&RT to set whatever tarriff they wish and can split it into any categories they wish. There is only one legislative factor that affects the above :

 

A rivers only registration cannot be more than 60% of the canal & rivers licence.

 

I suggested to Nigel that if the 'base licence' was made at (say) £2000 and the R&C Licence was priced at 60% of that, they could do anything they wish to subdivide the licence bands and categories.

 

Here is one of the final 'thoughts' by Nigel :

 

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, David Mack said:

If your suggestion of an ability-to-pay increase in fees is to work, you need to demonstrate not only that offering the less well off a lower increase will encourage them to stay, but also that charging the well off a high increase won't in turn result in a significant proportion of them throwing in the towel.

There may be many middling and well of boaters who would stomach a 50% increase, but if you ask them to pay 100% increase, it won't take a huge number of them deciding to take their boats off the water to negate any increase in the overall licence fee take.

I did say "for example". I'm sure that almost anyone who can afford to drop £200k or so on a shiny new boat can easily afford a 100% increase in CART fees, IIRC this is an increase of around £1000.

 

Like anything else, if you overdo "squeezing the rich" then they might well sell up and do somthing else. But given all the other costs involved in buying and running a boat, I suspect the fee would have to be nearer £4000 a year for the "well-off" to make this happen in any numbers.

 

The "gradient" of the rate increase can be adjusted, but my guess is that it could be at least 2:1 and possibly 3:1 across the "income/boat value" scale without many -- if any -- people selling up. After all, the "well-off" boaters have paid 5x-10x more for their boat than the "poorer" ones, presumably based on what they can afford in both cases, and the differences I'm suggesting are *much* smaller than this.

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

I did say "for example". I'm sure that almost anyone who can afford to drop £200k or so on a shiny new boat can easily afford a 100% increase in CART fees, IIRC this is an increase of around £1000.

 

 

C&RT will also be aware that whilst they have a large percentage of UK inland waters in their 'control, less than 1/3rd of UK Inland waterways boats are on C&RT waters. There are a lot of waters outwith C&RTs control so they could drive folks away - alternatives are available.

 

I'm sure that folks who can 'drop £200k' could easily be tempted away to the coast and get a superb boat for less than that, with NO BSSC costs and NO licence costs at all.

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

C&RT will also be aware that whilst they have a large percentage of UK inland waters in their 'control, less than 1/3rd of UK Inland waterways boats are on C&RT waters. There are a lot of waters outwith C&RTs control so they could drive folks away - alternatives are available.

 

I'm sure that folks who can 'drop £200k' could easily be tempted away to the coast and get a superb boat for less than that, with NO BSSC costs and NO licence costs at all.

Unlike you, some people want to stay on the English canals because that's what they like, they don't want to don a Captain's hat at a jaunty angle and sail off into the sunset... 😉

[Mike Todd]

58 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The problem with your proposal -- which isn't one, it's "leave it as it is" -- is simple. CART need to get more income, and if they keep the current system and just jack up the cost by 50% or 100% this will be crippling for a lot of poorer/older boaters. Your objection seems to be that trying to get rich boaters to pay more so that poor ones can pay less is either somehow morally wrong or impossible to deliver without massive costs -- is that correct?

 

If you're saying that CART can't increase the license fees, where do you suggest they get the necessary extra income from?

 

If they do put the fees up by (for example) 50% on average, to prevent severe impact on those who can't afford it it seems sensible to me to graduate the fees with "income" -- for which boat value is the only available proxy -- so that (for example) poorer boaters pay the same as they do now, typical boaters pay 50% more, and well-off boaters pay 100% more -- yes I realise boat value is not an accurate predictor of ability to pay, but it's certainly coupled to it. This isn't based on any envy or wanting "somebody else" to pay (I'd be paying the highest rate!), it just seems the fairest way to minimise the negative impact of the license fee increase, without massive administrative cost.

 

What is your objection to this? And if you don't like it, what would you propose instead?

 

The status quo is not the answer, because the CART funding system clearly *is* broken to the tune of at least £100M a year... 😞

One of the well-known problems with Council Tax is that ability to pay is not well correlated to property value. Whilst they may well correlate at the time of purchase (if indeed that is how they came into ownership) they do not after time. Specifically, retired people (who seem to be a particular concern in this debate) often continue to live in the house they had whilst in work and had a much higher income. Property values do not correlate as well with pensions. as earned incomes.

 

As with some arguments in relation to housing and council tax in regard to persuading retirees to downsize, allowing a younger, larger, family to buy their house (not a particularly great argument when you look at it in detail) perhaps you feel that retirees should have to buy a smaller boat!

 

[IanD]

Just now, Mike Todd said:

One of the well-known problems with Council Tax is that ability to pay is not well correlated to property value. Whilst they may well correlate at the time of purchase (if indeed that is how they came into ownership) they do not after time. Specifically, retired people (who seem to be a particular concern in this debate) often continue to live in the house they had whilst in work and had a much higher income. Property values do not correlate as well with pensions. as earned incomes.

 

As with some arguments in relation to housing and council tax in regard to persuading retirees to downsize, allowing a younger, larger, family to buy their house (not a particularly great argument when you look at it in detail) perhaps you feel that retirees should have to buy a smaller boat!

 

So what's your proposal to increase CART funding?

 

Criticism is easy, so I invite you to come up with a better idea... 😉

[Mike Todd]

44 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I had long discussions with Nigel Moore (RIP) on this very subject, basically the existing legislation allow C&RT to set whatever tarriff they wish and can split it into any categories they wish. There is only one legislative factor that affects the above :

 

A rivers only registration cannot be more than 60% of the canal & rivers licence.

 

I suggested to Nigel that if the 'base licence' was made at (say) £2000 and the R&C Licence was priced at 60% of that, they could do anything they wish to subdivide the licence bands and categories.

 

Here is one of the final 'thoughts' by Nigel :

 

I have argued back and forwards on this in my own mind, but currently conclude that CaRT can legally do whatever they wish in respect of licence categories and charges, subject only to that percentage discount for PBC’s. The only [purely implicit] further restriction on the creation of yet more categories would be the restriction on charging more for such categories than for the ‘standard’ licence. Easily subverted, as Alan has suggested, by making the ‘standard’ licence category sufficiently costly, with discounts tailored to suit the managerial aspirations.

 

British Waterways Act 1983

.....Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1971 or the Act
of 1974 or in any other enactment relating to the Board or their
inland waterways, the Board may register pleasure boats and
houseboats under the Act of 1971 for such periods and on payment
of such charges as they may from time to time determine:
Provided that the charge payable for the registration of a
pleasure boat shall not at any time exceed 60 per centum of the
amount which would be payable to the Board for the licensing of
such vessel on any inland waterway other than a river waterway
referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1971 as that Schedule has
effect in accordance with any order made by the Secretary of
State under section 4 of that Act.

 

Would be interesting to see an expert legal opinion - the above seems to suggest that CaRT can create categories of boats but would it be legal to create categories of boaters? Remember it is the boat which is registered, although recently a bit more confused by making the licence non-transferable.

[Mike Todd]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

So what's your proposal to increase CART funding?

 

Criticism is easy, so I invite you to come up with a better idea... 😉

Well before settling on a method of raising income, it is necessary to gain agreement on what it is that society wants to do with the canals.

 

If society wishes to retain the canals as a contribution to the environment and well-being then it is clear that the public money element should increase substantially.

 

If, on the other hand, it wishes to see the system as something principally, if not wholly, for the benefit of boaters then it is also clear that an all round increase in licence fee is appropriate and certainly an ability-to-pay approach would be wholly inappropriate.

 

Of course, in the latter case it is likely that their will be a strong demand to charge other users (anglers, cyclists, walkers etc) a cost-based element. I can just imaging the reaction from the lycra crowd to having to pay, say, £500 a year to enter the towpath network! Of course, that would also have deleterious consequences as much of the towpath maintenance is now funded by local authorities etc as a public benefit. Reverting that cost onto boaters would be a real problem.

 

In any event, charging other users would have admin and enforcement difficulties.

[Alan de Enfield]

52 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Of course, in the latter case it is likely that their will be a strong demand to charge other users (anglers, cyclists, walkers etc) a cost-based element. I can just imaging the reaction from the lycra crowd to having to pay, say, £500 a year to enter the towpath network!

 

The transfer documents from BW to the Charity specifically state that the towpath must continue to be provided at nil cost to the users. The cycling federations have suggested that their be a licensing system introduced, particularly with the 'speed trials' mentality and inability to identify the culprits. Apparently C&RT have said they cannot charge and that they can only charge 'navigation users' (canoes, and boats)

 

 

From the transfer documents :

 

2.4 The Trustee must obtain the Settlor’s prior written consent before:

 

2.4.3 restricting pedestrian access to any part of the towpaths within the Infrastructure Property; for example by charging a fee for access, save that consent will not be needed for any temporary restrictions either to allow maintenance/repair works or to protect persons from risks to their safety;

[Ex Brummie]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

I really don't see where this claimed massive bureaucratic load comes from -- CART already know the boat width/length/age, insurance companies already know the age/value (if comprehensively insured), all the information is already there.

 

Where does it come from?

 

The purpose of such a system would be precisely to allow CART to raise a lot more money without making a boat cripplingly expensive for those who can't afford it. What's wrong with this?

If you read again, you will see that I am saying that anything other than size will create a bureaucratic overload. If we include value to be declared by insurance companies, then this would go against the objections in the proposed T&C's to CaRT access to our data from a 3rd Party.

[David Mack]

Nobody seems to have mentioned the elephant in the room. Increase the licence fee for boats without a home mooring to a level similar to a standard licence plus an average mooring fee.  Immediately more income to CRT from those who continue to CC, and a bigger market for mooring providers which will see an increase in the number of marinas with offline moorings, which also contribute to CRT through the NAA charges. And at the same time a reduction in the number of boats crammed into the London area, the western K&A and some other areas.

 

What's not to like? And I say that as  boater without a home mooring.

[MtB]

Excellent idea. 

 

Right, now that's all sorted out does anyone fancy a beer?

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

39 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Nobody seems to have mentioned the elephant in the room. Increase the licence fee for boats without a home mooring to a level similar to a standard licence plus an average mooring fee.  Immediately more income to CRT from those who continue to CC, and a bigger market for mooring providers which will see an increase in the number of marinas with offline moorings, which also contribute to CRT through the NAA charges. And at the same time a reduction in the number of boats crammed into the London area, the western K&A and some other areas.

 

What's not to like? And I say that as  boater without a home mooring.

 

The BW proposals did just that with CCers licence being 2.5x the cost of a standard (boat with a home mooring) licence.

Take an £800 'standard' licence and a CCer would pay £2000

 

 

[dmr]

51 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Nobody seems to have mentioned the elephant in the room. Increase the licence fee for boats without a home mooring to a level similar to a standard licence plus an average mooring fee.  Immediately more income to CRT from those who continue to CC, and a bigger market for mooring providers which will see an increase in the number of marinas with offline moorings, which also contribute to CRT through the NAA charges. And at the same time a reduction in the number of boats crammed into the London area, the western K&A and some other areas.

 

What's not to like? And I say that as  boater without a home mooring.

 

A possible issue with this, and with the AdE 2.5 factor is that the licence fee is fixed across the country but mooring fees are very variable. We pay a bit over £1000 for the licence but up North a mooring could be had for £1600, whilst down South (and not even London) it could be £3000-£4000.

 

The temptation to take Northern "Ghost" moorings would be huge and the price of cheaper moorings across the entire country (farmers field and unserviced online etc) would likely increase dramatically due to increased demand. This would make life significantly more expensive for leisure boaters (who are still the majority)

[haggis]

Another aspect of charging a licence based on the boat value  is that if many boaters sell up there will be a glut of boats on the market and the price will drop like a stone (the reverse of what is happening just now). This will of course reduce the licence fee payable on a boat! Again, the long term effect of basing the licence on boat value needs to be given thought. I have been trying to think too about who is buying all those £200,000 boats. I don't think here are many narrowboats in that price bracket around although a few wide beams might make it. 

 

Re DMRs valid point that boaters, if continuous cruisers have to pay more,   will have a ghost mooring in a cheaper part of the country, I understand that when boaters had to have a home mooring before that BW (as it was then) regularly checked  that the named boats actually had a paid for mooring there. I know of a few who were caught out with this 🙂 

 

haggis

 

[dmr]

and another thing.....,.😀

 

There are people buying 200k widebeams as a cheap way of life, and intending to CC over a very short distance, and it would be great to squeeze the pips out of them.

There are also people buying brand new 150k narrow boats with their life savings and/or house sale, and then hoping to genuinely CC on a very limited pension income. They are not rich.

And most of all when we are out boating I would say the majority of boats are just not the expensive type.

 

Any scheme to squeeze CCers, or any other group, is going to cause a lot of upset, possible legal cases, and really not raise very much money on the grand scheme of things.  CC'ing is a bargain and morally we should pay more, but its not easy to do it fairly and there are still only a few thousand of us.

 

The best answer is to make a very good argument as to why the government should pay a lot more, I am just not convinced that loads of new blue signs will cut that bit of mustard.

[Ex Brummie]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

Excellent idea. 

 

Right, now that's all sorted out does anyone fancy a beer?

 

 

No thanks, it'll kill the taste of my popcorn.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

Excellent idea. 

 

Right, now that's all sorted out does anyone fancy a beer?

 

 

Already had several in an excellent pub, thank you very much 🙂

 

It does disappoint me when, given the number of people on this forum with expertise in all sorts of areas, most comments and reactions to any positive suggestion are basically negative nit-picking, with no effort to try and come up with actual solutions to a major problem which affects everybody on the canals. And this is not exactly the first time this has happened -- or, I'm sure, the last... 😞

 

So here's a challenge to all the naysayers -- if you don't like either what has been suggested or the funding crisis that CART are in today (terrible maintenance), why not propose your own solution?

 

Or is that just *so much* more difficult than moaning about how bad things are while also pointing out why nothing can be done to fix it?

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanD

[dmr]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

Already had several in an excellent pub, thank you very much 🙂

 

It does disappoint me when, given the number of people on this forum with expertise in all sorts of areas, most comments and reactions to any positive suggestion are basically negative nit-picking, with no effort to try and come up with actual solutions to a major problem which affects everybody on the canals. And this is not exactly the first time this has happened -- or, I'm sure, the last... 😞

 

So here's a challenge to all the naysayers -- if you don't like either what has been suggested or the funding crisis that CART are in today (terrible maintenance), why not propose your own solution?

 

Or is that just *so much* more difficult than moaning about how bad things are while also pointing out why nothing can be done to fix it?

 

I suspect most old boaters with many years experience would not see a crisis at all but be impressed by how well maintained the canals are.

Last summer we went from the Rochdale summit to Lechlade and back. We had two minor delays on the South Oxford whilst CRT came to sort out lock problems, and a really grim couple of days coming up the Rochdale due to lack of water. Only once did I have to dive into my toolbox (to get through a stubborn swingbridge). Its 200 years old, its not a theme park (yet), its full of boaters who are no longer self sufficient and have unrealistic expectations of customer service, it could be much better, but it works.

[Chagall]

I would think that more than a few of the older experienced boaters have left the canals, or died, and an influx of new boaters over the last few years might have high expectations of what the canals should be like based, in the main, on the land infrastructure that they know. 

 

I wonder what proportion of this very recent surge of new boaters will have had any experience of canals and rivers at all and so might expect the ageing system to be regenerated by imperious demand. Any substantial increase in the licence fee (which I have no objection to) will cause an interesting clamour of reaction and as 'haggis' remarked many might give up and move back to land, but its possible those newcomers will accept and begin to realise the problems wont be overcome with only disgruntled or selfish inaction.   This summer will be interesting, hopefully busy with new families and a fresh enthusiasm for boating the canals and rivers. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Chagall
spelling

[agg221]

OK, I'll have a go at a funding scenario for discussion.

 

Funding currently comes from a number of different sources which use different parts of the infrastructure, however it is the infrastructure as a whole which makes it work for all users in its current form. Whilst boaters use the full infrastructure and therefore require the most expenditure, fishing is only viable if there is some water depth, which only happens if the infrastructure is maintained, which only happens if there are boats etc. The same is true for walkers and cyclists - some are using the towpath only as an A to B route but many others are using it as a relaxing environment. There are then the more commercially measurable outcomes - water management (the recent restoration of a length of the Erewash is a good illustration of the need for this), water abstraction, cooling in cities etc.

 

Boaters do not pay that great a component of the total cost of the system, but we don't currently know whether it is in proportion to their utilisation. This is because some of the cost/value calculations are just not available. For example, if a canal has a cooling effect on a 200m wide stretch through a city, every company running air conditioning within that zone is benefiting from reduced running costs. That is also putting less pressure on the power grid and in consequence allowing a greater proportion of the total power needed to be generated from renewable sources, increasing the ability of the government to hit agreed emission targets which they would otherwise have to do using different investment. But how much is all of that worth in economic terms?

 

There are also indirect benefits to rural economies. Pubs, small shops, boatyards etc. all employ people in areas where creating jobs can be difficult. It costs over £100k to create a new job. Some are created due to boats being there directly (boatyards etc), others due to people spending their leisure time in the area. A canalside tea-room only works if people (mostly non-boaters) want to come and spend an afternoon watching the boats go by, which only happens if there are boats. The whole thing is synergistic.

 

If you take arguments such as the above, and those relating to mental health, exercise etc. then you get a full picture of the benefits, which can be reduced to pure economic terms (using NHS guidelines for the health benefits). The costs are known (CRT annual report including maintenance backlog) so you then have a figure to work from and can perform a full cost-benefit analysis. This determines how much total spend is worthwhile, and by whom. The indirect benefits create revenue which creates tax which can be re-invested, but that happens at government level. I think the recent actions of CRT, with promotional videos, installation of signage etc. signals that it is working on this approach, but I am not sure how widely it has yet spread the net in identifying the indirect benefits (coincidentally this is something I am very familiar with in my job).

 

You then end up with a figure for the proportionate benefit which boaters are getting, and therefore reasonably should pay. I honestly couldn't tell you without running the figures above whether that should be higher or lower. I do know that such things are never lower in practice! However, boaters could not realistically make much of a dent in the backlog of maintenance before it became unaffordable for many. Therefore there appears to be little point in exceeding a financial entry cost which simply prevents boats from being used on the system - it is counterproductive to the other indirect benefits identified above.

 

Dimensions appear to be a reasonable basis - they are clear and unequivocal. However, other factors such as value and cruising mileage could be used and would also have a reasonable basis. What is needed is a predictability of costs/income for both the boat owner and CRT. This is very consistent for boat dimensions but other factors will fluctuate so need to be stabilised. The approach taken for council tax valuations appears to work for this - take the most recent sale price and use that to create bandings. For example, if Band A is boats with a sale price of over £150k at the point of establishing its band, then it doesn't matter if the price goes up or down - all Band A boats remain Band A and if a new boat is built its value is referenced to equivalent boats. Insurance valuation isn't a bad way to get the new boat valuation figure if needed but actually boats don't often switch between bands, just like houses, and if they either deteriorate or are improved by enough to change band, that will be picked up at the next sale.

 

However, I'm not sure that switching to a value-based system helps much. Like any other system (size, mileage etc) there will be winners and losers. I'm not sure that someone who used to be able to afford something but no longer can because their circumstances have changed has any particular entitlement to a right to retain it. Someone who pays the running costs on a large house and an expensive car from their salary and can no longer afford them when they retire is expected to down-size. The same would surely be true of a boat? (if the boat is a luxury leisure activity rather than a home then surely even more so?) Whether 'down-sizing' means switching to a smaller boat, or an older boat, or a scruffier boat, depending on which assessment criteria are used, it all means a change and ultimately if costs go up, there will be people for whom they become prohibitive. At least if the current dimension-based system is kept then there would be no nasty surprises for people who suddenly found themselves in an unexpected category.

 

So in summary, I don't think boaters can meet the whole cost of the system; I do think that there are other beneficiaries who do not/cannot make a direct contribution; I do think that the value to those beneficiaries should be established and recognised centrally through the government stipend; I do think that fees for boaters are likely to rise and I don't see much value in fundamentally changing the method of assessment.

Alec

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2022 by agg221

[IanD]

12 hours ago, dmr said:

 

I suspect most old boaters with many years experience would not see a crisis at all but be impressed by how well maintained the canals are.

Last summer we went from the Rochdale summit to Lechlade and back. We had two minor delays on the South Oxford whilst CRT came to sort out lock problems, and a really grim couple of days coming up the Rochdale due to lack of water. Only once did I have to dive into my toolbox (to get through a stubborn swingbridge). Its 200 years old, its not a theme park (yet), its full of boaters who are no longer self sufficient and have unrealistic expectations of customer service, it could be much better, but it works.

 

It could certainly be much better but this needs a lot more money, which has to come from somewhere, and given the estimate of £100M per year shortfall (roughly +50% increase needed) there's no way this can all come from boaters, this would roughly treble the license fees.  But equally it's not reasonable to suggest that the CART income from license fees should stay as it is, if there is to be any chance of improving things -- and recognising that these fees are small compared to the costs of living on land such as rates and water/sewerage costs. CART need to somehow get more income from all sources -- a bigger grant from central government would be nice but there's no sign of this happening, if anything the opposite.

 

From my experience and what others have reported it doesn't work as well as it used to maybe 20 years ago, the maintenance backlog has gone up and there are a lot more day-to-day failures like paddles and lock gates as well as more big failures like breaches and lock collapses leading to closures. It's not disastrous yet but the system is certainly more fragile and less reliable than it was, and seems to be getting worse year by year not better. It all comes down to insufficient funding for CART, regardless of how it is spent -- which also needs addressing (less wasted money), but like the NHS efficiency improvements have no chance of doing what is needed.

 

If the license fees are going to go up significantly (e.g. 50% on average), it also makes sense to change them to have more weighting by boat size including width (pay according to use) and/or ability to pay (e.g. boat value in some form, for example insurance valuation). This means there will be significant "losers" (those with big expensive boats) who could easily see 100% increase -- maybe more for wideboats -- but this will at least help to prevent less well-off boaters from being driven off the system as the fees go up by trying to keep the increase they see down, maybe even to zero.

 

There will be always winners and losers and cases which seem "unfair" but there's no perfect system, all that can be done is to come up with something that's seen as "fairer" by most people.

Edited January 5, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

If the license fees are going to go up significantly (e.g. 50% on average), it also makes sense to change them to have more weighting by boat size including width ..............

 

That is already in place with fatties paying 20% more than NBs - it can be argued that that is not enough, but, does a fatty uses 2x or 3x the resources that a NB uses ?

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

That is already in place with fatties paying 20% more than NBs - it can be argued that that is not enough, but, does a fatty uses 2x or 3x the resources that a NB uses ?

No, but certainly more -- especially in locks where two narrowboats can share, or busy moorings where two narrowboats can breast up -- and these are really the only places that matter. +20% seems too small for this but +100% seems too much, so maybe +50%?

 

This isn't about punishing owners of long or wide boats, it's just trying to get some fair fee for the extra space they take up where it matters, which is locks (and water usage) and busy moorings.