Interview with Richard Parry (submit your questions) - Cruising the Cut

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Been discussed recently on another thread, but how do you charge according to income, other than by the very crude mechanism that on the whole larger boats are probably owned by better off people than smaller boats?

The other suggestion was to use both boat size and boat value, but this was comprehensively poo-pooed by people who didn't see why they should pay more -- the perpetual problem with any change proposal, as pointed out above.

 

I'm sure somebody has the exact numbers, but IIRC the license fee only pays about 10% of total CART income, the government grant is more than double this. To allow boaters to "rule the roost" -- otherwise known as the "f*ck walkers and cyclists" approach -- the average license fee would have to roughly treble.

 

And if the fee is made much more variable by boat size and/or value than it is today -- which suggests no increase or only a small one for those on small cheap boats -- the increase for those on big expensive boats would have to be a *lot* more than 3x, probably at least 5x (or more) compared to today.

 

In reality the "boaters only" idea makes no sense; from my experience on the canals, *far* more people enjoy them by walking or cycling or gongoozling than by boating, so since they can't pay directly (towpath toll booths? completely impractical...) it makes sense for part of the cost to be met by central government grants. Which means the interests of non-boaters need to be taken account of as well, with at least the same level of priority. If not more...

 

Which is exactly what Richard Parry said... 😉

Edited February 1, 2022 by IanD

[Thomas C King]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No - nowhere near that figure. It is actually about 18.6%

They make almost as much income from charging farmers to extract water and companies and councils to allow water to be drained into the canals (£37m) and way more income from their property investments  / rentals (£49m), and of course  £52.6m grant from the tax-payers.

 

It is always worth checking such statements to avoid mistake. The information is readily available.

 

 

 

 

 

Fair comment, no idea where I got that number from. Thanks for the information, certainly makes the issue clearer now.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No - nowhere near that figure. It is actually about 18.6%

They make almost as much income from charging farmers to extract water and companies and councils to allow water to be drained into the canals (£37m) and way more income from their property investments  / rentals (£49m), and of course  £52.6m grant from the tax-payers.

 

It is always worth checking such statements to avoid mistake. The information is readily available.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for providing the figures, Alan. Do you also have the breakdown for the "licenses and moorings" section -- IIRC less than half of this (under £20M) was the license fee.

 

Either way, if the DEFRA grant was removed and the canals went "boater-priority" the cost of the license and moorings would go up massively, almost certainly to an unaffordable degree for most.

 

Never mind the fact that CARTs income isn't enough to keep up maintenance to a decent standard, never mind fixing the backlog that has built up over many years, and that this is estimated to need another £100M or so per year on top of what they have now... 😞

Edited February 1, 2022 by IanD

[Thomas C King]

13 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Been discussed recently on another thread, but how do you charge according to income, other than by the very crude mechanism that on the whole larger boats are probably owned by better off people than smaller boats?

 

Age + length of boat? (or valuation, as suggested) But it's very crude, just like council tax. I'd probably end up paying far less than my salary suggests I "should". For many people, assets and income are at odds with each other.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Age + length of boat? (or valuation, as suggested) But it's very crude, just like council tax. I'd probably end up paying far less than my salary suggests I "should". For many people, assets and income are at odds with each other.

 

The problem is that no method is perfect, there will always be some people who are unfairly penalised or undercharged by any change. The question is not whether it's fair to *everyone* (which is impossible), but whether it's fairer than (and could maybe raise more money than) what we have today.

 

Last time CART proposed something like this (big license fee variations with boat length/width, cruising use of the canals, various other factors) there were massive screams of protest from those who realised they'd suddenly be paying several times more, exactly as you (and I) proposed. Of course all those who would have ended up better off didn't make a big fuss, and CART dropped the idea.

Edited February 1, 2022 by IanD

[Thomas C King]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The problem is that no method is perfect, there will always be some people who are unfairly penalised or undercharged by any change. The question is not whether it's fair to *everyone* (which is impossible), but whether it's fairer than (and could maybe raise more money than) what we have today.

 

Last time CART proposed something like this (big license fee variations with boat length/width, cruising use of the canals, various other factors) there were massive screams of protest from those who realised they'd suddenly be paying several times more, exactly as you (and I) proposed. Of course all those who would have ended up better off didn't make a big fuss, and CART dropped the idea.

 

I don't think protests are a sufficient reason not to do it, sometimes you need to make enemies. Perhaps what CaRT needs is government backing for a proposed license fee change. Also, we don't know if those people were a loud minority or not. Not everyone in the world has an issue with being "taxed".

[Alan de Enfield]

15 minutes ago, IanD said:

Thanks for providing the figures, Alan. Do you also have the breakdown for the "licenses and moorings" section -- IIRC less than half of this (under £20M) was the license fee.

 

 

 

[haggis]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

The other suggestion was to use both boat size and boat value, but this was comprehensively poo-pooed by people who didn't see why they should pay more -- the perpetual problem with any change proposal, as pointed out above.

 

I took part in that discussion and I don't think it is true to say that the idea was poo pooed by anyone. What a lot of us did point out was the flaws in some of the suggestions which would make them virtually difficult if not impossible to implement.  I can only think of one boater saying that as they were on a budget they couldn't afford to pay more and the majority of boaters who took part agreed that we need to pay more. On reading what you said on that thread (and others) I had mistakenly formed the opinion that you actually owned a boat  🙂 

[MtB]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

Either way, if the DEFRA grant was removed and the canals went "boater-priority" the cost of the license and moorings would go up massively, almost certainly to an unaffordable degree for most.

 

 

The way boats are proliferating on the canals (down here at least) suggests to me that licenses are 'too affordable' at the moment. 

 

The massive oversized widebeams seem especially cheap, given the high proportion of new launches they comprise, looking around. 

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, haggis said:

I took part in that discussion and I don't think it is true to say that the idea was poo pooed by anyone. What a lot of us did point out was the flaws in some of the suggestions which would make them virtually difficult if not impossible to implement.  I can only think of one boater saying that as they were on a budget they couldn't afford to pay more and the majority of boaters who took part agreed that we need to pay more. On reading what you said on that thread (and others) I had mistakenly formed the opinion that you actually owned a boat  🙂 

Not yet, but soon... 😉

 

(and maybe you should be careful about the "you don't even own a boat" argument -- I'm pretty sure I've spent more time actually cruising (not moored) round the system (on hire boats) over the past 40 years and seen more of it than a lot people who *do* live aboard, which I'd say gives me as much of a right to speak on this...)

 

14 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

The way boats are proliferating on the canals (down here at least) suggests to me that licenses are 'too affordable' at the moment. 

 

The massive oversized widebeams seem especially cheap, given the high proportion of new launches they comprise, looking around. 

Agreed on both points -- but then I would, since I'm getting a narrowboat built... 😉

Edited February 1, 2022 by IanD

[Thomas C King]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

The way boats are proliferating on the canals (down here at least) suggests to me that licenses are 'too affordable' at the moment.

 

More precisely, too affordable relative to living on land. But, that's a capacity/numbers perspective. The other perspective is maximizing revenue, which might mean encouraging even more people onto the canals.

[IanD]

Just now, Thomas C King said:

 

More precisely, too affordable relative to living on land. But, that's a capacity/numbers perspective. The other perspective is maximizing revenue, which might mean encouraging even more people onto the canals.

 

Which is what's happening now, because it's cheap compared to landside, especially in cities.

 

But in those popular regions (like London and Bath) there's zero spare space, so you can't get more boats in. Which suggests that the cost should go up until it starts to drive some people away, this is then the point of biggest revenue for CART-- overdo this and the majority move away and revenue drops again.

 

My guess -- given the current license fee cost compared to landside, and the other costs of living aboard -- is that this "optimum license fee" would be something like 2x today's figure (so about £50 per week on average), but I don't have any hard evidence for this...

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not yet, but soon... 😉

 

(and maybe you should be careful about the "you don't even own a boat" argument -- I'm pretty sure I've spent more time actually cruising (not moored) round the system (on hire boats) over the past 40 years and seen more of it than a lot people who *do* live aboard, which I'd say gives me as much of a right to speak on this...)

 

Agreed on both points -- but then I would, since I'm getting a narrowboat built... 😉

 

I believe Haggis' comment was actually made in jest/tongue in cheek or as a gentle bit of ribbing. Perhaps better to see it as such?

[Thomas C King]

Just now, IanD said:

 

Which is what's happening now, because it's cheap compared to landside, especially in cities.

 

But in those popular regions (like London and Bath) there's zero spare space, so you can't get more boats in. Which suggests that the cost should go up until it starts to drive some people away, this is then the point of biggest revenue for CART-- overdo this and the majority move away and revenue drops again.

 

My guess -- given the current license fee cost compared to landside, and the other costs of living aboard -- is that this "optimum license fee" would be something like 2x today's figure (so about £50 per week on average), but I don't have any hard evidence for this...

 

Well that points to what is arguably another problem, that license fees are very much non-localised. But I can't see a London congestion charge or similar being raised after the previous complaints.

 

Bath - I didn't find it that busy over the summer actually. We were on the wide bit of river and easily found a mooring with a ladder up to the walking bit, more than once. On the more "canal" bit there were enough spaces too, just not near the hire boating places. I think London is probably a special kind of hell.

[haggis]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not yet, but soon... 😉

 

(and maybe you should be careful about the "you don't even own a boat" argument -- I'm pretty sure I've spent more time actually cruising (not moored) round the system (on hire boats) over the past 40 years and seen more of it than a lot people who *do* live aboard, which I'd say gives me as much of a right to speak on this...)

 

 

Sorry if the "humour " offended you and of course everyone, whether they have a boat or not is welcomed to take part in discussions on the forum. Well done on boating so extensively for so long but all we knew about you before was that you didn't have a boat yet and that you live in London and  I sort of jumped to the wrong conclusion 🙂

 

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Well that points to what is arguably another problem, that license fees are very much non-localised. But I can't see a London congestion charge or similar being raised after the previous complaints.

 

Bath - I didn't find it that busy over the summer actually. We were on the wide bit of river and easily found a mooring with a ladder up to the walking bit, more than once. On the more "canal" bit there were enough spaces too, just not near the hire boating places. I think London is probably a special kind of hell.

 

Of course this is effectively what happens with houses on land -- the purchase cost/mortgage/rent is a lot more expensive, because there's not enough supply and too much demand. Logically this should also apply to canals, and the fact that it doesn't is why the canals in London are so rammed -- living on a boat is much cheaper compared to a house. Since boats -- unlike houses -- can move, this can't be done via purchase price, it would have to be done via a license or mooring fee.

 

You could easily justify a "London surcharge" by saying that this is fairer than raising the fees for everybody across the system, even where there's no shortage of moorings or congestion problems.

 

But now imagine the protest when people find that a full-length (x1.5) expensive new (x2) fatboat (x2) in London (x2) suddenly ends up with more than 10x the license fee of a smaller older cheap narrowboat out in the countryside -- "it's not fair, you can't change the rules like that, I bought the boat based on the old flat fees"...

[Alan de Enfield]

27 minutes ago, IanD said:

You could easily justify a "London surcharge" by saying that this is fairer than raising the fees for everybody across the system, even where there's no shortage of moorings or congestion problems.

 

But now imagine the protest when people find that a full-length (x1.5) expensive new (x2) fatboat (x2) in London (x2) suddenly ends up with more than 10x the license fee of a smaller older cheap narrowboat out in the countryside -- "it's not fair, you can't change the rules like that, I bought the boat based on the old flat fees"...

 

Legally C&RT cannot do that.

To cut a long discussion short, what they could do to achieve the same things is :

Make the STANDARD boat licence (width / length related) say - £5000.

 

What C&RT are allowed to do is to subdivide the licence fee and give discounts for anything they choose to do so (this is written into law),

 

For example

 

Within the M25 all boats pay the standard rate, boats based on the K&A get 20% discount, boat in all other areas get a 50% discount.

All other discounts (vintage, commercial, electric etc etc would continue)

 

The problem would be how do you determine where a boat is based.

I think that the only source of information would be where a boat spends the majority (more than 50% ?) of its time and based on the existing 'boat spotter' system.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

43 minutes ago, haggis said:

Sorry if the "humour " offended you and of course everyone, whether they have a boat or not is welcomed to take part in discussions on the forum. Well done on boating so extensively for so long but all we knew about you before was that you didn't have a boat yet and that you live in London and  I sort of jumped to the wrong conclusion 🙂

 

No problem 🙂

 

I've been hooked on the canals ever since the first boating weekend I went on in the late 70s, and have had many fantastic holidays on them since -- not every year by any means, but I must have spent getting on for 6 months actually cruising (since a typical week would be around 100 miles and 50-100 locks) over the majority of the system -- or several times over some of the more popular/nicer bits. And a discussion over a beer or several in a nice pub about the relative merits of different canal engineers or boats or engines or electrics or lockgear or knots -- in fact, pretty much anything canal-related (or aircraft, or trains, or electronics, or rockets -- hey, let's just say "engineering" and have done with it) -- would be my idea of a good evening 🙂

 

Just because someone lives in London and doesn't have a boat (yet) doesn't mean they're not just as keen or even knowledgeable about the canals as somebody who lives on a boat 😉

 

(or more than some...)

Edited February 1, 2022 by IanD

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Legally C&RT cannot do that.

To cut a long discussion short what they could do the achive the same things is :

Make the STANDARD boat licence (width / length related) say - £5000.

 

What C&RT are allowed to do is to subdivide the licence fee and give discounts for anything they choose to do so (this is written into law), For example

 

Within the M25 all boats pay the standard rate, boats based on the K&A get 20% discount, boat in all other areas get a 50% discount.

All other discounts (vintage, commercial, electric etc etc would continue)

 

The problem would be how you determine where a boat is based.

I think that the only source of information would be where a boat spends the majority (more than 50%) of its time and based on the existing 'boat spotter' system

 

That's not the issue though, it's not the exact mechanism of how to charge the fees, because a way can always be found. It's whether they should be higher than now, and whether the differences between different boats/locations/system use should be a lot bigger than now -- a much more graduated structure than what we have today, which is close to (but not quite) a "flat fee".

 

As you say, a way then needs to be found to apply all this, especially if location-based, and it's not that difficult -- boats moored in London don't suddenly nip off to Stoke-on-Trent the weekend the checker comes round.

 

Isn't all this (apart from location) very much what CART proposed some time ago, and which was shelved due to loud objections from "the losers", backed by some of the NBTA-friendly publications?

 

That's the real problem -- how to make a change which is better for the canal system, reduces pressure on overloaded areas, and makes it "fairer" (more variation in fees), and get this past the objections of those who will end up paying a lot more -- especially the ones who've been "getting away with it" cheaply for many years?

Edited February 1, 2022 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Yes Alan, I think we're all well aware of what CART can and can't do legally, as you point out every time this subject comes up 😉

 

That's not the issue though, it's not the exact mechanism of how to charge the fees, because a way can always be found. It's whether they should be higher than now, and whether the differences between different boats/locations/system use should be a lot bigger than now -- a much more graduated structure than what we have today, which is close to (but not quite) a "flat fee".

 

(yes I know what the variations are, no need to list them again)

 

 

You may well be, but there are others on this thread who, by their posts, are obviously unaware of what C&RT can, & cannot do.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You may well be, but there are others on this thread who, by their posts, are obviously unaware of what C&RT can, & cannot do.

Agreed, which is why I toned down my response 😉

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, robtheplod said:

I don't think people think he ignores views of boaters, but he very much put the greater local population ahead of boaters purely driven by more numbers.

At what point do you think he said something that suggests this to be true?

 

I think he was very much trying to say that they have to balance the various competing needs and wishes and that no-one has a veto by right. That said, he also put maintaining the navigation at the centre of things as without them there would be nothing for anyone.

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

No - nowhere near that figure. It is actually about 18.6%

They make almost as much income from charging farmers to extract water and companies and councils to allow water to be drained into the canals (£37m) and way more income from their property investments  / rentals (£49m), and of course  £52.6m grant from the tax-payers.

 

It is always worth checking such statements to avoid mistake. The information is readily available.

 

 

 

 

And was cited by RP in the interview.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Age + length of boat? (or valuation, as suggested) But it's very crude, just like council tax. I'd probably end up paying far less than my salary suggests I "should". For many people, assets and income are at odds with each other.

The problem with 'age' is that I would end up paying less (sans inflation) each year. I hardly see that as fair. It would also act as a brake on investment in new boats to the detriment of boatbuilders who have a hard enough time as it is!

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Thomas C King said:

 

Well that points to what is arguably another problem, that license fees are very much non-localised. But I can't see a London congestion charge or similar being raised after the previous complaints.

 

Bath - I didn't find it that busy over the summer actually. We were on the wide bit of river and easily found a mooring with a ladder up to the walking bit, more than once. On the more "canal" bit there were enough spaces too, just not near the hire boating places. I think London is probably a special kind of hell.

I think RP said that they do not have the power to charge locally (leaving aside the difficulty in policing) so it would require primary legislation which highly unlikely.

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Legally C&RT cannot do that.

To cut a long discussion short, what they could do to achieve the same things is :

Make the STANDARD boat licence (width / length related) say - £5000.

 

What C&RT are allowed to do is to subdivide the licence fee and give discounts for anything they choose to do so (this is written into law),

 

For example

 

Within the M25 all boats pay the standard rate, boats based on the K&A get 20% discount, boat in all other areas get a 50% discount.

All other discounts (vintage, commercial, electric etc etc would continue)

 

The problem would be how do you determine where a boat is based.

I think that the only source of information would be where a boat spends the majority (more than 50% ?) of its time and based on the existing 'boat spotter' system.

Even more 'ghost' moorings?

[agg221]

CRT does appear to have the authority to restrict moorings, creating, for example, 24 and 48hr moorings. It also appears to have the authority to create chargeable moorings?

 

Given the above, on the point of supply and demand, it does occur to me that something equivalent to local authority parking controls could be effective. Keep the general rule of 'free parking' (mooring) for up to 14 days in rural areas, with reduced times in popular areas, but then in very popular areas, add a charge.

 

For example, London could have 14 day chargeable zones, 48hr chargeable moorings and 24hr chargeable moorings. Make the shorter duration moorings more expensive per day. As a visitor, a 24hr mooring might be all you need so it's cheapest overall to stop there, or find a 48hr mooring if you are staying longer. Similar to a long-stay car park. As a liveaboard, 14day moorings would be cheaper per day. Get the charging structure right and it should make London less difficult for visitors. Charging for moorings in this way would also enable raising of revenue to increase services in the areas where needed.

 

How about a corresponding system of fines, just like with parking? Pay on arrival (by app, no need for parking meters). If you want to chance it, you may not get caught. If you have a breakdown and contact CRT you can arrange an overstay. If however you get caught overstaying, or simply don't pay, implement a fine which is added to the next licence fee. I believe the local authority parking fine is in the region of £50, with a discount for prompt payment? Failure to pay in full means no licence and the current process then comes into play.

 

May not raise £100M but could address some of the current pressure points and address the cost/service discrepancy they create?

Alec