Jump to content

Is the current infrastructure really any worse than the 70s 80s?


Featured Posts

16 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

A leisure boat has to have a mooring (unless you freeload it onto the towpath and pretend to be a CC), so you have to take it into account.

 

Is it freeloading to be a "dumper" and move the boat at least every other weekend?

 

I know quite a few people who have done most of the network this way, and it certainly feels in the original spirit of continuous cruising to me.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

In the 60s, you didn't pay BW a fee to moor. This is now something like two thirds of the licence fee (for EOG) - in effect almost doubling it. So your 50% hike would raise the basic cost of keeping the boat on CRT water to about £1000, not the £600 you quote.

Pretending the mooring fee isn't part of the licence cost is like pretending National Insurance isn't part of the income tax system - a good wheeze and it fools a lot of people, but it doesn't make it true.  A leisure boat has to have a mooring (unless you freeload it onto the towpath and pretend to be a CC), so you have to take it into account.

As in the 60s, your ordinary mooring costs, to the mooring provider, are extra.

Don't say that Arthur, or IanD will want to tie mooring fees to boat value as well!

My parents certainly paid mooring fees on that first boat they owned, although I imagine you are right that all of that went to the (private) mooring operator. But with later boats we did pay both the National Trust (on the South Stratford) and BW for offside moorings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

 I have a great idea. How about charging by length and width? It's such  good idea that I'm hoping it will conclude this utterly pointless debate. 😆😆😆

 

 

I've proposed this many times but it always gets shot down in flames as unfair. I really don't see it myself. The bigger the boat the more the license should cost in my opinion, and the length x width is a close proxy for the size. 

 

This has been working perfectly well for the EA on the Thames for at least 40 years and it would work perfectly well on the cut, if they had the balls to actually implement it.

 

 

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I've proposed this many times but it always gets shot down in flames as unfair. I really don't see it myself. The bigger the boat the more the license should cost in my opinion, and the length x width is a close proxy for the size. 

 

This has been working perfectly well for the EA on the Thames for at least 40 years and it would work perfectly well on the cut, if they had the balls to actually implement it.

 

 

Agreed - Im sure that length alone was the structure for licence fee at least in the 1970s wasnt it MtB?  The addition of width would seem a reasonable add on to that IMHO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I've proposed this many times but it always gets shot down in flames as unfair. I really don't see it myself. The bigger the boat the more the license should cost in my opinion, and the length x width is a close proxy for the size. 

 

This has been working perfectly well for the EA on the Thames for at least 40 years and it would work perfectly well on the cut, if they had the balls to actually implement it.

 

I said this should be part of the way that the license was varied, but still don't think it enough -- think of the poor pensioners in a big old boat they've lived on for ages... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Agreed - Im sure that length alone was the structure for licence fee at least in the 1970s wasnt it MtB?  The addition of width would seem a reasonable add on to that IMHO. 

 

 

I bought my first Thames Conservancy license in 1977 and it was on a L x W basis back then. 

 

Dunno about earlier than that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Stroudwater1 said:

Agreed - Im sure that length alone was the structure for licence fee at least in the 1970s wasnt it MtB?  The addition of width would seem a reasonable add on to that IMHO. 

 

I thought CRT were introducing a length by width based licence fee?

 

On a graduated basis,

35602-licensing-futures-decision-summary-response.pdf

Edited by The Happy Nomad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

I said this should be part of the way that the license was varied, but still don't think it enough -- think of the poor pensioners in a big old boat they've lived on for ages... 😉

 

 

I'm thinking of them, and..... I can't think of any! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

I've proposed this many times but it always gets shot down in flames as unfair. I really don't see it myself. The bigger the boat the more the license should cost in my opinion, and the length x width is a close proxy for the size. 

 

This has been working perfectly well for the EA on the Thames for at least 40 years and it would work perfectly well on the cut, if they had the balls to actually implement it.

 

 

CRT have been doing the additional width thing for a few years now.

Cant you remember the arguments on here about it?

They began by introducing it in yearly increments to help with the extra cost.

Don’t know if they’ve reached the full price yet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

I've proposed this many times but it always gets shot down in flames as unfair. I really don't see it myself. The bigger the boat the more the license should cost in my opinion, and the length x width is a close proxy for the size. 

 

This has been working perfectly well for the EA on the Thames for at least 40 years and it would work perfectly well on the cut, if they had the balls to actually implement it.

 

 

CRT have been doing the additional width thing for a few years now.

Cant you remember the arguments on here about it?

They began by introducing it in yearly increments to help with the extra cost.

Don’t know if they’ve reached the full price yet.


 

Ive just bothered to read Nomad’s post;

5 yearly increments

0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%

by 2023 wider boats will be paying 20% more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Ive just bothered to read Nomad’s post;

5 yearly increments

0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%

by 2023 wider boats will be paying 20% more.

Which is still a lot lower than charging based proportional to width for boats wider than 8.4 feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Goliath said:

CRT have been doing the additional width thing for a few years now.

Cant you remember the arguments on here about it?

They began by introducing it in yearly increments to help with the extra cost.

Don’t know if they’ve reached the full price yet.


 

Ive just bothered to read Nomad’s post;

5 yearly increments

0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%

by 2023 wider boats will be paying 20% more.

I cannot understand why it is not100% already.   Full price for length and width I say.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Which is still a lot lower than charging based proportional to width for boats wider than 8.4 feet.

 

Where did 8.4ft come from?! 

 

Oh I see. Its a boat 20% wider than a 7ft boat, so the 20% surcharge is proportional and fair for 8.4ft boats.

 

A 10ft widebeam is 43% wider than a 7ft boat so the license surcharge should be an extra 43%. And for a 12ft widebeam, the extra width is 72% so a 12ft widebeam should pay an extra 72% at least. There is an argument that any boat wider than 7ft should just pay double for simplicity as they take up twice the canal space in locks and on moorings.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Where did 8.4ft come from?! 

 

Oh I see. Its a boat 20% wider than a 7ft boat, so the 20% surcharge is proportional and fair for 8.4ft boats.

 

A 10ft widebeam is 43% wider than a 7ft boat so the license surcharge should be an extra 43%. And for a 12ft widebeam, the extra width is 72% so a 12ft widebeam should pay an extra 72% at least. There is an argument that any boat wider than 7ft should just pay double for simplicity as they take up twice the canal space in locks and on moorings.

 

 

I think you’re complicating it. 
Read the conditions and you’ll see the simplicity of it. 
 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Where did 8.4ft come from?! 

 

Oh I see. Its a boat 20% wider than a 7ft boat, so the 20% surcharge is proportional and fair for 8.4ft boats.

 

A 10ft widebeam is 43% wider than a 7ft boat so the license surcharge should be an extra 43%. And for a 12ft widebeam, the extra width is 72% so a 12ft widebeam should pay an extra 72% at least. There is an argument that any boat wider than 7ft should just pay double for simplicity as they take up twice the canal space in locks and on moorings.

 

 

I am of the view that widebeams should get a substantial discount because of the canals that they can't use, alternatively all narrowboats should stay on narrow waterways and widebeams should stay on wide waterways problem sorted 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I think you’re complicating it. 
Read the conditions and you’ll see the simplicity of it. 
 

 

 

I think you're demonstrating your poor grasp of simple arithmetic again.

 

I have read the conditions and as I've already said, with reasons, I think they are unfair.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I am of the view that widebeams should get a substantial discount because of the canals that they can't use, alternatively all narrowboats should stay on narrow waterways and widebeams should stay on wide waterways problem sorted 

 

Flawed thinking.

 

Widebeams can only use half the system, but it balances out as they use their half twice as much!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MtB said:

 

Flawed thinking.

 

Widebeams can only use half the system, but it balances out as they use their half twice as much!

 

 

No problem, so we adopt the wide waterways for widebeams only plan  enjoy your cruising in the Midlands Mike 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

There is an argument that any boat wider than 7ft should just pay double for simplicity as they take up twice the canal space in locks and on moorings.

 

 

That's not true on a river where the waterway and the locks are much wider than on most canals.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MartynG said:

That's not true on a river where the waterway and the locks are much wider than on most canals.

 

 

Check the site name. "CANALworld.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Check the site name. "CANALworld.net

Check the section of the forum  this is posted under - waterways and boating , general boating. That covers any type of boat and any waterway.

image.png.4a5f46022b8bdcef5a8716566d853ac2.png

 

A river is  waterway is it not?

This forum is not limited to canals as evidenced by many references to rivers .  Not only that but the occasional journey on salty water has been recorded on this forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tracy D'arth said:

I cannot understand why it is not100% already.   Full price for length and width I say.

Agreed 🙂

 

Whether you consider use of water in locks or mooring space (length and width) longer boats "cost" more to the canal system. A system with artificial thresholds (e.g. a "step up" in fee at a given width) always leads to concentrations to just miss the threshold (e.g. houses priced at £499,999 when the stamp duty threshold was raised to £500000) and then if things change later there are always complaints. A simple length*width factor has the benefits of avoiding this, being easy to work out, and adding increasing weighting the wider boats get where they cause more obstruction on many canals -- and would have the added advantage in some people's eyes (not Peter's, obviously!) of discouraging the rash of huge obstructive widebeams bought simply because they're big and the cheapest option per square foot to live and continuously moor on. It's also similar to the pricing used for housing in many countries where rental and purchase costs are always given per square foot (or square meter...) which tends to make small properties cheaper and big ones more expensive.

 

Yes this would put up the license costs for widebeams significantly, and I've no doubt those who own or live on them will say this is not fair -- but equally those who own or live on narrowboats will say that they don't pay enough today to make up for the obstructions they cause on a lot of canals, or taking the space of two breasted-up narrowboats where moorings are scarce. "Not an issue where I am" Peter will cry, and this is true -- but then there are hardly any boats where he is, most of the big new widebeams are in the "honeypot" sites (I counted about 1 boat in 8 on the West London section of the Paddington Arm).

 

One way to partly fix this -- and help with the overcrowded "honeypot moorings" problem -- would be to make the license fee (or the "wideboat weighting") area-specific, but there are obvious problems here with detection/evasion/enforcement -- how do you make sure that a boat claiming to moor in the middle of nowhere doesn't actually moor in central London? The key to any effective graduated license fee is that it must be simple/cheap to administer and not rely of CART towpath checkers -- width*length is one obvious and foolproof method, insurance value is another simple one with some drawbacks and potential for fiddling but still probably better than doing nothing, area-weighting is difficult and pointless if it can't be checked/enforced.

 

I guess the reason it's not 100% already is the howls of protest that would result from wideboat owners crying "unfair, we can't afford it, this is a big change in the rules, we were told we were OK". Which to me sounds rather like the change in the composting toilet rules, when CART realised they'd made a mistake and something needed to be done, so changed the rules to try and benefit the canal system and its users as a whole, even though this impacted the people (a small number) who had fitted them...

 

I'm sure the NBTA would also whip up the press like they do every time CART try and enforce the CC rules, and this could make CART cave in again unless they grow a pair... 😞

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Check the section of the forum  this is posted under - waterways and boating , general boating. That covers any type of boat and any waterway.

image.png.4a5f46022b8bdcef5a8716566d853ac2.png

 

A river is  waterway is it not?

This forum is not limited to canals as evidenced by many references to rivers .  Not only that but the occasional journey on salty water has been recorded on this forum.

 

Lol, trail a bait and I always catch one! 

  • Unimpressed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Goliath said:

CRT have been doing the additional width thing for a few years now.

Cant you remember the arguments on here about it?

They began by introducing it in yearly increments to help with the extra cost.

Don’t know if they’ve reached the full price yet.


 

Ive just bothered to read Nomad’s post;

5 yearly increments

0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20%

by 2023 wider boats will be paying 20% more.

 

Im surprised that people on the water were not aware of this. Hence I posted the relevant doc.

 

Besides as you state there was enough discussion on here about it at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.