C&RT License Survey

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

As I said all skewed to give the answers they want 

 

Like Trump's election "alternative facts", your claim that the consultation was "skewed" still won't be true no matter how many times you repeat it... 😉

Edited March 10, 2023 by IanD

[peterboat]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Like Trump's election "alternative facts", your claim that the consultation was "skewed" still won't be true no matter how many times you repeat it... 😉

How  many times did you answer questions then go back and alter the answers?

[Laurie Booth]

On 28/02/2023 at 12:50, Jon57 said:

That's a wind instrument. Comes under women 😁

No Indian takeaways

 

[IanD]

23 minutes ago, peterboat said:

How  many times did you answer questions then go back and alter the answers?

<sigh> if you can tick the box that says "raise all fees equally" as opposed to "raise fees differently" then it's not skewed.

 

For people who think it *would* be better to increase fees differently for different boaters, it tries to find out which the "least bad" choice is.

 

That's not skewed either. I assume that unlike TWC you have access to the same dictionary as the rest of us?

 

skew

/skjuː/

 

verb

past tense: skewed; past participle: skewed

1. 1.

   suddenly change direction or position.

   "the car had skewed across the track"

   • twist or turn or cause to do this.

     "he skewed around in his saddle"
2. 2.

   make biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair, or misleading.

   "the curriculum is skewed towards the practical subjects"

Edited March 10, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, peterboat said:

I actually played with the consultation for a while to see what happened but all questions lead to same ending, its not a rant, it's the reality most narrowboat owners with moorings will choose widebeams and CCers for a rise. In the hope it doesn't cost them any extra

It will, of course. I suspect there will be a "standard" licence and  "CC" licence,  the latter being higher. Then in a year or two someone will go to court to say it's discrimatory, CRT won't contest the case, they'll just scrap the "standard" licence and everyone will be on the higher one, maybe with a small discount if you're on a CRT recognised mooring.

Win all round...

[Mike Hurley]

Seems a bit like 2 people have the same type of car, one hardly uses it, other does 50,000 miles a year, they pay the same amount of road tax. Should one person pay less just because they choose not to drive much?

[IanD]

Just now, Mike Hurley said:

Seems a bit like 2 people have the same type of car, one hardly uses it, other does 50,000 miles a year, they pay the same amount of road tax. Should one person pay less just because they choose not to drive much?

That's the essential question. Some people will say yes, some will say no... 😉

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Mike Hurley said:

Seems a bit like 2 people have the same type of car, one hardly uses it, other does 50,000 miles a year, they pay the same amount of road tax. Should one person pay less just because they choose not to drive much?

That's why the government wants to bring in road pricing!

But if one person doesn't use their car for six months of the year, they can SORN it and not pay tax while it's in the garage.

Boaters, however, who don't use their boats for six months of the year pay more than those that use it all year round. So why should they pay more because they choose not to cruise much?

Comparisons are tricky...

Edited March 10, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Mike Hurley said:

Seems a bit like 2 people have the same type of car, one hardly uses it, other does 50,000 miles a year, they pay the same amount of road tax. Should one person pay less just because they choose not to drive much?

 

If we take it that the person driving (say) 1000 miles per annum is paying the basic 'standard rate' licence, should those doing 50,000 miles & wearing out the road etc etc not pay 50x the amount ?

 

Charging should always be based on the premise that 'the user pays'

 

One way (not proposed by C&RT) would be a basic licence fee that allows to access to the waterways, and then a mileage charge, - 'user pays'.

 

GENERAL APPROACH TO BOAT LICENCE PRICING

 

2.1. To comprehend BW’s boat licence pricing structure, it is first necessary to understand the organisation’s cost structure.

Operating the waterway network for navigation is a high fixed-cost business. BW must maintain the network to specified safety requirements, and needs to recover some proportion of those fixed costs from boat users.

 

2.2. Boat users also impose significant variable costs on BW (i.e. costs that vary with the level of usage)—for example, operating locks creates wear and tear and uses water. Cruising generates wash that slowly damages and erodes banks, both of which result in BW incurring additional costs in the long run. BW also provides services such as such as water, sewage disposal, refuse collection, etc. which are used more by some boating customers than others.

 

2.3. In light of this cost structure, BW has two main principles that underlie its charging structure.

(a) Cost impact—usage of the waterway network results in BW incurring additional costs. BW wishes to recover variable costs from different groups of boat users broadly in line with the extent to which they are responsible for causing them to be incurred. Consequently, groups that use the waterway more intensively, and hence cause more costs to be incurred, should be charged more than those that utilise the waterway less intensively.

(b) Efficient recovery of fixed costs—BW needs to recover some of its fixed costs. These are costs not directly caused by particular groups of users, such as general track repairs, as efficiently as possible. Economic theory demonstrates that the minimum loss of usage is caused by charging different user groups according to their willingness and ability to pay. Groups with a higher ability/willingness to pay are charged more, while those with a lower ability/willingness to pay are charged less. This type of pricing is a widespread accepted practice: travellers pay a varying price for the same type of seat on an aeroplane; discounts are offered to particular types of purchaser (eg, pensioner and student discounts); and particular buyers, such as university libraries, pay higher fees than others for items such as academic journals. This particular approach to price setting, described as Ramsey pricing, has a sound basis in economic theory, and its use is accepted by utility regulators and competition authorities in the UK and overseas.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If we take it that the person driving (say) 1000 miles per annum is paying the basic 'standard rate' licence, should those doing 50,000 miles & wearing out the road etc etc not pay 50x the amount ?

 

Charging should always be based on the premise that 'the user pays'

 

One way (not proposed by C&RT) would be a basic licence fee that allows to access to the waterways, and then a mileage charge, - 'user pays'.

 

GENERAL APPROACH TO BOAT LICENCE PRICING

 

2.1. To comprehend BW’s boat licence pricing structure, it is first necessary to understand the organisation’s cost structure.

Operating the waterway network for navigation is a high fixed-cost business. BW must maintain the network to specified safety requirements, and needs to recover some proportion of those fixed costs from boat users.

 

2.2. Boat users also impose significant variable costs on BW (i.e. costs that vary with the level of usage)—for example, operating locks creates wear and tear and uses water. Cruising generates wash that slowly damages and erodes banks, both of which result in BW incurring additional costs in the long run. BW also provides services such as such as water, sewage disposal, refuse collection, etc. which are used more by some boating customers than others.

 

2.3. In light of this cost structure, BW has two main principles that underlie its charging structure.

(a) Cost impact—usage of the waterway network results in BW incurring additional costs. BW wishes to recover variable costs from different groups of boat users broadly in line with the extent to which they are responsible for causing them to be incurred. Consequently, groups that use the waterway more intensively, and hence cause more costs to be incurred, should be charged more than those that utilise the waterway less intensively.

(b) Efficient recovery of fixed costs—BW needs to recover some of its fixed costs. These are costs not directly caused by particular groups of users, such as general track repairs, as efficiently as possible. Economic theory demonstrates that the minimum loss of usage is caused by charging different user groups according to their willingness and ability to pay. Groups with a higher ability/willingness to pay are charged more, while those with a lower ability/willingness to pay are charged less. This type of pricing is a widespread accepted practice: travellers pay a varying price for the same type of seat on an aeroplane; discounts are offered to particular types of purchaser (eg, pensioner and student discounts); and particular buyers, such as university libraries, pay higher fees than others for items such as academic journals. This particular approach to price setting, described as Ramsey pricing, has a sound basis in economic theory, and its use is accepted by utility regulators and competition authorities in the UK and overseas.

Indeed, and since measuring actual mileage is impossible that's what the possible "CC surcharge" is in effect...

 

If you say you haven't got a home mooring and will move significant distances round the system not stopping more than 14 days in one place -- to "satisfy the board" that you are indeed Continuously Cruising -- then by definition you're using significant resources, because that's the terms of the license.

 

If you claim you're CCing but you're actually a CMer then you're not following the rules, so you should pay the CC surcharge as if you were.

 

The last paragraph about fixed cost recovery and charging different user groups according to their ability to pay is pretty much what my suggestion of a "boat age" factor was meant to do, though that met with the expected reaction... 😉

 

(and I did suggest it in the "any ideas" section at the end of the consultancy, though I doubt that CART will introduce it -- at least, not yet...)

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

Indeed, and since measuring actual mileage is impossible that's what the possible "CC surcharge" is in effect...

 

If you say you haven't got a home mooring and will move significant distances round the system not stopping more than 14 days in one place -- to "satisfy the board" that you are indeed Continuously Cruising -- then by definition you're using significant resources, because that's the terms of the license.

 

If you claim you're CCing but you're actually a CMer then you're not following the rules, so you should pay the CC surcharge as if you were.

 

The last paragraph about fixed cost recovery and charging different user groups according to their ability to pay is pretty much what my suggestion of a "boat age" factor was meant to do, though that met with the expected reaction... 😉

 

(and I did suggest it in the "any ideas" section at the end of the consultancy, though I doubt that CART will introduce it -- at least, not yet...)

 

This general area (Size / Value / Age of boat) was discussed some years ago and discounted as being impracticable.

 

And the BW / C&RT conclusions ......................................

 

 

(d) At the individual level, a consumer’s ability or willingness to pay.

The age, 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. 

[magnetman]

Costs could be related to how much worthless shite is piled on the roof and a massive surcharge for anything illegally placed on the towpath. 

 

solar panels excepted/accepted. 

 

 

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

This general area (Size / Value / Age of boat) was discussed some years ago and discounted as being impracticable.

 

And the BW / C&RT conclusions ......................................

 

 

(d) At the individual level, a consumer’s ability or willingness to pay.

The age, 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. 

 

Yes it's not perfect -- but it does provide at least some weighting towards ability to pay, since new boats cost more and the boater must have bought them, and it has zero administration/enforcement cost, and it's difficult/impossible to evade.

 

Charging by size is of course exactly what CART are proposing, regardless of how accurate a predictor that is... 😉

 

Like I keep saying, some people seem eager to reject anything that might be better than what we have today by saying "but it's not perfect!" -- this applies to EVs, heat pumps, tax changes, HVO, charging boaters by boat size/age/usage...

Edited March 10, 2023 by IanD

[Jon57]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

That's why the government wants to bring in road pricing!

But if one person doesn't use their car for six months of the year, they can SORN it and not pay tax while it's in the garage.

Boaters, however, who don't use their boats for six months of the year pay more than those that use it all year round. So why should they pay more because they choose not to cruise much?

Comparisons are tricky...

Only if they can take the car off the road.🤨

[IanD]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

Costs could be related to how much worthless shite is piled on the roof and a massive surcharge for anything illegally placed on the towpath. 

 

solar panels excepted/accepted. 

 

 

But that's scruffy-hippy-boater-ist prejudice, surely?

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Costs could be related to how much worthless shite is piled on the roof and a massive surcharge for anything illegally placed on the towpath. 

 

 

But how would they know who to give the discounts / excess charges to as it tends to be those type of boats that have no ID of any sort, and are possibly  paying a licence fee of 'zero' anyway.

[magnetman]

Those are the ones who get shot at dawn by hit squads. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

5 hours ago, magnetman said:

Costs could be related to how much worthless shite is piled on the roof and a massive surcharge for anything illegally placed on the towpath. 

 

solar panels excepted/accepted. 

 

 

and bonkerness 

the more bonkers they are the more they pay.

 

perhaps,

Any one wearing a Tilley Hat goes free for being accepted as normal.

Anyone wearing a leather cowboy hat gets an extra discount.

Hi Viz and a curly face gets charged a bit extra.  
Just an idea. 
 

Solar panels should be an extra charge because it means someone’s getting summat for nowt and that’s really not acceptable.

There should be free beer for all except the Tilley Hatters because they don’t drink much. They can have free tea.  

 

[magnetman]

I wear a tilley hat but have solar panels and drink a lot. 

 

Is this too much of a confusing model profile to deal with? I have a pony in the money pocket of the hat. 

 

 

And loads of random worthless shite on the roof of both boats despite all the solar panels in fact some of the worthless shite is old defunct solar panels !

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Yea

you’re throwing a wild card in there,

 

do you think it’d be too hard to require everyone to be the same?

perhaps that’s the easier solution?

 

1 we all wear Tilley hats. 
2 we have a compost toilet

3 we have blue T-shirt’s 

4

5

 

I can’t think of the other 4, 

maybe no3 should be spectacles wearing persons, (Poundland reading glasses of course)

 

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Goliath

[magnetman]

I do have a CRT T shirt which says keeping people history and nature connected but at some stage this was presumed to be a bad idea so it is no longer valid. 

 

Not sure why it was a bad idea. 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I have a CRT rain coat which is blue 

and I once had a CRT email to move on which is black and white, I could have printed it in blue I guess. 
 

 

[system 4-50]

My Tilley hat fell off at Barbridge Junction and I travelled for 100yds without it before I reversed and recovered it.  Would I have incurred an extra charge for this part of my cruise?

[magnetman]

Reversing can bring the rewards if done really well without hitting anything and with people watching. Extra points for doing it past moored boats with no contact. 

 

Points can be redeemed for future licence cost increase reductions. 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

My Tilley hat fell off at Barbridge Junction and I travelled for 100yds without it before I reversed and recovered it.  Would I have incurred an extra charge for this part of my cruise?

 No

you'd have a reduction for reversing the system 

any part of the system you reverse on you’d get money back 👍

 

Demonstration of  exemplary skills deserves a reward