The National Bargee Travellers Association has slammed plans to raise licence fees on canals like the Kennet and Avon

[Paul C]

13 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Same places as other boaters.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmmm, not sure on that - a lot of marina boaters will fill up at the marina, and the water/pumpout/refuse will not need servicing thru the week, then they'll go back to their home marina and service there. Thus not using any CRT service points, instead maximising their time 'rolling'. Whereas a CCer has the double combination of no opportunity to go into their marina and use facilities, plus their commitment to keep cruising means they're naturally doing it all year rather than say 4-5 weeks in the high season.

 

Its not as simple as saying "all boats use the services the same", or "CCers cruise more slowly/don't rush around the system/keep out of the way" with the implication that despite being on the canals 24/7/365 they seem to magically use less of the facilities.

 

Of course, we are both guessing, but picking a number like home moorers use the system 9% as much as CCers, is as good as any of your or my guesses on it.

Just now, peterboat said:

IanD once said most hire boaters do the most mileage on canals, so I wonder how much the companies will have to pay extra? Maybe all hirers should pay an extra 100 squids a week?

 

Hire boaters, or more accurately, the hire boat licence, already costs 2.5x more than a pleasure boat licence.

[peterboat]

5 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Hmmmm, not sure on that - a lot of marina boaters will fill up at the marina, and the water/pumpout/refuse will not need servicing thru the week, then they'll go back to their home marina and service there. Thus not using any CRT service points, instead maximising their time 'rolling'. Whereas a CCer has the double combination of no opportunity to go into their marina and use facilities, plus their commitment to keep cruising means they're naturally doing it all year rather than say 4-5 weeks in the high season.

 

Its not as simple as saying "all boats use the services the same", or "CCers cruise more slowly/don't rush around the system/keep out of the way" with the implication that despite being on the canals 24/7/365 they seem to magically use less of the facilities.

 

Of course, we are both guessing, but picking a number like home moorers use the system 9% as much as CCers, is as good as any of your or my guesses on it.

 

Hire boaters, or more accurately, the hire boat licence, already costs 2.5x more than a pleasure boat licence.

True but we could chisel another 5k of them and shareboats they created the most damage so why shouldn't they pay for it?

[dmr]

To repeat what I said in some other thread some other time...

How about a congestion charge?  Easter, then June-July-August?

Most proper CC'ers just tread lightly round the system all year round, but in the "peak boating season" its mayhem when all the leisure and hire boats come out, the rubbish bins are all full and many canals run out of water.  CRT could ask CCers not to move during the peak season and even give a little licence discount to those who stay still.

Just offering this as a topic for intelligent debate 😀

[Paul C]

1 minute ago, dmr said:

To repeat what I said in some other thread some other time...

How about a congestion charge?  Easter, then June-July-August?

Most proper CC'ers just tread lightly round the system all year round, but in the "peak boating season" its mayhem when all the leisure and hire boats come out, the rubbish bins are all full and many canals run out of water.  CRT could ask CCers not to move during the peak season and even give a little licence discount to those who stay still.

Just offering this as a topic for intelligent debate 😀

 

It seems there's two distinctly different perceptions of the "service" that CRT provides to boaters. 1) the infrastructure which is used during travelling around, eg locks, swing bridges, etc, 2) the things like water, bins, elsan disposal which is used as part of living/overnighting on the canals. Obviously the former has a seasonality to it; and the latter is going to be more heavily drawn upon by a boater who uses the canal 52 weeks/year vs those who use it 6 weeks/year.

 

The argument that CCers should, or already do, travel less to ease the "burden" on CRT, I'm sorry I can't take that seriously.

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, dmr said:

CRT could ask CCers not to move during the peak season and even give a little licence discount to those who stay still.

Just offering this as a topic for intelligent debate 😀

 

Nah I think you're just stirring, lol!! 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

Hmmmm, not sure on that - a lot of marina boaters will fill up at the marina, and the water/pumpout/refuse will not need servicing thru the week, then they'll go back to their home marina and service there. Thus not using any CRT service points, instead maximising their time 'rolling'. Whereas a CCer has the double combination of no opportunity to go into their marina and use facilities, plus their commitment to keep cruising means they're naturally doing it all year rather than say 4-5 weeks in the high season.

 

Its not as simple as saying "all boats use the services the same", or "CCers cruise more slowly/don't rush around the system/keep out of the way" with the implication that despite being on the canals 24/7/365 they seem to magically use less of the facilities.

 

Of course, we are both guessing, but picking a number like home moorers use the system 9% as much as CCers, is as good as any of your or my guesses on it.

 

Hire boaters, or more accurately, the hire boat licence, already costs 2.5x more than a pleasure boat licence.

Yes and business licenses are not in this consultation.

 

I would have have thought yes a boat would be filled and prepped at the a marina before leaving but they’ve still got use facilities as they move around.
I used a marina the other month for a week while I dumped the boat and I topped up with everything before leaving, charged me batteries etc but it weren’t long before I had to dump some rubbish and empty the toilet.

But I would agree generally a ccer might use the services more, but as we witness a lot of the facilities are possibly disappearing and we will all eventually be charged for them 🤷‍♀️. 
 

 

[enigmatic]

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

If we are looking for equality maybe the 5000 CCers would like to match the £8.1m paid (in addition to their licence fees) by boats with a home mooring - it would only come to an additional £1,620 per CCer - & I would not be surprised if the 'consultation' doesn't come to a similar figure.

Why would the 5000 CCers need to pay as much as the 30000 non CCers?

 

Meet in the middle: how about we pay the average £270 (obviously an underestimate, but it's yours!) per boat difference and get the benefit of a mooring of our choice and the right to bridge hop if we fancy a month or two's holiday in the most congested parts of the network?! 

[MtB]

Just now, enigmatic said:

Why would the 5000 CCers need to pay as much as the 30000 non CCers?

 

 

Errr... to fund the continued existence of the canal system? 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Nah I think you're just stirring, lol!! 

 

 

I think he’s on the Weston’s again 😄

[dmr]

2 minutes ago, Paul C said:

 

It seems there's two distinctly different perceptions of the "service" that CRT provides to boaters. 1) the infrastructure which is used during travelling around, eg locks, swing bridges, etc, 2) the things like water, bins, elsan disposal which is used as part of living/overnighting on the canals. Obviously the former has a seasonality to it; and the latter is going to be more heavily drawn upon by a boater who uses the canal 52 weeks/year vs those who use it 6 weeks/year.

 

The argument that CCers should, or already do, travel less to ease the "burden" on CRT, I'm sorry I can't take that seriously.

 

It did have a smiley, but we do now routinely confuse CC'ers with CM'ers. It really is not uncommon for real CC'ers (some of whom are right proper canal fanatics) to have a good tool kit with them and make minor canal repairs as they go along. A local boat here often does little repairs to canalside drystone walls wherever he stops..

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Why would the 5000 CCers need to pay as much as the 30000 non CCers?

 

Meet in the middle: how about we pay the average £270 (obviously an underestimate, but it's yours!) per boat difference and get the benefit of a mooring of our choice and the right to bridge hop if we fancy a month or two's holiday in the most congested parts of the network?! 

Dunno, I could do that anyway

Edited March 18, 2023 by Goliath
Was a joke honest

[enigmatic]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

Errr... to fund the continued existence of the canal system? 

 

Why don't the 30,000 people pay more then, bearing in mind they get more and collectively (and probably on average) they definitely have more money?

 

25 minutes ago, dmr said:

To repeat what I said in some other thread some other time...

How about a congestion charge?  Easter, then June-July-August?

Most proper CC'ers just tread lightly round the system all year round, but in the "peak boating season" its mayhem when all the leisure and hire boats come out, the rubbish bins are all full and many canals run out of water.  CRT could ask CCers not to move during the peak season and even give a little licence discount to those who stay still.

Just offering this as a topic for intelligent debate 😀

 

Think we should get even bigger discounts if we save the locks from hire boat damage and the need to organise volockies by breasting up in front of places like Grindley Brook, and instead of overburdening CRT facilities, exclusively dispose of our rubbish in facilities open to non-license payers like towpath bins and the BCN, and help regenerate banks with our composting toilets  

 

 

[MtB]

9 hours ago, dmr said:

It did have a smiley, but we do now routinely confuse CC'ers with CM'ers.

 

Quite.

 

 few days ago I posted that there are three categories of "boats without a home mooring". 

 

1) Genuine CCers travelling the system as the MPs had in mind when they drafted the current law.

2) Piss-taking CCers who meet the shockingly lax CRT board requirements of moving just 1km every two weeks.

3) Piss-taking CMers who only move when prodded by CRT.

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by MtB
Refine the definitions

[Athy]

22 hours ago, IanD said:

 

In basic financial terms it makes sense for CART to get as much money as they can out of boaters

But in basic moral terms, is it right for a charitable trust to screw as much money as possible out of its customers? Surely, as a charitable trust, their priority should be those customers' best interests, not their own.

[Barneyp]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

But in basic moral terms, is it right for a charitable trust to screw as much money as possible out of its customers? Surely, as a charitable trust, their priority should be those customers' best interests, not their own.

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of a charity.

Every charity has a specific purpose, and the charity is intended to get as much money as they reasonably can to meet that purpose.

CRT exists to protect and maintain the canals and rivers (the clues in the name) not to provide a service to boaters.

They are morally obliged to maintain the canals, so they are morally obliged to maximise all sources of income ( up to the point where they have enough money).

[Arthur Marshall]

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

But in basic moral terms, is it right for a charitable trust to screw as much money as possible out of its customers? Surely, as a charitable trust, their priority should be those customers' best interests, not their own.

But the bulk of the customers are walkers and cyclists, so CRT prioritise towpath repairs over boaters (see Tixall closure), then come rich people (see Toddbrook yacht club), then fishermen, hire boaters (business income), marinas (ditto), then leisure boaters (as most never cruise so cost nothing) and finally the few who want to move about.

From most of those the income either nothing or is fixed.

[peterboat]

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

But in basic moral terms, is it right for a charitable trust to screw as much money as possible out of its customers? Surely, as a charitable trust, their priority should be those customers' best interests, not their own.

Exactly this^^^^ however Ian wants an empty canal so he can enjoy rapid and quiet cruising!!! I would except a inflation plus say 10% rise for everyone but targeting groups is only going to cause upset. I have spoken to my MP about the consultation and he will take it up with the waterways minister. At the end of the day the waterways belong to the people not CRT they are supposed to manage it for us  clearly they are failing so perhaps a cha6of management is required not consultation 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

IanD once said most hire boaters do the most mileage on canals, so I wonder how much the companies will have to pay extra? Maybe all hirers should pay an extra 100 squids a week?

 

 

The proposal (for discussion) in the 'old' licence review was that hire boats should pay the same as CCers (ie 2.5x the standard licence fee)

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Athy]

3 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

But the bulk of the customers are walkers and cyclists, so CRT prioritise towpath repairs over boaters (see Tixall closure), then come rich people (see Toddbrook yacht club), then fishermen, hire boaters (business income), marinas (ditto), then leisure boaters (as most never cruise so cost nothing) and finally the few who want to move about.

From most of those the income either nothing or is fixed.

I realise that your comments are tongue-in-cheek - but walkers nd cyclists can't be classified as "customers" because they don't pay anything. 

You omitted fishermen, a user group not universally loved by other user groups, but who at least make a financial contribution towards the waterways' upkeep.

[Orwellian]

6 minutes ago, peterboat said:

At the end of the day the waterways belong to the people not CRT they are supposed to manage it for us 

Can you prove that statement?

[Barneyp]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

Exactly this^^^^ however Ian wants an empty canal so he can enjoy rapid and quiet cruising!!! I would except a inflation plus say 10% rise for everyone but targeting groups is only going to cause upset. I have spoken to my MP about the consultation and he will take it up with the waterways minister. At the end of the day the waterways belong to the people not CRT they are supposed to manage it for us  clearly they are failing so perhaps a cha6of management is required not 

CRTs biggest problem is a lack of money, so trying to get more money seems like a sensible plan.

Charging those that make most use of the facilities more seems logical to me.

[Athy]

9 minutes ago, Barneyp said:

 

CRT exists to protect and maintain the canals and rivers (the clues in the name) not to provide a service to boaters.

 

Pray tell me, what is the purpose of these canals which they should protect and maintain? 

[Barneyp]

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

I realise that your comments are tongue-in-cheek - but walkers nd cyclists can't be classified as "customers" because they don't pay anything. 

You omitted fishermen, a user group not universally loved by other user groups, but who at least make a financial contribution towards the waterways' upkeep.

While walkers and cyclists don't pay directly, CRT can use them to justify the government funding they receive, so indirectly they could be the largest group of customers.

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Barneyp said:

While walkers and cyclists don't pay directly, CRT can use them to justify the government funding they receive, so indirectly they could be the largest group of customers.

Not so. If I go and sit in a café for an hour and don't buy anything, that doesn't make me a customer.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Athy said:

Pray tell me, what is the purpose of these canals which they should protect and maintain? 

 

Just like a remains of a castle, a very old tree or the Pyramids. - simply - heritage and history.

 

Their current 'purpose' is as a drainage system for surface water discharge and, the extraction of water for agricultural and industrial processes, for which they re paid approximately the same as the 35,000 boat pay but with far lower operating costs.

Their secondary purposes is as a source of cheap housing and as a rich-mans playground.

Edited March 18, 2023 by Alan de Enfield