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

[Mike Todd]

22 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

The NBTA don't seem to be in favour of things which benefit boaters as a whole, only their particular favoured type of boater... 😞

As I recall, the main difference is that the Winter Mooring scheme retains to CaRT control over location - they decide which locations may be suitable and should be able to monitor proper sage. The Roving scheme, I think, simply absolved a boater from the 15 day rule and could have resulted in a lot of inappropriate mooring (despite that being already covered by T&Cs) Hence, CCers ended up with less benefit than they would have done if they had accepted the first scheme!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

29 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I am sorted mate, I wanted to move my boat to the Broads years ago but its to big so I have found another waterway which suits me, a change is as good as a rest they say?

Good luck with it all.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

Point of order sir, Higgs does regularly contribute to the paints, painting and how to do it properly threads.

I withdraw my comment and am grateful to be so elegantly corrected.

53 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

So if you don't care because you're not going to be paying it, why do you keep pushing the flat fee increase idea, especially when your reasoning behind it -- reducing the number of p*ssed off boaters who might leave the canals -- simply doesn't add up?

A flat fee does have merits. Apart from stopping people looking for ways round unequal rises, there are relatively few CCers and fat boats so bigger increases for them don't add up to much. And fat boats on obese canals take up no more facilities than sewer tubes on skinny ones. Less, probably, than narrowboats on wide canals as at least they're designed for those waters.

I don't really care much. I suspect like all of us we'll pay while we can and when we can't we'll quit. I'll probably manage until I can't climb the ladders, however much they charge me.

What is forgotten, though, is the benefits that CCers bring to the system. Without year round movement, there'd be a lot more silting up, and a lot less awareness of developing problems being notified to CRT, and probably a lot less ad hoc repairs, too. Most of us have spannered bits of a lock back into a safe condition as we potter along. There would be fewer viable canalside businesses too.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Arthur Marshall

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

It clearly the sensible option; it’s simple, cost effective and fair.

 

The argument should be why are we expected to pay more when CRT mismanage what they have?

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Goliath

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Lady C said:

Surely the point is that CRT receive more income from the vast majority of boaters with a home mooring while also, in the majority of cases, using fewer facilities.

 

Just a quick 'back of a fag packet' calulation

 

Figures 'rounded' and used for comparison purposes only.

 

Theee are around 35,000 boat on C&RT waters.

~5000 are registered as CCers (no home mooring)

~30,000 are registered as having a home mooring.

 

All 35,000 have a licence and pay an average of ~£900 per annum for the licence fee.

 

Mooring Income.

The vast majority of the 30,000 will be paying an average of £3000 per annum (yes there are £1k pa moorings and there are £15k pa moorings)

If we take the worse case scenario (all boats are in marinas / private moorings) where C&RT have no direct mooring income then C&RT are receiving 9%  of the moorings paid.

 

C&RT are receiving some £8,100,000 per annum from boat mooring fees (in reality it will be higher because C&RT will receive 100% of the mooring fee from their own moorings in lieu of the 9% calculated.

 

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.

 

Possible Consultation conclusion : Total licence fee for a CCer at 2.5x or 3x a 'Home Moorers licence fee'.

 

Current average fee £900

New (average) CCer licence fee to be NB + £1,620 = total £2,520

Edited March 17, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

55 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I withdraw my comment and am grateful to be so elegantly corrected.

A flat fee does have merits. Apart from stopping people looking for ways round unequal rises, there are relatively few CCers and fat boats so bigger increases for them don't add up to much. And fat boats on obese canals take up no more facilities than sewer tubes on skinny ones. Less, probably, than narrowboats on wide canals as at least they're designed for those waters.

I don't really care much. I suspect like all of us we'll pay while we can and when we can't we'll quit. I'll probably manage until I can't climb the ladders, however much they charge me.

What is forgotten, though, is the benefits that CCers bring to the system. Without year round movement, there'd be a lot more silting up, and a lot less awareness of developing problems being notified to CRT, and probably a lot less ad hoc repairs, too. Most of us have spannered bits of a lock back into a safe condition as we potter along. There would be fewer viable canalside businesses too.

 

The positive benefits that "real CCers" bring to the system are real and have been mentioned many times. The problem is that distinguishing them from the "CMers" who have negative effects is very difficult, and it's the CMers who have been continually increasing in numbers in recent years -- I wouldn't be surprised if the number of "real CCers" has also gone down, but this is just anecdotal, I'm not aware of any data to back this up.

 

There's a similar problem with wideboats; they used to be relatively rare and mainly "real WBers" (like Peter and Blackrose?) who moor in uncrowded places on wide canals where they pose no problem, but now these seem to be outnumbered by "cheap-city-living-space" wideboats who don't behave so nicely, and in honeypot areas take the space which could fit two narrowboats breasted-up.

 

In both cases the problem is not the "real boaters" but the newcomers who only want a cheap -- preferably big! -- space to live, and often ignore the CC rules and don't care about inconveniencing other boaters. Apart from the "use of facilities" argument, discouraging these "bad behaviours" is another justification for increasing the license fees for CCers and wideboats.

 

A flat fee increase does have the merit of being simple, but has the disadvantage of punishing the "good boaters" equally to the "bad boaters" -- which means it does nothing to discourage the "bad boaters" who are causing significant problems which are getting worse by year as their numbers increase, driven by the "cheap boat living" idea.

 

As far as I can see, the "good boaters" who are in favour of a flat fee increase are those who would end up being hit by the CC and wideboat surcharges, which is not the slightest bit surprising because they'll be worse off -- and I'm not blaming them for this in any way.

 

What this argument is about is whether a flat fee increase or a graduated one is "fairer" or "better for the canals", and opinions differ on this. But given that CCers are a small minority (and "real CCers" even more so) and the same for wideboats, there's only ever going to be one outcome when *all* boaters are asked which way of increasing fees they would prefer (or dislike the least) -- and it's not a flat increase...

Edited March 17, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

20 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Just a quick 'back of a fag packet' calulation

 

Figures 'rounded' and used for comparison purposes only.

 

Theee are around 35,000 boat on C&RT waters.

~5000 are registered as CCers (no home mooring)

~30,000 are registered as having a home mooring.

 

All 35,000 have a licence and pay an average of ~£900 per annum for the licence fee.

 

Mooring Income.

The vast majority of the 30,000 will be paying an average of £3000 per annum (yes there are £1k pa moorings and there are £15k pa moorings)

If we take the worse case scenario (all boats are in marinas / private moorings) where C&RT have no direct mooring income then C&RT are receiving 9%  of the moorings paid.

 

C&RT are receiving some £8,100,000 per annum from boat mooring fees (in reality it will be higher because C&RT will receive 100% of the mooring fee from their own moorings in lieu of the 9% calculated.

 

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.

 

Possible Consultation conclusion : Total licence fee for a CCer at 2.5x or 3x a 'Home Moorers licence fee'.

 

Current average fee £900

New (average) CCer licence fee to be NB + £1,620 = total £2,520

that is the most bizarre logic I’ve come across

 

I save money not having a home mooring because I don’t need a home mooring and wouldn’t make use of one,

but you suggest I should be penalised and pay a random extra cost to make up for not having and paying for a home mooring but not get the services of a home mooring.

 

I don’t like car/driving  analogies but it’d be like charging someone who don’t have a garage the price of a garage because they don’t have a garage and because others have garages and they pay for garages

 

 

[Momac]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

there's only ever going to be one outcome when *all* boaters are asked which way of increasing fees they would prefer (or dislike the least) -- and it's not a flat increase...

 

And what will happen when most of the  wide beams move elsewhere and almost everyone has a home mooring?

What minority group will be targeted next?

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

If the CRT double my Licence fee, I'll leave ,  or sell up. Not sure I want to go to the Broads, as I imagine it's high embankments in the middle of nowhere.

 

Not quite, but large parts of the broads are quite featureless but some parts are very pretty. In general the Northern Broads are prettier but because of that get very busy in the summer. You don't generally get moorings like you do on the canals as most boats moor in yard/marinas or on time limited 'visitor moorings' ad hoc wild moorings can be be found but they are rare.

 

You also have tides to contend with. The closer you get to Yarmouth from either the south or the north the more you have to contend with them. It's not unduly difficult just a case of timings if passing through Yarmouth and keeping an eye on your lines when moored.

 

I would go as far to say the Canals and Broads are as alike as Chalk and Cheese, a whole different vibe, the only real similarity being they've got water in them.

 

I like both because they are different but anybody contemplating moving a boat from the canals to the Broads would do well to hire a Broads boat for a few days just to get a feel for the differences.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by M_JG

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I save money not having a home mooring because I don’t need a home mooring and wouldn’t make use of one,

but you suggest I should be penalised and pay a random extra cost to make up for not having and paying for a home mooring but not get the services of a home mooring.

 

 

If you have completed the 'consultation' you'll be aware that it (appears) to be C&RTs intention to make 'the user pay' and that includes CCers, who by definition MUST be continuously moving (a maximum of 14 days between movements) this means that CCers will be using locks, pumping water, elsan points, waste bins, potable water on a far more regular basis than a 'home mooring boat' that is used far less (maybe just a couple of weeks and a few weekends per annum)

 

All of those facilities have a cost of provision and maintenance - boats with a home mooring are providing £8 million per annum to C&RT for their usage of said facilities - CCers are paying  NIL, (£0)  despite using 20 - ?? - ??  times more of the facilities than a boat with a home mooring.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I don’t like car/driving  analogies but it’d be like charging someone who don’t have a garage the price of a garage because they don’t have a garage and because others have garages and they pay for garages

 

Or charging 'dirty cars' a higher licence fee than an environmentally friendly car so as to indirectly pay towards cleaning up the planet of the pollution they have caused.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

If you have completed the 'consultation' you'll be aware that it (appears) to be C&RTs intention to make 'the user pay' and that includes CCers, who by definition MUST be continuously moving (a maximum of 14 days between movements) this means that CCers will be using locks, pumping water, elsan points, waste bins, potable water on a far more regular basis than a 'home mooring boat' that is used far less (maybe just a couple of weeks and a few weekends per annum)

 

All of those facilities have a cost of provision and maintenance - boats with a home mooring are providing £8 million per annum to C&RT for their usage of said facilities - CCers are paying  NIL, (£0)  despite using 20 - ?? - ??  times more of the facilities than a boat with a home mooring.

Yes, and I can understand that thinking. I may not agree with it but I understand it.

And it’s a different line of argument that you proposed above.

Which is to charge someone for simply not having a mooring

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Goliath

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

And what will happen when most of the  wide beams move elsewhere and almost everyone has a home mooring?

What minority group will be targeted next?

 

 

Don't shoot the messenger -- if you don't like the result, blame 35000 boaters, or whichever fraction of them answered the consultation... 😉

 

Where do you think the widebeams and CMers moored on the overcrowded K&A and in London could move to, while still being close to the schools and jobs that are the reason for them being where they are?

 

If they all find and pay for a home mooring (where?) then CART make income from that instead, so job done -- but they'll still pay the increased widebeam fee, also job done (more CART income).

 

"Which minority group will be targeted next" is a slippery slope argument, to which the answer is -- whichever society (voters? boaters? government?) decide should have a lower priority than everyone else (woodburners? ICE drivers? smokers?), that's how democracy works... 😉

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Yes, and I can understand that thinking. I may not agree with it but I understand it.

And it’s a different line of argument that you proposed above.

 

 

 

 

In which case that was my failure to provide my thoughts in a way they could be understood. - User Pays is exactly what I was wanting to show.

 

It has been stated that those with a home mooring are paying nothing (above their licence fee)  for their use of the 'track and facilities' - exactly the same as CCers, so why should CCers be subject to a premium on their licence costs ?

However, I was showing that Home-Moorers are in fact paying a large sum (£8m) per annum to C&RT in addition to their licence fees for things which the 'main users' are paying nothing towards.

 

Those that cycle the locks the most, those that use the elsan the most, those that use the bins the most etc etc should pay more than those that don't.

 

Which group uses the facilities the most ?

Edited March 17, 2023 by Alan de Enfield

[Paul C]

They are charging more because they’re using facilities more.

 

They are using facilities more because they don’t have a mooring and thus need to use the boat on the canals more.

[Tacet]

6 hours ago, IanD said:

 

In basic financial terms it makes sense for CART to get as much money as they can out of boaters while having the fewest number leave the canals or evade payments.

 

In (very) basic financial terms, it makes sense for CART to get as much money as they can out of boaters and have the fewest remain on the canals.

 

FWIW, I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories - even CART will appreciate that there is more to it than an a very short term position.

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, LadyG said:

If the CRT double my Licence fee, I'll leave ,  or sell up. Not sure I want to go to the Broads, as I imagine it's high embankments in the middle of nowhere.

Your boat is to long I am afraid 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Your boat is to long I am afraid 

 

Ah yes, good point 14 metres from memory for new arrivals. You do see steel narrowboats on the Broads but they seem to be small Sea Otters or other shortish boats.

 

This one I caught at Potter Heigham

 

 

 

And this Sea Otter at Stalham

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by M_JG

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Tacet said:

In (very) basic financial terms, it makes sense for CART to get as much money as they can out of boaters and have the fewest remain on the canals.

 

FWIW, I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories - even CART will appreciate that there is more to it than an a very short term position.

 

Except that's the same theory that says the ideal case for the railways is to have so few passengers that don't need to run most trains, and can charge £1000 fares -- it completely ignores how price elasticity and total revenue works, but it's a good joke... 🙂

 

There's an optimum license fee per boater which keeps *most* of the boaters on the canals while maximising CART revenue by not driving *too* many way, and it's almost certainly considerably higher than the fee today. You could say that purely from the revenue point of view, if the fee increases don't start to drive *some* boaters away then they're not high enough, but only looking at it this way would create a massive amount of resentment towards CART so they're unlikely to go this far.

 

However if they need to raise their total license fee by X%, given the pressures on the system from CMers and wideboats using the canals as a cheap place to live, it's unlikely that they'll choose a flat fee increase -- and even more unlikely that this is what the results of the consultation will tell them that this is what boaters want.

 

You know the old Chinese proverb about "Be careful what you wish for"? Well some boaters have been complaining for years that CART don't listen to them, so now CART has asked for their opinion on this fee increase I don't see how they can complain just because they don't like the result... 😉

Edited March 17, 2023 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

In which case that was my failure to provide my thoughts in a way they could be understood. - User Pays is exactly what I was wanting to show.

 

It has been stated that those with a home mooring are paying nothing (above their licence fee)  for their use of the 'track and facilities' - exactly the same as CCers, so why should CCers be subject to a premium on their licence costs ?

However, I was showing that Home-Moorers are in fact paying a large sum (£8m) per annum to C&RT in addition to their licence fees for things which the 'main users' are paying nothing towards.

 

Those that cycle the locks the most, those that use the elsan the most, those that use the bins the most etc etc should pay more than those that don't.

 

Which group uses the facilities the most ?

Its not quite as simple as that though is it. 

There’s likely to be a large number of boats coming off their moorings in the summer and covering more miles than the CCers.

We’re all individual and using the system in many different ways for different purposes.

What we share is the need for just one simple license to navigate the system.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

You know the old Chinese proverb about "Be careful what you wish for"? Well some boaters have been complaining for years that CART don't listen to them, so now CART has asked for their opinion on this fee increase I don't see how they can complain just because they don't like the result... 😉

I'm not sure they have. Most us were quite pleased when BW and then CRT got on with their job of keeping the wet stuff above the clay and left us alone the rest of the time. Everybody is aware that consultations are just a PR exercise - if it meant anything, CRT would have run it themselves. I've no doubt the result will be read by someone at CRT, "heard" in a sense, but it won't be "listened" to in any meaningful way. CRT run it for the benefit of a lot more people than us.

[Tacet]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Except that's the same theory that says the ideal case for the railways is to have so few passengers that don't need to run most trains, and can charge £1000 fares -- it completely ignores how price elasticity and total revenue works, but it's a good joke... 🙂

 

 

Not the same theory at all.  Elasticity means that to get the most out of boaters (plural and in total), CRT cannot charge the earth per licence.  It will need to find the sweet spot.

But at its most basic, in financial terms it makes sense to have fewer boats, and not as many as possible (as you first said) burdening the then fixed resource.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Goliath said:

What we share is the need for just one simple license to navigate the system.

 

At present we are a long way away from that with :

 

Different charges by length

Different charges by beam

Different charges by age

Different charges by propulsion type

Different charges  by canal where the boat is to be used

Different charges for Rivers only

Different charges for commercial use

Different charges for rental boats

 

Have I forgotten any ?

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Tacet said:

Not the same theory at all.  Elasticity means that to get the most out of boaters (plural and in total), CRT cannot charge the earth per licence.  It will need to find the sweet spot.

But at its most basic, in financial terms it makes sense to have fewer boats, and not as many as possible (as you first said) burdening the then fixed resource.

 

To be accurate, what I said was:

 

"In basic financial terms it makes sense for CART to get as much money as they can out of boaters while having the fewest number leave the canals or evade payments."

 

By which I meant that if too many leave or evade paying they'll get less money, not that as many as possible should stay (which would mean none leaving) -- maybe this wasn't clear, I tried to clarify it in follow-up posts.

 

The problem is that for this to happen (CART maximising their income) some boaters will end up paying considerably more than today, maybe *much* more in some cases -- because that's how elasticity works.

 

Understandably they're miffed about this and would much prefer a flat fee increase so they don't get clobbered -- but most other boaters would prefer the opposite, so they don't pay as much.

 

At least that's what I predict the consultation will show, and what CART will do. Others disagree. Let's wait and see... 😉

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

6 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

At present we are a long way away from that with :

 

Different charges by length

Different charges by beam

Different charges by age

Different charges by propulsion type

Different charges  by canal where the boat is to be used

Different charges for Rivers only

Different charges for commercial use

Different charges for rental boats

 

Have I forgotten any ?

Those are not all different licenses as you know

 

And we’re only referring to a Pleasure Boat License which is very simple 

charging by length and beam as you say,

then box ticking for the discounts on age, propulsion or whatever. 

And of course declaring a home mooring or no. 

 

 

[Momac]

 

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

At present we are a long way away from that with :

 

Different charges by length

Different charges by beam

Different charges by age

Different charges by propulsion type

Different charges  by canal where the boat is to be used

Different charges for Rivers only

Different charges for commercial use

Different charges for rental boats

 

Have I forgotten any ?

 

Different charges for visiting boats 

Different charges for paddle boards/canoes