Boating - not mentioned

[Tiny]

Just read a two page piece in the IWA magazine by the BW chief executive about the way forward. He mentioned biodiversity, cycling and other 'important things' but didn't mention boats and boaters once. No wonder he thinks BW are doing well.

 

[Proper Job]

Boats and boaters are a major inconvenience to BW

[Henhouse]

There is a limit to how much revenue can be extracted from boating. Try and charge too much, and boat numbers and resulting revenue will decrease.

 

If BW want public money, ( which I firmly believe they should get ) then they have to promote the History, Industrial Heritage, Wildlife and Leisure aspects which are freely available to every man, woman and child in the country. If it is there for all, then it is justifiable.

 

We on this forum have as enthusiats a bias toward the boating aspect. If you take a step back, try and see the canal infrastructure as a national amenity, deserving of public funds. With boaters paying a license fee to allow them to boat.

[gaggle]

There is a limit to how much revenue can be extracted from boating. Try and charge too much, and boat numbers and resulting revenue will decrease.

 

If BW want public money, ( which I firmly believe they should get ) then they have to promote the History, Industrial Heritage, Wildlife and Leisure aspects which are freely available to every man, woman and child in the country. If it is there for all, then it is justifiable.

 

We on this forum have as enthusiats a bias toward the boating aspect. If you take a step back, try and see the canal infrastructure as a national amenity, deserving of public funds. With boaters paying a license fee to allow them to boat.

 

On the button.

[furnessvale]

With boaters paying a license fee to allow them to boat.

 

..........and cyclists, anglers, walkers etc paying either nothing, or next to nothing, but having an equal shout when it comes to decisions and infrastructure expenditure. Sorry, not in my world.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Natalie Graham]

..........and cyclists, anglers, walkers etc paying either nothing, or next to nothing, but having an equal shout when it comes to decisions and infrastructure expenditure. Sorry, not in my world.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

As all the leaflets publicity and so on promoting the canals for walkers, cyclers, sightseers and the rest invariably have pictures with boats on to illustrate how attractive the canals are, then BW should really be paying boaters for helping make their waterways more attractive to all these other people.

[ChrisPy]

As all the leaflets publicity and so on promoting the canals for walkers, cyclers, sightseers and the rest invariably have pictures with boats on to illustrate how attractive the canals are, then BW should really be paying boaters for helping make their waterways more attractive to all these other people.

bring on Max Clifford on our behalf!

[ymu]

There is a limit to how much revenue can be extracted from boating. Try and charge too much, and boat numbers and resulting revenue will decrease.

 

If BW want public money, ( which I firmly believe they should get ) then they have to promote the History, Industrial Heritage, Wildlife and Leisure aspects which are freely available to every man, woman and child in the country. If it is there for all, then it is justifiable.

 

We on this forum have as enthusiats a bias toward the boating aspect. If you take a step back, try and see the canal infrastructure as a national amenity, deserving of public funds. With boaters paying a license fee to allow them to boat.

All very true, but they could at least try to encourage more boaters and take in more licence fees.

 

There was a recent thread about visitor moorings restricted to 1/24/48 hours when the moorings in question are virtually empty most of the time. It was a major problem for us bringing the boat down from a private basin near Pelsall junction on the BCN, whilst moving out of our rented boat which was still on the Oxford. We didn't get to a suitably secure spot with no restrictions until Catherine de Barnes near Solihull, on the Grand Union. It's a beautiful journey, marred only by the difficulty in finding anywhere suitable to moor - with the best spots restricted to the point of uselessness for many potential boating visitors.

 

Whilst we where there the patrol officer - lovely chap, in the job for just 7 weeks at the first time of meeting and clearly full of knowledge from his training - passed on three complaints about the engine running. The first two were confusing - along the lines of the engine had been running for two days with noone there - clearly nonsense on both counts so we were at a loss to respond. The third complaint made it clear that the resident who complained just didn't like the engine being run at all. How is it possible for a newly trained patrol officer not to know that running an engine/generator is a necessity for an occupied boat whilst moored up, that the bye-laws allow this between the hours of 8am and 8pm, and that residents who complain need to be informed of this, and reminded that they pay not a penny towards the upkeep of the canals they enjoy living by whilst our licence fees subsidise their council tax.

 

We have always found the local wardens to be excellent, friendly and helpful - very much including the lovely new boy on the BCN, who took the trouble to telephone us to warn us that one of our interim mooring spots was in a dodgy area. But BW itself seems to have very little insight into the needs of boaters, to the extent that newly trained wardens seem unaware of many issues which affect us, and waste their time passing on inappropriate complaints like this. Boats on the canal are the key tourist attraction in some areas - especially when they are passing through locks. We saw just two other boats on the move in three days of cruising down the BCN - and caused much excitement amongst the local dogs and kids on some stretches as they had never even seen a narrowboat before.

 

If they want to bring in more revenue, they need to be encouraging boaters onto the canal, especially onto these virtually unused stretches - which are so clogged up with weed due to lack of traffic that it is difficult to navigate at all in some areas.

[ditchcrawler]

..........and cyclists, anglers, walkers etc paying either nothing, or next to nothing, but having an equal shout when it comes to decisions and infrastructure expenditure. Sorry, not in my world.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

But they do, like the rest of us, its called tax

[furnessvale]

But they do, like the rest of us, its called tax

 

I also pay tax so should I pay for a licence as well?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[5thHorseman]

Never quite understood why cyclists are not taxed for the use of roads/pavements/footpaths/tow paths/parks etc

 

5th

[ymu]

Never quite understood why cyclists are not taxed for the use of roads/pavements/footpaths/tow paths/parks etc

 

5th

They are taxed - bikes, lights, locks etc are not VAT free. They're not taxed directly for the use of roads because we wouldn't need big expensive roads which needed regular repairs as a result of cyclists using them. They are fined for using pavements, unless the local council has designated them as shared-use cycle-paths. Who has ever been charged for using a pavement, footpath or towpath for its intended use?

 

As regards boat users paying licence fees where others do not, anglers and walkers do not require the locks to be kept in good working order or for huge volumes of water to be made available in order to get them around, and they don't need taps, sewage facilities and bins to be provided for their use.

 

Licence fees only make up a tiny proportion of BW revenues and expenditure. All of us contribute to the rest of it through general taxation and tourism. It's ridiculous to claim that it's somehow unfair that we have to make a direct contribution to those costs which are incurred solely because boats need to navigate the waterways.

Edited August 8, 2010 by ymu

[furnessvale]

They are taxed - bikes, lights, locks etc are not VAT free. They're not taxed directly for the use of roads because we wouldn't need big expensive roads which needed regular repairs as a result of cyclists using them. They are fined for using pavements, unless the local council has designated them as shared-use cycle-paths. Who has ever been charged for using a pavement, footpath or towpath for its intended use?

 

As regards boat users paying licence fees where others do not, anglers and walkers do not require the locks to be kept in good working order or for huge volumes of water to be made available in order to get them around, and they don't need taps, sewage facilities and bins to be provided for their use.

 

Licence fees only make up a tiny proportion of BW revenues and expenditure. All of us contribute to the rest of it through general taxation and tourism. It's ridiculous to claim that it's somehow unfair that we have to make a direct contribution to those costs which are incurred solely because boats need to navigate the waterways.

 

As a boater with an engine (to differentiate me from horse boaters) I have no need for ANY towpath, let alone the gold plated variety now being provided for walkers, cyclists, anglers.

 

Seeing as we are in the business of separating out purely boaters costs, can we have the cost of this separated out as well please?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[ymu]

As a boater with an engine (to differentiate me from horse boaters) I have no need for ANY towpath, let alone the gold plated variety now being provided for walkers, cyclists, anglers.

 

Seeing as we are in the business of separating out purely boaters costs, can we have the cost of this separated out as well please?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

You never get off your boat to go to the shops and services? You have a floating shop/Elsan point/water boat passing regularly then?

 

The network of roads and paths that facilitate work, trade and social communication are a part of the economic infrastructure we all pay for through general taxation and that we all benefit from through the benefits to the economy. Feel free to complain formally, but I'm afraid it will go into the bin marked "green ink brigade".

[5thHorseman]

They are taxed - bikes, lights, locks etc are not VAT free.

Boats, lights and lock handles are not VAT free

 

They're not taxed directly for the use of roads because we wouldn't need big expensive roads which needed regular repairs as a result of cyclists using them.

Motor vehicle users are charged considerably more through VED & fuel tax than the government spends on ALL aspects of transport in a year. There is no connection between the cost of transport and the cost of providing the infrastructure. In fact the government makes a tidy profit from it. Why should one group of road users be exempt from this money making exercise

 

They are fined for using pavements, unless the local council has designated them as shared-use cycle-paths.

This is not a common occurrence, and the ultimate sanction of taking their licence away is unavailable. It strikes me as incredible that anyone can buy a cycle and take to the roads without further training whereas if that cycle has a small engine attached there is a complicated series of hurdles which must be negotiated by the individual to ensure his and others safety

 

Who has ever been charged for using a pavement, footpath or towpath for its intended use?

None of the forgoing were designed for the use of cyclists

 

As regards boat users paying licence fees where others do not, anglers and walkers do not require the locks to be kept in good working order or for huge volumes of water to be made available in order to get them around, and they don't need taps, sewage facilities and bins to be provided for their use.

Anglers have to pay rod licences &/or fishing club fees some of which goes to BW

 

Licence fees only make up a tiny proportion of BW revenues and expenditure.

I do not think that BW would agree with you, boat licences and mooring fees make up over 25% of its operating income

 

All of us contribute to the rest of it through general taxation and tourism. It's ridiculous to claim that it's somehow unfair that we have to make a direct contribution to those costs which are incurred solely because boats need to navigate the waterways.

Boaters & anglers do not NEED too use the waterway, motor vehicle users do not NEED to use the roads, they choose to and therefore have to make a contribution to the upkeep of the infrastructure, cyclists do not NEED to cycle but they choose to and as such should also make a contribution to the upkeep of the infrastructure

[Henhouse]

"Licence fees only make up a tiny proportion of BW revenues and expenditure.

I do not think that BW would agree with you, boat licences and mooring fees make up over 25% of its operating income"

 

 

So the remaining 75% comes from other sources. Before the DEFRA cock up that included 50+ Million from the exchequer.

 

Given the current state of government finances after 13 years of Brown spending money like a child with a credit card, everybody knows that cash is tight and cuts will happen.

 

Funding for canals is not going to be near the top of the list for central government handouts.

 

The object of my original post was to point out that if the canal system is promoted as being available to all as an amenity, then it becomes a more valid cause for central funding.

 

If some people want it exclusively for the use of boaters then I'm afraid you are deluded if you believe it can survive solely on the money currently raised by the license fee.

 

 

 

edited for typo.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Henhouse

[ymu]

5th horseman, you are arguing for a system of taxation which would be impossibly expensive to collect. If you are so pathologically angered by the idea that you might be paying a little bit towards facilities that only others use whilst noone is subsidising your own activities, I suggest you emigrate to somewhere that collects no taxes. I hear Somalia is lovely at this time of year.

[5thHorseman]

Quote by Henhouse:-

"The object of my original post was to point out that if the canal system is promoted as being available to all as an amenity, then it becomes a more valid cause for central funding.

If some people want it exclusively for the use of boaters then I'm afraid you are deluded if you believe it can survive solely on the money currently raised by the license fee."

 

As you quoted me , the assumption is that your post is directed towards me

I agree 100% with you first comment.

Regarding your second I am not aware that I suggested that canals should be for the exclusive use of boaters. I actually believe the contrary

 

Quote by ymu:-

 

"If you are so pathologically angered by the idea that you might be paying a little bit towards facilities that only others use whilst noone is subsidising your own activities, I suggest you emigrate to somewhere that collects no taxes. I hear Somalia is lovely at this time of year."

 

I am not aware that I said that

- I should pay no taxes

- I should not subsidise other people's activities

- I was angry

My point was that I feel cyclists should contribute something towards the facilities which they use

 

But thank you for the post ymu, as a final comment on the subjectI give you a quote to consider

 

"Insults are the arguements employed by those who are in the wromg" - Rousseau

 

5th

[Henhouse]

I don't think we really need another cyclist thread..........

[5thHorseman]

I am two tyred to get geared up into re-cycling a chain of cycle-ic arguements, that is a job for a cyclopath

 

hat, coat, TAXI!

 

5th

[furnessvale]

If some people want it exclusively for the use of boaters then I'm afraid you are deluded if you believe it can survive solely on the money currently raised by the license fee.

 

I for one am not arguing for exclusive use of canals by boaters. I just wonder why boaters pay twice for the privilege and then seem to be fairly near the bottom of the queue when it comes to decision making.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Henhouse]

I'd love to see the whole system in tip top working order. I believe it to be an important part of our industrial heritage. The mills and mines of Yorkshire and Lancashire drove the industrial revolution and put the Great in Britain. Too much has already been scrapped or demolished. The canals are the largest vestige of that age.

 

We all pay for their upkeep through taxes which have been paid by government to BW. Whether people choose to visit and walk, cycle or just sit and watch, or whether they never see a canal in their life. If they pay tax, they have contributed.