CART connection charge

[RLWP]

It's the other way round is it not?- CART get rid of 1 on-line mooring for every 10 marina berths.

 

 

If the moorings were the same price CART would be 1% worse off. If the marina is 12% dearer CART are (just) winning.

 

 

N

 

Yes, I got the 1:10 the wrong way around

 

Richard

[George94]

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to respond George94.

 

 

Quite. If its customers did not need access, the marina would not need access. But its customers do need access. So the marina needs access.

 

The idea that 'the marina doesn't need access. The boaters do' makes no more sense than the idea that 'Tesco doesn't need a car park. Its customers do'. You can't draw that sort of line between what a business needs and what its customers need.

 

And you're going to have to explain this point about CaRT being a monopoly to me. What does it have a monopoly on? (And please don't say 'CaRT waterways'.)

 

I am glad you have realised that if I do say CART waterways it will prove my point!

 

And the Tesco analogy isn't sound. The owners of the road outside Tesco are not charging Tesco a large fee to enable its customers to reach the car park.

[magictime]

In all the cases you mention, the customer is getting something in return for his payment.

 

I'm not quite sure if you mean the whole payment being made to the coffee stall/car dealership/marina, or the portion of that payment that ends up going to Network Rail/the local authority/the CaRT. So...

 

If you mean the whole payment: the customer of the marina also gets something in return for his payment, i.e. a mooring.

 

If you mean the proportion of the payment going to Network Rail/the local authority/the CaRT: could you please spell out what you think the customers of the coffee stall and the car dealership get in return for that payment? The obvious answer would be something like "the opportunity to buy something they wouldn't have been able to buy (in that location) if Network Rail/the local authority hadn't let that business operate there". But that applies equally to the marina, doesn't it?

 

 

Because, Magic, all boaters use the canal, whereas not all travellers buy coffee.

 

Huh? All travellers use trains/all boaters use the canal; some travellers buy coffee/some boaters moor in a marina. See?

 

 

I am glad you have realised that if I do say CART waterways it will prove my point!

 

And the Tesco analogy isn't sound. The owners of the road outside Tesco are not charging Tesco a large fee to enable its customers to reach the car park.

 

This is getting silly now. Having a monopoly on CaRT waterways doesn't make the CaRT a monopoly any more than having a monopoly on Wetherspoons pubs makes Wetherspoons a monopoly. There are other waterways just as there are other pub chains. If you want to open a marina and don't like the terms being offered by the CaRT, you can see if the EA, the Broads Authority etc. offer better terms.

 

The Tesco example was not supposed to be a close analogy like the dear old tea room. It was just supposed to illustrate the fact that you can't draw a sharp dividing line between what a business needs and what its customers need. If Tesco's customers need a car park. then Tesco needs a car park. If a hotel's customers need internet access, then the hotel needs internet access. If a marina's customers need access to the canal, then the marina needs access to the canal.

[John Holden]

 

I am glad you have realised that if I do say CART waterways it will prove my point!

 

And the Tesco analogy isn't sound. The owners of the road outside Tesco are not charging Tesco a large fee to enable its customers to reach the car park.

Of course they are! Never heard of business rates?

[George94]

Of course they are! Never heard of business rates?

 

Oh dear. This becomes more and more painful.

 

The rates are paid on the car park, just as they are on the supermarket itself. And just as marinas pay rates on their property.

 

None of this has anything remotely to do with charging for access.

 

I'm not quite sure if you mean the whole payment being made to the coffee stall/car dealership/marina, or the portion of that payment that ends up going to Network Rail/the local authority/the CaRT. So...

 

If you mean the whole payment: the customer of the marina also gets something in return for his payment, i.e. a mooring.

 

If you mean the proportion of the payment going to Network Rail/the local authority/the CaRT: could you please spell out what you think the customers of the coffee stall and the car dealership get in return for that payment? The obvious answer would be something like "the opportunity to buy something they wouldn't have been able to buy (in that location) if Network Rail/the local authority hadn't let that business operate there". But that applies equally to the marina, doesn't it?

 

 

Huh? All travellers use trains/all boaters use the canal; some travellers buy coffee/some boaters moor in a marina. See?

 

 

This is getting silly now. Having a monopoly on CaRT waterways doesn't make the CaRT a monopoly any more than having a monopoly on Wetherspoons pubs makes Wetherspoons a monopoly. There are other waterways just as there are other pub chains. If you want to open a marina and don't like the terms being offered by the CaRT, you can see if the EA, the Broads Authority etc. offer better terms.

 

The Tesco example was not supposed to be a close analogy like the dear old tea room. It was just supposed to illustrate the fact that you can't draw a sharp dividing line between what a business needs and what its customers need. If Tesco's customers need a car park. then Tesco needs a car park. If a hotel's customers need internet access, then the hotel needs internet access. If a marina's customers need access to the canal, then the marina needs access to the canal.

 

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the definition of a monopoly.

[alan_fincher]

It's the other way round is it not?- CART get rid of 1 on-line mooring for every 10 marina berths.

 

 

If the moorings were the same price CART would be 1% worse off. If the marina is 12% dearer CART are (just) winning.

 

 

N

 

[Devils_Advocate_Mode]

 

Not exactly.

 

Currently CRT seem to struggle to let even half the on-line moorings they advertise, even at their reserve price, so are probably not not getting anything like full revenue from sites they select as those to close down.

 

This actually probably makes taking a fixed 9% of what a marina might be making, (assuming all its berths are full, even though they are not), a remarkably good deal for CRT when moorings of all types often enjoy a long way short of full take up.

 

But I'm starting to sound like Paul Lillie, so I'd better stop!

 

[/Devils_Advocate_Mode]

 

EDITED: Not sure where the 1% worse of came from in your example. In the "full occupancy, same price situation", if they give up 1 berth at £2000, they get 9% of 10 berths at £2,000 each, i.e. £1,800 instead - that's 10% worse off, surely?

Edited January 25, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Graham Davis]

 

Oh dear. This becomes more and more painful.

 

The rates are paid on the car park, just as they are on the supermarket itself. And just as marinas pay rates on their property.

 

None of this has anything remotely to do with charging for access.

 

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the definition of a monopoly.

 

So please explain EXACTLY how CaRT have a monopoly?

 

I get the impression that actually you are argueing for argueings sake!

[magictime]

The mind boggles, it really does.

 

Here we have a vocal minority of boaters arguing, apparently in all seriousness, that private businesses should be allowed access to the CaRT's waterways in perpetuity, for free, in spite of the demonstrable commercial value to those businesses of that access and in spite of the fact that the future of the waterways depends on the CaRT maximising its commercial income.

 

Why? Because it's not fair that some or all of the fee paid by marinas may be passed on to their customers, who therefore end up paying an 'extra fee' to the CaRT (on top of their licence fee) for 'nothing'. And maybe if we abolish the fee, some marinas will pass on some of the saving to their customers.

 

And how is the resultant shortfall in income to be paid for? By raising the licence fee for all boaters.

 

I mean... what?!

 

How many different ways do I need to spell this out?

 

If buy a coffee at the train station and the stall holder uses some of that money to pay a concession fee to Network Rail, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to Network Rail, on top of my train ticket, for 'nothing'.

 

If I buy a car at a local dealership and the owner uses some of that money to pay his business rates to the Local Authority, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to the Local Authority, on top of my Council Tax, for 'nothing'.

 

If I moor at a marina and the owner uses some of that money to pay his NAA fee to the CaRT, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to the CaRT, on top of my licence fee, for 'nothing'.

 

I am still waiting for someone to respond to this pretty basic point in a way that does not completely miss the obvious parallels between these cases ('all boaters use the canal, whereas not all travellers buy coffee'? 'if the supplier applied it only to people who sat on one side of the carriage it would be deemed unfair'? God give me strength...)

[Graham Davis]

Agreed!

[MtB]

The mind boggles, it really does.

 

Here we have a vocal minority of boaters arguing, apparently in all seriousness, that private businesses should be allowed access to the CaRT's waterways in perpetuity, for free, in spite of the demonstrable commercial value to those businesses of that access and in spite of the fact that the future of the waterways depends on the CaRT maximising its commercial income.

 

Why? Because it's not fair that some or all of the fee paid by marinas may be passed on to their customers, who therefore end up paying an 'extra fee' to the CaRT (on top of their licence fee) for 'nothing'. And maybe if we abolish the fee, some marinas will pass on some of the saving to their customers.

 

And how is the resultant shortfall in income to be paid for? By raising the licence fee for all boaters.

 

I mean... what?!

 

How many different ways do I need to spell this out?

 

If buy a coffee at the train station and the stall holder uses some of that money to pay a concession fee to Network Rail, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to Network Rail, on top of my train ticket, for 'nothing'.

 

If I buy a car at a local dealership and the owner uses some of that money to pay his business rates to the Local Authority, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to the Local Authority, on top of my Council Tax, for 'nothing'.

 

If I moor at a marina and the owner uses some of that money to pay his NAA fee to the CaRT, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to the CaRT, on top of my licence fee, for 'nothing'.

 

I am still waiting for someone to respond to this pretty basic point in a way that does not completely miss the obvious parallels between these cases ('all boaters use the canal, whereas not all travellers buy coffee'? 'if the supplier applied it only to people who sat on one side of the carriage it would be deemed unfair'? God give me strength...)

 

 

You've nearly worn him down now Rich and George94. One more concerted effort should have him reaching for the razor blades...

 

Go on, tell him your views on whether CCers should pay a higher fee as they use the canals more than marina dwellers. That'll finish him off!

 

 

MtB

[George94]

 

So please explain EXACTLY how CaRT have a monopoly?

 

I get the impression that actually you are argueing for argueings sake!

 

If you don't know what a monopoly is by this stage of your life, then I doubt that anybody will be able to explain it to you.

The mind boggles, it really does.

 

Here we have a vocal minority of boaters arguing, apparently in all seriousness, that private businesses should be allowed access to the CaRT's waterways in perpetuity, for free, in spite of the demonstrable commercial value to those businesses of that access and in spite of the fact that the future of the waterways depends on the CaRT maximising its commercial income.

 

Why? Because it's not fair that some or all of the fee paid by marinas may be passed on to their customers, who therefore end up paying an 'extra fee' to the CaRT (on top of their licence fee) for 'nothing'. And maybe if we abolish the fee, some marinas will pass on some of the saving to their customers.

 

And how is the resultant shortfall in income to be paid for? By raising the licence fee for all boaters.

 

I mean... what?!

 

How many different ways do I need to spell this out?

 

If buy a coffee at the train station and the stall holder uses some of that money to pay a concession fee to Network Rail, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to Network Rail, on top of my train ticket, for 'nothing'.

 

If I buy a car at a local dealership and the owner uses some of that money to pay his business rates to the Local Authority, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to the Local Authority, on top of my Council Tax, for 'nothing'.

 

If I moor at a marina and the owner uses some of that money to pay his NAA fee to the CaRT, that does not mean that I have paid an 'extra fee' to the CaRT, on top of my licence fee, for 'nothing'.

 

I am still waiting for someone to respond to this pretty basic point in a way that does not completely miss the obvious parallels between these cases ('all boaters use the canal, whereas not all travellers buy coffee'? 'if the supplier applied it only to people who sat on one side of the carriage it would be deemed unfair'? God give me strength...)

 

I am afraid it does not appear to be possible to explain to you that in the end ALL the marina's costs are borne by the boaters (assuming there is no other source of income). And assuming that the marina makes a profit, or at least breaks even.

 

As you can't grasp that absolutely basic point, there is no benefit to either of us in continuing this discussion.

[NigelMoore]

For those interested in the DEFRA perspective -

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2012/43/pdfs/ukia_20120043_en.pdf

 

Direct costs and benefits to business and others

 

The creation of CRT and the funding agreement contain no material regulatory measures and
so they are not expected to impose or reduce costs to businesses or civil society in any direct or
material way. For example, there is no legislative change which increases or reduces
constraints on the level of boater fees.

 

British Waterways currently generates commercial
income from users through craft licensing and moorings, and the level of such user fees is not
considered to be affected by the creation of the charity per se. Indeed, boating interests will be
well represented on the charity’s Council and will be able to influence the charity’s policies.

 

At the same time, one of the benefits of moving out of the public sector will be that it should enable
and encourage more innovation and diversity in the way the new charity grows its income from
wider sources.

 

There is a notional risk that a successful charity might displace a degree of fundraising and
volunteering from other third sector organisations. However, this issue was only raised by a
very small number of respondents during the 2011 consultation, and in the absence of evidence
at this stage, the risk remains a theoretical one, and one to be assessed in future reviews.

Whilst the possibility of displacement is potentially a wider issue for the Big Society agenda, a
recent Government Green Paper on Giving also highlights the overall potential to increase
donations and volunteering across society and create a culture change in giving. In other words,
there is not necessarily a “fixed amount” of giving to be competed for by civil society
organisations, particularly when a longer term view is taken. Exemplars such as the creation of
CRT can support this broader agenda.

 

Creating CRT is not expected to have any material impacts on competition. That is primarily
because waterways recreation is not currently a matter of competition between different
suppliers. Towpath and waterway recreational activities are not currently properly priced to
reflect their benefits, and the new charity will help to capture some of the value which users and
citizens place upon the waterways through subscriptions and volunteering.

[George94]

For those interested in the DEFRA perspective -

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2012/43/pdfs/ukia_20120043_en.pdf

 

Direct costs and benefits to business and others

 

The creation of CRT and the funding agreement contain no material regulatory measures and

so they are not expected to impose or reduce costs to businesses or civil society in any direct or

material way. For example, there is no legislative change which increases or reduces

constraints on the level of boater fees.

 

British Waterways currently generates commercial

income from users through craft licensing and moorings, and the level of such user fees is not

considered to be affected by the creation of the charity per se. Indeed, boating interests will be

well represented on the charity’s Council and will be able to influence the charity’s policies.

 

At the same time, one of the benefits of moving out of the public sector will be that it should enable

and encourage more innovation and diversity in the way the new charity grows its income from

wider sources.

 

There is a notional risk that a successful charity might displace a degree of fundraising and

volunteering from other third sector organisations. However, this issue was only raised by a

very small number of respondents during the 2011 consultation, and in the absence of evidence

at this stage, the risk remains a theoretical one, and one to be assessed in future reviews.

Whilst the possibility of displacement is potentially a wider issue for the Big Society agenda, a

recent Government Green Paper on Giving also highlights the overall potential to increase

donations and volunteering across society and create a culture change in giving. In other words,

there is not necessarily a “fixed amount” of giving to be competed for by civil society

organisations, particularly when a longer term view is taken. Exemplars such as the creation of

CRT can support this broader agenda.

 

Creating CRT is not expected to have any material impacts on competition. That is primarily

because waterways recreation is not currently a matter of competition between different

suppliers. Towpath and waterway recreational activities are not currently properly priced to

reflect their benefits, and the new charity will help to capture some of the value which users and

citizens place upon the waterways through subscriptions and volunteering.

 

Please note, Magic, and Mr Davis.

[MtB]

Even so, there is more than one waterways authority so CRT do not operate a monopoly in administering leisure waterways.. If CRT administered all waterways then yes, they'd be a monopoly.

 

You claiming they are a monopoly despite the existence of the EA, Broads Authority, etc etc ut's me in mind of Screaming Lord Sutch's question, "Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?"

 

MtB

[Paul C]

I think its a fair interpretation that its a monopoly, because in certain regions, there simply isn't the alternative of having a boat on EA waters, or Norfolk Broad waters. If you want to go boating on inland waterways, CRT is the navigation authority.

[George94]

Even so, there is more than one waterways authority so CRT do not operate a monopoly in administering leisure waterways.. If CRT administered all waterways then yes, they'd be a monopoly.

 

You claiming they are a monopoly despite the existence of the EA, Broads Authority, etc etc ut's me in mind of Screaming Lord Sutch's question, "Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?"

 

MtB

 

Mike, please.

 

CART exercises a monopoly over nearly all the UK's canals. The fact that they don't control navigation on the Blue Nile or the River Volta or the Caledonian Canal doesn't mean they don't have a monopoly on the extensive waterways in Britain over which they do have exclusive control.

[MtB]

 

Mike, please.

 

CART exercises a monopoly over nearly all the UK's canals. The fact that they don't control navigation on the Blue Nile or the River Volta or the Caledonian Canal doesn't mean they don't have a monopoly on the extensive waterways in Britain over which they do have exclusive control.

 

They clearly have a monopoly over the waterways they do control, just like Tesco have a monopoly over all supermarkets called "Tesco". Doesn't mean they exclusively control the whole leisure boating market though, which is what the word means.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

 

MtB

[Graham Davis]

George, not only are you patronising, you are also bloody rude!

Goodbye.

[magictime]

I am afraid it does not appear to be possible to explain to you that in the end ALL the marina's costs are borne by the boaters (assuming there is no other source of income). And assuming that the marina makes a profit, or at least breaks even.

 

As you can't grasp that absolutely basic point, there is no benefit to either of us in continuing this discussion.

 

I'm perfectly capable of grasping that point, thanks. It looks like I need to spell this one out, though:

 

Suppose I own a 100 berth marina. I'm charging £2,000 per berth and have managed to let 75 of them. I made a £50,000 profit last year.

 

Next year an NAA fee of £20,000 is kicking in. It's up to me how much extra I start charging for a berth, if anything, and in that perfectly good sense I can choose how much (if any) of the fee to 'pass on' to customers. Maybe I'll just add £267 to my prices and hope that doesn't drive away my moorers, or maybe I'll keep my prices the same and accept a £20,000 reduction in my profits, or maybe I'll cut my prices by £200 in an attempt to fill my empty berths and cover the NAA fee that way.

 

Of course, you're right that in any of these scenarios, my customers will ultimately be bearing the cost of the NAA fee, just as the customers of any other (profitable) business ultimately bear the cost of its business rates, concession fees, etc.

 

You think that's a problem, if I understand you correctly, because you think the customers of all these other businesses get something in return for these fees, while marina customers do not. So let me ask you again to spell out what these customers get.

 

What does the train traveller buying a coffee from the Costa stall on the platform get in return for his contribution to the stall's concession fee?

 

What does the car buyer get in return for his contribution to the dealership's business rates?

 

Come on - you've got me on the ropes here. Land the knockout blow! Won't I look silly when you explain what these customers get and I can't show that the marina customers get anything comparable?

[George94]

George, not only are you patronising, you are also bloody rude!

Goodbye.

Have a good evening.

 

I'm perfectly capable of grasping that point, thanks. It looks like I need to spell this one out, though:

 

Suppose I own a 100 berth marina. I'm charging £2,000 per berth and have managed to let 75 of them. I made a £50,000 profit last year.

 

Next year an NAA fee of £20,000 is kicking in. It's up to me how much extra I start charging for a berth, if anything, and in that perfectly good sense I can choose how much (if any) of the fee to 'pass on' to customers. Maybe I'll just add £267 to my prices and hope that doesn't drive away my moorers, or maybe I'll keep my prices the same and accept a £20,000 reduction in my profits, or maybe I'll cut my prices by £200 in an attempt to fill my empty berths and cover the NAA fee that way.

 

Of course, you're right that in any of these scenarios, my customers will ultimately be bearing the cost of the NAA fee, just as the customers of any other (profitable) business ultimately bear the cost of its business rates, concession fees, etc.

 

You think that's a problem, if I understand you correctly, because you think the customers of all these other businesses get something in return for these fees, while marina customers do not. So let me ask you again to spell out what these customers get.

 

What does the train traveller buying a coffee from the Costa stall on the platform get in return for his contribution to the stall's concession fee?

 

What does the car buyer get in return for his contribution to the dealership's business rates?

 

Come on - you've got me on the ropes here. Land the knockout blow! Won't I look silly when you explain what these customers get and I can't show that the marina customers get anything comparable?

 

As I said earlier, there is no point in our discussing this. Good night.

Edited January 25, 2014 by George94

[matty40s]

Mike, please.

 

CART exercises a monopoly over nearly all the UK's canals. The fact that they don't control navigation on the Blue Nile or the River Volta or the Caledonian Canal doesn't mean they don't have a monopoly on the extensive waterways in Britain over which they do have exclusive control.

George, you are so full of silt.

CRT/BW waters have 35000 boats, there are more than that just on the Thames, never mind other EA waters and other waterway operators.

[George94]

George, you are so full of silt.

CRT/BW waters have 35000 boats, there are more than that just on the Thames, never mind other EA waters and other waterway operators.

 

The Thames is not a canal, Matty. Nor are the majority of the other EA waterways.

 

But since you have mentioned the EA, they have a monopoly over various things in the waterways that they do control.

 

I really don't know why some people find this so difficult to grasp. It does, however, shed light on why so many of the arguments put forward here are so devoid of real content.

 

ETA: Try to avoid the ad hominem remarks if you want people to take you seriously.

Edited January 25, 2014 by George94

[magictime]

Have a good evening.

 

As I said earlier, there is no point in our discussing this. Good night.

 

What you said was that there was no point in our discussing it if I could not grasp the point that all of a marina's costs are borne by its customers. But I do grasp that point.

 

Come on, we've boiled this down to the essentials now. What does the customer of the coffee stall get in return in for his contribution to its concession fee? Why isn't he just paying Network Rail an extra fee, compared to other train travellers, for 'nothing'?

 

Why don't I go first? I think he gets the convenience of being able to buy a coffee right there on the platform where he catches his train, rather than having to walk into the town centre and risk missing connections etc.

 

Now, how about the customer of the marina? What does he get in return for his contribution to its NAA fee?

 

I think he gets the convenience of being able to moor his boat in a spot that's more secure than an inline mooring on the canal, but from which he can still directly access CaRT waters any time he likes.

 

Why am I wrong?

[MtB]

LEAVE IT magictime... 'e aint wurf it....

 

 

MtB

[matty40s]

The Thames is not a canal, Matty. Nor are the majority of the other EA waterways.

 

But since you have mentioned the EA, they have a monopoly over various things in the waterways that they do control.

 

I really don't know why some people find this so difficult to grasp. It does, however, shed light on why so many of the arguments put forward here are so devoid of real content.

 

ETA: Try to avoid the ad hominem remarks if you want people to take you seriously.

I am fully aware of what a river and canal are......and there is no monopoly, all anyone has to do is go where they want, pay the local licence... or not in the Middle Levels, and enjoy the waterways. There is no monopoly in Loughborough,, because 10 minutes cruising from Pillings brings you to a marina out of crt jurisdiction.