Cost offsets between wide and narrow

[magpie patrick]

48 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

An expensive 20' cruiser can cost a lot more than a cheap 60' narrow boat. This ''entry level'' theory is something of a myth, especially these days when a great many people buy boats to live on.

I don't know how much a flat rate licence would cost, the figures to work it out don't seem to be available but if it worked out to be mid range in the current scale of charges the change wouldn't be enough to deter someone from buying an ''entry level'' boat. The costs of owning such a boat is quite minimal anyway.

As for boat size affecting the capacity of a waterway, increasing the cost of a licence will have zero affect on that, the boat will still affect the capacity of the waterway even if it costs twice as much to license it. As I've hinted already in this thread if licences are increased for wide beams then wide beam owners will be looking to ''get their money's worth'' and going places that they'd previously had no intention of going. For me that would mean the entire length of the GU.

I can also see boat builders getting a little upset by CRT endangering what has been a lucrative customer base. 

Keith

oooooo - Someone's rattled your cage!

Two things - the first of which is I'm all for people paying less than me if they have a smaller boat whereas you're not, even if the have an 8 foot car top dinghy (they also require a licence) which suggests we have a different world view on these sort of things. Also, given my previous comment, and comments I made about wide beams on the Northern Oxford, it doesn't worry me if you try and touch the top gate of Camp Hill Locks with a wide beam, the canal was, after all widened, although even the GUCCC drew the line at about 12 foot 6 inches beam.

Second is I'm in the process of researching the various figures for a peer reviewed paper: this is amongst the things I do for a living - the entry level cost of boating has risen steadily over many years, and licences have contributed to that. In the end, if you cut off your entry level, your market dies: it takes about ten to twenty years but it happens. 

We are currently seeing the end of a wave that started with early retirements and golden handshakes giving a cohort of mid fifties the money to splash out on a boat  whilst they still had many years left to enjoy it. That's now a busted flush. We've seen the idea that costs can rise inexorably without affecting demand - CRT's model still reflects that view, as do many marinas, but it's now badly flawed. We had a number of golden years where "entry level" was flashing the cash on a new 57 footer - it's gone.

And by your own token that small boat costs are minimal therefore why worry about the licence, and (although you don't say it) licence fees haven't exactly put people off buying longer and longer narrow boats, why would the licence fee put people of buying new widebeams, it's a very, very small proportion of the cost of one of those.  If you're arguments is hardship for those who already have a widebeam, why would you inflict an increase on owners of small boats? Or do you think they buy small boats to keep wedges of cash on one side? No, they choose a boat that is cheaper to buy and to run because they have less cash. Very few small new boats hit the canals (Sea Otter are an exception) the new Vikings and Normans etc are on rivers (often EA ones) and the sea.

And I'll just add a note at the end licences aren't pro-rata anyway, unlike moorings: the longest boats are charged roughly 80% per foot the charge for the shortest. 

[Tuscan]

20 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

We are currently seeing the end of a wave that started with early retirements and golden handshakes giving a cohort of mid fifties the money to splash out on a boat  whilst they still had many years left to enjoy it. That's now a busted flush. We've seen the idea that costs can rise inexorably without affecting demand - CRT's model still reflects that view, as do many marinas, but it's now badly flawed. We had a number of golden years where "entry level" was flashing the cash on a new 57 footer - it's gone.

You fail to mention that there is now a new wave or retirees who are now able to access pension cash in a way not possible a few years ago who are purchasing new and nearly new boats along with those who look at the many recent Canal cruising programs perhaps with rose tinted glasses. Perhaps it’s this group that are ensuring boat prices are not falling.

[Matt&Jo]

4 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

You fail to mention that there is now a new wave or retirees who are now able to access pension cash in a way not possible a few years ago who are purchasing new and nearly new boats along with those who look at the many recent Canal cruising programs perhaps with rose tinted glasses. Perhaps it’s this group that are ensuring boat prices are not falling.

I was speaking to a boat builder today and 9 out of 10 boats commisioned are wide beam so whatever peoples thoughts they are coming so lets all just get on :-)

[MtB]

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

We had a number of golden years where "entry level" was flashing the cash on a new 57 footer - it's gone.

 

Now replaced with 57ft widebeams at twice the price of a 57ft narrow boat, surely?

[magpie patrick]

6 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Now replaced with 57ft widebeams at twice the price of a 57ft narrow boat, surely?

Not in anything like the same numbers, and not generally cruising the whole system (for an obvious reason)

I would admit that, unless we have regional licencing I'm not convinced on a premium for wide beam boats: neither for nor against, just not convinced. 

[magpie patrick]

9 hours ago, Tuscan said:

You fail to mention that there is now a new wave or retirees who are now able to access pension cash in a way not possible a few years ago who are purchasing new and nearly new boats along with those who look at the many recent Canal cruising programs perhaps with rose tinted glasses. Perhaps it’s this group that are ensuring boat prices are not falling.

They can, but the model has changed and is still not viable in the long term: I will soon be in that group BTW as in four years time I can access pension cash, having paid into company pensions from the age of 23 to the age of 44 (when I was made redundant and set up my own company)

The old model, which I started on and those 20 years older than me got the full benefit of, was a proportion of final salary plus lump sum. The recipients expected to work until 65 to get this, but we went through a significant spell where to trim the labour force and/or to make way for new blood companies and public bodies offered early retirement with the pension enhanced as if the employee had gone the distance. These people often got a pension that was enough to live on plus a lump sum that would go a long way towards buying a boat if that was their chosen retreat, they could cruise endlessly with  a guaranteed payment into their bank account once a month.

The model you refer to involves spending some of the pension capital, and that requires a judgement that you're not going to need it, which in turn requires there to be enough left to pay an adequate income for however long you live, and for you to be confident in that sum and that invetstments and interest rates won't work against you. And even this model won't yield a steady supply of customers in ten or fifteen years time. 

I'm looking at customers a decade ahead, not the ones we have at the moment, and certainly not the ones we had ten years ago.

[archie57]

10 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

oooooo - Someone's rattled your cage!

Two things - the first of which is I'm all for people paying less than me if they have a smaller boat whereas you're not, even if the have an 8 foot car top dinghy (they also require a licence) which suggests we have a different world view on these sort of things. Also, given my previous comment, and comments I made about wide beams on the Northern Oxford, it doesn't worry me if you try and touch the top gate of Camp Hill Locks with a wide beam, the canal was, after all widened, although even the GUCCC drew the line at about 12 foot 6 inches beam.

Second is I'm in the process of researching the various figures for a peer reviewed paper: this is amongst the things I do for a living - the entry level cost of boating has risen steadily over many years, and licences have contributed to that. In the end, if you cut off your entry level, your market dies: it takes about ten to twenty years but it happens. 

We are currently seeing the end of a wave that started with early retirements and golden handshakes giving a cohort of mid fifties the money to splash out on a boat  whilst they still had many years left to enjoy it. That's now a busted flush. We've seen the idea that costs can rise inexorably without affecting demand - CRT's model still reflects that view, as do many marinas, but it's now badly flawed. We had a number of golden years where "entry level" was flashing the cash on a new 57 footer - it's gone.

And by your own token that small boat costs are minimal therefore why worry about the licence, and (although you don't say it) licence fees haven't exactly put people off buying longer and longer narrow boats, why would the licence fee put people of buying new widebeams, it's a very, very small proportion of the cost of one of those.  If you're arguments is hardship for those who already have a widebeam, why would you inflict an increase on owners of small boats? Or do you think they buy small boats to keep wedges of cash on one side? No, they choose a boat that is cheaper to buy and to run because they have less cash. Very few small new boats hit the canals (Sea Otter are an exception) the new Vikings and Normans etc are on rivers (often EA ones) and the sea.

And I'll just add a note at the end licences aren't pro-rata anyway, unlike moorings: the longest boats are charged roughly 80% per foot the charge for the shortest. 

North of Braunston it was generally  only the locks, plus one or two bridges, that were widened

[Tuscan]

I agree the early retirement model with golden handshake you refer to us long gone, largely replaced with the huge increase in equity in property or the ability to use cash from your pension. The latter two fuel the entry level at a more expensive point where incomes are able to afford the add on costs such as license, marinas etc.

The challenge has always been how to encourage boaters at the cheaper end of the market. Which CRT will say it is doing by encouraging canoeing, walking , fishing etc etc.

It could be said that actually more and more boaters are coming in at the entry level right now if you look at the huge increase in boats in London or western K&A in recent years I would suggest the vast majority are in the very age range that CRT needs to attract and that the majority their boats are at the lower value range than the retirement groups above. The trick is to encourage some of this latter group to appreciate and explore the canals more widely as they get older and their circumstances change.

[Steilsteven]

10 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

oooooo - Someone's rattled your cage!

Two things - the first of which is I'm all for people paying less than me if they have a smaller boat whereas you're not, even if the have an 8 foot car top dinghy (they also require a licence) which suggests we have a different world view on these sort of things. Also, given my previous comment, and comments I made about wide beams on the Northern Oxford, it doesn't worry me if you try and touch the top gate of Camp Hill Locks with a wide beam, the canal was, after all widened, although even the GUCCC drew the line at about 12 foot 6 inches beam.

Second is I'm in the process of researching the various figures for a peer reviewed paper: this is amongst the things I do for a living - the entry level cost of boating has risen steadily over many years, and licences have contributed to that. In the end, if you cut off your entry level, your market dies: it takes about ten to twenty years but it happens. 

We are currently seeing the end of a wave that started with early retirements and golden handshakes giving a cohort of mid fifties the money to splash out on a boat  whilst they still had many years left to enjoy it. That's now a busted flush. We've seen the idea that costs can rise inexorably without affecting demand - CRT's model still reflects that view, as do many marinas, but it's now badly flawed. We had a number of golden years where "entry level" was flashing the cash on a new 57 footer - it's gone.

And by your own token that small boat costs are minimal therefore why worry about the licence, and (although you don't say it) licence fees haven't exactly put people off buying longer and longer narrow boats, why would the licence fee put people of buying new widebeams, it's a very, very small proportion of the cost of one of those.  If you're arguments is hardship for those who already have a widebeam, why would you inflict an increase on owners of small boats? Or do you think they buy small boats to keep wedges of cash on one side? No, they choose a boat that is cheaper to buy and to run because they have less cash. Very few small new boats hit the canals (Sea Otter are an exception) the new Vikings and Normans etc are on rivers (often EA ones) and the sea.

And I'll just add a note at the end licences aren't pro-rata anyway, unlike moorings: the longest boats are charged roughly 80% per foot the charge for the shortest. 

Well that is a lot to wade through and yes my cage is rattled, it's rattled by people who are so eager to spend my money for me. Unlike you I don't expect someone with a bigger boat than mine ( and there are plenty of them ) to subsidise my boat. Those people who are so keen for wide beams to pay more only appear to hold that view simply because they resent their presence.

They seem to think that by increasing the licence fee wide beam boats will dissappear or at least lose their popularity. As you have pointed out, the cost of a licence is unlikely to put someone off of buying an expensive large boat so it is unlikely to have the desired effect. It might affect the resale price some years down the line but that would increase their attraction as a live aboard. On that basis there is nothing to be gained as far as affecting their presence on the waterways. If it was likely to have the desired effect, as I said previously, it wouldn't be popular with boat builders.

I think that you have some kind of fixation about '' entry level '' boats and you are a little blinded by your own theory. People buy boats in the main as toys and no matter which way you look at it they are expensive toys, one way that anyone who wishes to own a boat on the cheap is to buy a trailable one which has the advantages of no mooring fees, no annual licence fees and the ability to visit many different waterways in the UK and abroad. THAT is your entry level. If someone wants to own a boat and keep it on the canal all year round it is going to cost them a whole lot more and even if there was no licence fee the cost would still be prohibitive for most people.

It isn't the cost of a licence that is the cause of few small boats ''hitting the canals'' it's just that they aren't popular.

How much would the license fee cost if there were only small boats? 

Would you have been arguing for a means test for ''entry level'' boaters?

Keith

 

[Steilsteven]

48 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

I agree the early retirement model with golden handshake you refer to us long gone, largely replaced with the huge increase in equity in property or the ability to use cash from your pension. The latter two fuel the entry level at a more expensive point where incomes are able to afford the add on costs such as license, marinas etc.

The challenge has always been how to encourage boaters at the cheaper end of the market. Which CRT will say it is doing by encouraging canoeing, walking , fishing etc etc.

It could be said that actually more and more boaters are coming in at the entry level right now if you look at the huge increase in boats in London or western K&A in recent years I would suggest the vast majority are in the very age range that CRT needs to attract and that the majority their boats are at the lower value range than the retirement groups above. The trick is to encourage some of this latter group to appreciate and explore the canals more widely as they get older and their circumstances change.

Ah but many here don't want that kind of entry level boater ;-)

Keith

[Steilsteven]

It's funny really, on the one hand people are arguing that there isn't enough room on the canals and on the other they're arguing that more people should be encouraged to join the throng at entry level!

Keith

Edited January 5, 2018 by Steilsteven

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Those people who are so keen for wide beams to pay more only appear to hold that view simply because they resent their presence.

 

Not true.

I think the bigger the boat, the higher the license fee should be. Seems only fair to me. 

[Steilsteven]

49 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not true.

I think the bigger the boat, the higher the license fee should be. Seems only fair to me. 

I seem to remember you saying in the past ''why do people expect things to be fair?'' 

Something is only fair if it is justified not just because you 'think' it's fair.

If all boats were the same size and everyone was paying the same fee then half then owners decide to cut a bit off of their  boats, would it be fair to reduce their fees and increase all the others to compensate for the loss?

Keith

[dccruiser]

7 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

 

If all boats were the same size and everyone was paying the same fee then half then owners decide to cut a bit off of their  boats, would it be fair to reduce their fees and increase all the others to compensate for the loss?

Keith

No it would be fair to reduce the cost of the shorter boat which is the system now ... In no way do you pay more to subsidise my licence if you choose to have a widebeam you just pay more than me for the privilege and the extra space it affords you ergo the extra space your boat takes up, my license fee wont be reduced if another 100 widebeams are built and registered it will go up in line with everyone elses irrespective of size each year .... Its a choice boats are licensed on size the bigger the boat the more you pay if you object to paying more get a smaller boat 

Rick

[Steilsteven]

6 minutes ago, dccruiser said:

No it would be fair to reduce the cost of the shorter boat which is the system now ... In no way do you pay more to subsidise my licence if you choose to have a widebeam you just pay more than me for the privilege and the extra space it affords you ergo the extra space your boat takes up, my license fee wont be reduced if another 100 widebeams are built and registered it will go up in line with everyone elses irrespective of size each year .... Its a choice boats are licensed on size the bigger the boat the more you pay if you object to paying more get a smaller boat 

Rick

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are wrong, in the scenario that I've presented if the cost of the shorter boat was reduced that means a loss of income to the authority which would have to be made up elsewhere. The most likely outcome would mean an overall increase in fees to cover the loss. Each subsequent % increase in fees increases the differential and this is more so on an area based charging regime.But why would the authority want to reduce the fee anyway? They would hardly be likely to encourage boaters to shorten their boats if it meant a loss of income.

Of course larger boats subsidise smaller boats, I've already demonstrated that, if you don't like the thought that you are being subsidised buy a bigger boat. 

Paying more because of ''the space your boat takes up'' would be reasonable if we were packing boats into canals like packing sardines into a tin but we're not. We are sharing waterways which in some places and times are busy and sometimes  not. We are sharing waterways of differing dimensions, some like the River Stort where a 13' wide beam fits but two narrow boats can't share a lock, some like the Severn or the Aire and Calder where more than one wide beam can share a lock. There are many variations and most owners of larger boats tend to accept the fact that they would never be able to  access a great deal of the system but are fully willing to pay a contribution towards that system. 

There are so many variables on boat usage these days to say that charging by size is in any way fair, some boats do a lot of cruising and some do very little. A wide beam kept in a marina that goes cruising for a fortnight  vs a narrow boat of the same length that goes cruising for four months of the year, is it fair that the cost of that 2 week break costs the wide beam owner £400 more than the 4 months for the narrow boat owner? The wide  beam has ''taken up space'' on the canal for just 14 days but the narrow boat has taken up space for 120 days so in effect the narrow boat takes up nearly ten times as much space during it's licence period. Don't go shouting it was his choice to buy a wide beam, this is simply an illustration of why '' taking up space'' is no basis for licence fee charging.

To my mind there are only three options for a fair licensing scheme:

1) Flat rate. Simple to administer and easy for N.As to budget.

2) Tolls. Complicated to administer and difficult for N.As to budget and unlikely to provide as much income as the present system.

3) Current value basis using bands similar to council tax. Onus on the owner to provide a formal valuation every 6 years by a qualified surveyor. Simpler than the current system.

Keith

  

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

To my mind there are only three options for a fair licensing scheme:

1) Flat rate. Simple to administer and easy for N.As to budget.

2) Tolls. Complicated to administer and difficult for N.As to budget and unlikely to provide as much income as the present system.

3) Current value basis using bands similar to council tax. Onus on the owner to provide a formal valuation every 6 years by a qualified surveyor. Simpler than the current system.

4) Everyone pays (say) £3000, £1 per mile is deducted  for each mile travelled and credited towards the next years licence. Distance travelled measured by trackers.

 

Now before it is said that 'there are those of limited means that cannot afford the additional £2000', it is no different than those renting properties having to pay a security deposit which is returned at the end of the lease/rental period.

[Steilsteven]

37 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

4) Everyone pays (say) £3000, £1 per mile is deducted  for each mile travelled and credited towards the next years licence. Distance travelled measured by trackers.

 

Now before it is said that 'there are those of limited means that cannot afford the additional £2000', it is no different than those renting properties having to pay a security deposit which is returned at the end of the lease/rental period.

The only problem I can see with that is the possible increase in pollution and wear and tear on the system.

Keith

and the fact that those who use the system the least would pay the most.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Steilsteven

[Steilsteven]

Here's a novel idea, get everyone in full-time employment in the UK to pay £1 per year and abolish boat licences altogether. 

Keith

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Here's a novel idea, get everyone in full-time employment in the UK to pay £1 per year and abolish boat licences altogether. 

Keith

I'll go for that.

(I retired many years ago).

[magpie patrick]

okay - leaving aside more complicated options like charging by value of boat, here is why I think licensing by size is basically fair (which doesn't mean I think the exact system used now is fair)

First, charging by distance gives the perverse incentive not to go anywhere, although I rather like Alan's idea that one pays LESS per distance travelled, thus it becomes a proxy mooring fee. That said, I cxan see CRT would end up owing money to people like "Keeping Up"

Use is only a real problem on canals at the extremes, if they are too busy or too quiet, there isn't a huge maintenance difference between 500 boats a year and 5000 passing along a stretch, there is a difference but nothing like proportionate. Locks that are seldom used have as many problems as locks that are overused, possibly more. 

The real areas where capacity is tested are locks and moorings, locks can only be worked so many times on one day and this is the limiting factor for how many boats can use a canal: if more than one boat can fit then more boats get through. Moorings are measured by length and how many boats can be fitted on them depends on how long the boats there are. Bradford on Avon Visitor Moorings (below the locks) are, I think, 180 metres long, whether they can accommodate 9 or 18 boats depends on the length of the boats. 

Overall therefore  smaller boats make more efficient use of the canals: this doesn't mean I don't want larger boats, it just means I think they should pay according to the resource they use. Ultimately larger boats means fewer boats when the system edges towards capacity. 

This logic could extend towards charging extra for wide beams, but here I struggle slightly because the middle bit of the system is not accessible to them: whereas 70 foot narrow boats have "most of" the system and there are no isolated chunks (except the Lancaster, although that's a tidal passage anyway) wide beam boats effectively have a regional licence only, because the system avialble to them is cut into three discrete areas separated either by narrow canals or seaways. 

There has been reference to new build, but thats a small percentage of boats on the system and only a slightly larger percentage of boat sales every year.

5 hours ago, Tuscan said:

I agree the early retirement model with golden handshake you refer to us long gone, largely replaced with the huge increase in equity in property or the ability to use cash from your pension. The latter two fuel the entry level at a more expensive point where incomes are able to afford the add on costs such as license, marinas etc.

The challenge has always been how to encourage boaters at the cheaper end of the market. Which CRT will say it is doing by encouraging canoeing, walking , fishing etc etc.

It could be said that actually more and more boaters are coming in at the entry level right now if you look at the huge increase in boats in London or western K&A in recent years I would suggest the vast majority are in the very age range that CRT needs to attract and that the majority their boats are at the lower value range than the retirement groups above. The trick is to encourage some of this latter group to appreciate and explore the canals more widely as they get older and their circumstances change.

I've highlighted the bit on bold because that is spot on - instead many people are trying to alienate them. Working with this group they have a lot of interest in and passion for boats and canals. 

There is also some hostility to owners of smaller boats (one of mine is small, so I've felt this first hand) yet these too are an affordable way onto the water.

CRT do seem to think the encouraging paddleboarding is the answer though! 

5 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Those people who are so keen for wide beams to pay more only appear to hold that view simply because they resent their presence.

I think that you have some kind of fixation about '' entry level '' boats and you are a little blinded by your own theory.

 

First off, the bit in bold, I'm afraid I agree - but it isn't my stance. I'd like a wide beam in the long run and if it costs more to licence so be it

Second bit, I'm afraid my view is that you have some fixation with your own idea, because nothing seems to result in even the slightest shift from you, nor elaboration of the reasoning for your position

As I said, I have no problem with larger boats, and am not even sure wide beams should pay more, but I do think size is a reasonably proxy for the impact on capacity of the system and affordability of the boat.

[dccruiser]

2 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are wrong, in the scenario that I've presented if the cost of the shorter boat was reduced that means a loss of income to the authority which would have to be made up elsewhere. The most likely outcome would mean an overall increase in fees to cover the loss. Each subsequent % increase in fees increases the differential and this is more so on an area based charging regime.But why would the authority want to reduce the fee anyway? They would hardly be likely to encourage boaters to shorten their boats if it meant a loss of income.

Of course larger boats subsidise smaller boats, I've already demonstrated that, if you don't like the thought that you are being subsidised buy a bigger boat. 

Paying more because of ''the space your boat takes up'' would be reasonable if we were packing boats into canals like packing sardines into a tin but we're not. We are sharing waterways which in some places and times are busy and sometimes  not. We are sharing waterways of differing dimensions, some like the River Stort where a 13' wide beam fits but two narrow boats can't share a lock, some like the Severn or the Aire and Calder where more than one wide beam can share a lock. There are many variations and most owners of larger boats tend to accept the fact that they would never be able to  access a great deal of the system but are fully willing to pay a contribution towards that system. 

There are so many variables on boat usage these days to say that charging by size is in any way fair, some boats do a lot of cruising and some do very little. A wide beam kept in a marina that goes cruising for a fortnight  vs a narrow boat of the same length that goes cruising for four months of the year, is it fair that the cost of that 2 week break costs the wide beam owner £400 more than the 4 months for the narrow boat owner? The wide  beam has ''taken up space'' on the canal for just 14 days but the narrow boat has taken up space for 120 days so in effect the narrow boat takes up nearly ten times as much space during it's licence period. Don't go shouting it was his choice to buy a wide beam, this is simply an illustration of why '' taking up space'' is no basis for licence fee charging.

To my mind there are only three options for a fair licensing scheme:

1) Flat rate. Simple to administer and easy for N.As to budget.

2) Tolls. Complicated to administer and difficult for N.As to budget and unlikely to provide as much income as the present system.

3) Current value basis using bands similar to council tax. Onus on the owner to provide a formal valuation every 6 years by a qualified surveyor. Simpler than the current system.

Keith

  

 

And again comes in the assumption ... having used marina moorings for a number of years there are just as many narrowboats as there are widebeams pro rata to their respective numbers that never move anywhere ... and to say you have shown you subsidise me is a total fallacy ... there are set rates according to size its an extremely simple system to understand ... just like if you board a plane ... you dont get there any quicker but if you want more space you pay the extra for first class instead of going coach ... simple choice , whenever i flew first or business class i didnt for one minute think i was subsidising those in coach , i just made a choice to have more space .... or option  4) leave it as it is where you have a bigger boat you make that choice knowing that your license and moorings will cost more .... whether you choose to sit in a marina or cruise the system is down to yourself .... Obviously if you never intend to move why buy a boat and not a waterside property? ... answer it costs too much ... again a choice based on what you can afford , just like you wouldnt buy a massive house then ask for your mortgage to be reduced because you only use half of it and never use the vast garden .... all choices 

Rick 

[Steilsteven]

14 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

okay - leaving aside more complicated options like charging by value of boat, here is why I think licensing by size is basically fair (which doesn't mean I think the exact system used now is fair)

First, charging by distance gives the perverse incentive not to go anywhere, although I rather like Alan's idea that one pays LESS per distance travelled, thus it becomes a proxy mooring fee. That said, I cxan see CRT would end up owing money to people like "Keeping Up"

Use is only a real problem on canals at the extremes, if they are too busy or too quiet, there isn't a huge maintenance difference between 500 boats a year and 5000 passing along a stretch, there is a difference but nothing like proportionate. Locks that are seldom used have as many problems as locks that are ., possibly more. 

The real areas where capacity is tested are locks and moorings, locks can only be worked so many times on one day and this is the limiting factor for how many boats can use a canal: if more than one boat can fit then more boats get through. Moorings are measured by length and how many boats can be fitted on them depends on how long the boats there are. Bradford on Avon Visitor Moorings (below the locks) are, I think, 180 metres long, whether they can accommodate 9 or 18 boats depends on the length of the boats. 

Overall therefore  smaller boats make more efficient use of the canals: this doesn't mean I don't want larger boats, it just means I think they should pay according to the resource they use. Ultimately larger boats means fewer boats when the system edges towards capacity. 

This logic could extend towards charging extra for wide beams, but here I struggle slightly because the middle bit of the system is not accessible to them: whereas 70 foot narrow boats have "most of" the system and there are no isolated chunks (except the Lancaster, although that's a tidal passage anyway) wide beam boats effectively have a regional licence only, because the system avialble to them is cut into three discrete areas separated either by narrow canals or seaways. 

There has been reference to new build, but thats a small percentage of boats on the system and only a slightly larger percentage of boat sales every year.

I've highlighted the bit on bold because that is spot on - instead many people are trying to alienate them. Working with this group they have a lot of interest in and passion for boats and canals. 

There is also some hostility to owners of smaller boats (one of mine is small, so I've felt this first hand) yet these too are an affordable way onto the water.

CRT do seem to think the encouraging paddleboarding is the answer though! 

First off, the bit in bold, I'm afraid I agree - but it isn't my stance. I'd like a wide beam in the long run and if it costs more to licence so be it

Second bit, I'm afraid my view is that you have some fixation with your own idea, because nothing seems to result in even the slightest shift from you, nor elaboration of the reasoning for your position

As I said, I have no problem with larger boats, and am not even sure wide beams should pay more, but I do think size is a reasonably proxy for the impact on capacity of the system and affordability of the boat.

When I see a reasonable justification for charging me possibly an additional £500 per year  simply because it''s wider Patrick I will be prepared to shift on my opinion. So far there hasn't been one. I don't know how much more I could elaborate on the subject than I already have.

Size can only ( but not always ) be an indicator of affordability when talking about new boats. My Dutch barge for instance cost me £55,000 back in 2005 whereas a new replica would have cost over £200,000. 

You and Tuscan appear to be agreeing but he seems to be talking about entry level boats as being older and cheaper narrow boats of a reasonable size not small boats.

If size is a proxy for impact of capacity of the system ( and I'm not disagreeing here ) how would charging a higher licence fee have any affect on that? When someone with a small boat can't find an overnight mooring because all the moorings are occupied by large boats will the owner think ''oh well they're paying extra so they're more entiled to the mooring than me''? I don't think so.

I would also suggest that what you say about the affect of larger boats on the amount of traffic per day is stretching things somewhat. A forty foot boat on a narrow canal will use each lock in just the same manner as a seventy footer unless it is always accompanied by another boat of thirty feet or less. How often does that happen? One will pay considerably more for their licence than the other but they have had the same affect on traffic.

Keith 

 

 

[magpie patrick]

6 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

When I see a reasonable justification for charging me possibly an additional £500 per year  simply because it''s wider Patrick I will be prepared to shift on my opinion. So far there hasn't been one. I don't know how much more I could elaborate on the subject than I already have.

Size can only ( but not always ) be an indicator of affordability when talking about new boats. My Dutch barge for instance cost me £55,000 back in 2005 whereas a new replica would have cost over £200,000. 

You and Tuscan appear to be agreeing but he seems to be talking about entry level boats as being older and cheaper narrow boats of a reasonable size not small boats.

If size is a proxy for impact of capacity of the system ( and I'm not disagreeing here ) how would charging a higher licence fee have any affect on that? When someone with a small boat can't find an overnight mooring because all the moorings are occupied by large boats will the owner think ''oh well they're paying extra so they're more entiled to the mooring than me''? I don't think so.

I would also suggest that what you say about the affect of larger boats on the amount of traffic per day is stretching things somewhat. A forty foot boat on a narrow canal will use each lock in just the same manner as a seventy footer unless it is always accompanied by another boat of thirty feet or less. How often does that happen? One will pay considerably more for their license than the other but they have had the same affect on traffic.

Keith 

 

 

Thanks Keith,

Two things - first, the more I think about it I don't favour a wide beam supplement unless the licenses are regionalised thus separating the wide beam network from the narrow network: If a wide beam supplement were applied to river registration that might be "fair enough" because all rivers are wide beam but the cruising range is massively reduced on the canal system (Massively, not just missing out the cross peninne waterways)

Second, the 23 footer (Juno) will often find a gap in moorings that longer boats won't, even at 45 foot that works

Yes, the logical conclusion of my stance is there ought perhaps be just two charges, one for under 35 foot and one for over 35 foot, the logical conclusion of yours is that a 70 foot by 13 foot barge would pay the same as a car top dinghy

On sharing locks btw, my smaller boat has shared locks with a 45 foot wide beam, as combined length is 68 feet. 

Given how often I've seen even narrow locks shared when I'm boating, and have even shared then myself with Lutine (45 foot)  I find it sad that people instantly dismiss the advantage that smaller boats have

 

[dccruiser]

5 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

When I see a reasonable justification for charging me possibly an additional £500 per year  simply because it''s wider Patrick I will be prepared to shift on my opinion. So far there hasn't been one. I don't know how much more I could elaborate on the subject than I already have.

Size can only ( but not always ) be an indicator of affordability when talking about new boats. My Dutch barge for instance cost me £55,000 back in 2005 whereas a new replica would have cost over £200,000. 

You and Tuscan appear to be agreeing but he seems to be talking about entry level boats as being older and cheaper narrow boats of a reasonable size not small boats.

If size is a proxy for impact of capacity of the system ( and I'm not disagreeing here ) how would charging a higher licence fee have any affect on that? When someone with a small boat can't find an overnight mooring because all the moorings are occupied by large boats will the owner think ''oh well they're paying extra so they're more entiled to the mooring than me''? I don't think so.

I would also suggest that what you say about the affect of larger boats on the amount of traffic per day is stretching things somewhat. A forty foot boat on a narrow canal will use each lock in just the same manner as a seventy footer unless it is always accompanied by another boat of thirty feet or less. How often does that happen? One will pay considerably more for their licence than the other but they have had the same affect on traffic.

Keith 

 

 

used to happen occasionaly when i was on my last boat a 40 footer and on the previous 27'  tupperware  ... but in both cases i took up far less room on V.M's  

Also a 70 foot boat cant only not use the lancaster it also cant use the entire L and L or the south yorkshire navigation ... more than just a small amount of the system ... when i bought my current 60 footer i chose it over returning to a 70 foot boat (i had one several years ago) as i intend to do the whole system ... a system where i was penalised for doing that would be ridiculous and would just reinforce the practice of bridge hopping , not something i condone ... the cost of a boat is immaterial , its like everything else in life you pays your money you make your choice ... once i have done my cruising i will no doubt buy a widebeam and pay whatever costs that incurs just like although i could register as a CC'er i choose to keep an home mooring all year round despite not using it through the season ... not a cheap option but its a choice.

Rick

[Steilsteven]

8 minutes ago, dccruiser said:

And again comes in the assumption ... having used marina moorings for a number of years there are just as many narrowboats as there are widebeams pro rata to their respective numbers that never move anywhere ... and to say you have shown you subsidise me is a total fallacy ... there are set rates according to size its an extremely simple system to understand ... just like if you board a plane ... you dont get there any quicker but if you want more space you pay the extra for first class instead of going coach ... simple choice , whenever i flew first or business class i didnt for one minute think i was subsidising those in coach , i just made a choice to have more space .... or option  4) leave it as it is where you have a bigger boat you make that choice knowing that your license and moorings will cost more .... whether you choose to sit in a marina or cruise the system is down to yourself .... Obviously if you never intend to move why buy a boat and not a waterside property? ... answer it costs too much ... again a choice based on what you can afford , just like you wouldnt buy a massive house then ask for your mortgage to be reduced because you only use half of it and never use the vast garden .... all choices 

Rick 

Yes Rick I made a choice 12+ years ago and now a lot of people are saying that I should have to pay a great deal more for my license for no other reason than they think I should.

It's nothing like boarding a plane or any other analogy you'd like to dream up.It's about paying a contribution to CRT towards the maintenance and running of the waterways and it is payable whether or not you move your boat.If you can't see that the owners of large boats subsidise the owners of smaller boats I can't help you. It isn't intended as malice it's just the way it is.

I never said only wide beams used marinas, try reading it again. The scenario assumes that the narrow boat has a mooring too, marina or otherwise is irrelevant.

Keith