Cost offsets between wide and narrow

[system 4-50]

I'm all for charging fatties more for their license, but I think it unreasonable to hit people who made decisions on their boat size some time ago hard, so I reckon it should be introduced slowly over 10 years or so.

[dccruiser]

6 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

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 

no you didnt what you said was

 

3 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

  

 

This makes the assumption narrow boats pro rata leave their mooring marina or otherwise more often than the equivilant percentage of widebeams which is the statement i questioned as in my experience of using marinas for many years isnt correct they may not go as far because of the size limitations but those that do cruise do so pro rata to the narrowboat movements.

Rick

[Steilsteven]

9 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

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

 

How many times is someone going to say such things as you have about a car top dinghy or canoe? Totally laughable and designed to discredit.

We are talking about boats that fit the criteria of the scale of charges for long term licences on CRT waterways, small unpowered boats are treated separately. The scale of charges starts at around £500 for a boat of 0 - 18 feet in length as far as I remember.

Now that that is clear, how much would you envisage your upto 35' licence cost and how much would the higher licence cost?

I don't dispute what you say about smaller boats being able to share locks but it doesn't happen all the time just as there are times when my 65' x 12' barge has shared locks.

I like all sizes of boats btw it's just that a small boat won't fit my needs right now.

Keith

[Steilsteven]

15 minutes ago, dccruiser said:

no you didnt what you said was

 

This makes the assumption narrow boats pro rata leave their mooring marina or otherwise more often than the equivilant percentage of widebeams which is the statement i questioned as in my experience of using marinas for many years isnt correct they may not go as far because of the size limitations but those that do cruise do so pro rata to the narrowboat movements.

Rick

Only because you think it assumes that, now read it again assuming that the narrow boat moors at the same marina when not cruising.

It is not a description of how all wide beams are used or how all narrow boats are used, it was just to illustrate a point.

Oh my I'm losing the will to live, must go and have a lie down.

[dccruiser]

Just now, Steilsteven said:

Only because you think it assumes that, now read it again assuming that the narrow boat moors at the same marina when not cruising.

It is not a description of how all wide beams are used or how all narrow boats are used, it was just to illustrate a point.

Oh my I'm losing the will to live, must go and have a lie down.

I have read and re read it ... so what if the narrowboat stays put barring a 2 week holiday and the widebeam goes cruising for 4 months?

Think i will join you ... but not in the biblical sense!  

Rick

[magpie patrick]

31 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

How many times is someone going to say such things as you have about a car top dinghy or canoe? Totally laughable and designed to discredit.

We are talking about boats that fit the criteria of the scale of charges for long term licences on CRT waterways, small unpowered boats are treated separately. The scale of charges starts at around £500 for a boat of 0 - 18 feet in length as far as I remember.

Now that that is clear, how much would you envisage your upto 35' licence cost and how much would the higher licence cost?

I don't dispute what you say about smaller boats being able to share locks but it doesn't happen all the time just as there are times when my 65' x 12' barge has shared locks.

I like all sizes of boats btw it's just that a small boat won't fit my needs right now.

Keith

There are plenty of car top dinghies with outboards - these do need a proper CRT licence (although they generally don't need a BSS certificate), as you say they fall in the 0 - 18 foot category. The fact the owners don't post on here doesn't mean they don't exist

You are showing yourself to be blinkered

A car top dinghy is about all that could share with your boat in a standard size canal lock - I assume you are on the River Severn or similar

[Steilsteven]

23 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

There are plenty of car top dinghies with outboards - these do need a proper CRT licence (although they generally don't need a BSS certificate), as you say they fall in the 0 - 18 foot category. The fact the owners don't post on here doesn't mean they don't exist

You are showing yourself to be blinkered

A car top dinghy is about all that could share with your boat in a standard size canal lock - I assume you are on the River Severn or similar

Yes there are plenty of car top dinghies and not a single one of them needs to have a 12 month licence. It seems a little foolish to me to buy a twelve month licence for a boat that will spend most of it's life in a garage.

Now who is being blinkered and if you'll pardon me for saying so you are splitting hairs for no good reason.

There is no such thing as a standard size canal lock but if I was sharing a lock with a dinghy that is still sharing a lock with a licence paying boat is it not? I've shared Fobney Lock on the Kennet with a 20 ft cruiser on more than one occasion. I've shared a lock on the G&S with a coaster one time and a wide beam trip boat another time. I've shared nearly all the locks between Reading and Newbury with a 13' Dory.I could have shared locks with other barges on the Severn if I had ventured that far.I've shared Limehouse Lock with a number of varied craft on a few occasions. When the Thames comes under CRT jurisdiction ( Heaven forbid ) I will be sharing a lot more locks that could be counted towards the total. How many locks do I have to share, or be able to,  to get a reduction on my licence?

Over to you.

 

[MtB]

Keith,

A couple of questions cross my mind...

1) Do you ever take your boat on the Thames? Do you insist on using all of it once you've bought your licence (based on area!)

2) Should CRT implement a charging system similar to the Thames based on deck area as seems likely, will you pay it, refuse to pay it and get a narrowboat, or sell up and stop boating? 

[Steilsteven]

1 hour ago, dccruiser said:

I have read and re read it ... so what if the narrowboat stays put barring a 2 week holiday and the widebeam goes cruising for 4 months?

Think i will join you ... but not in the biblical sense!  

Rick

Right one last time.

You said basically ( at least I think it was you ) that an area based licence would be fair because you are paying for the space that the boat takes up, yes?

The scenario I offered was to illustrate that if that is true it is unfair, because neither boat is taking up canal space continuously but one of them is paying considerably more for taking up much less space in reality. Choice has nothing to do with it. The boat taking up the most space on the canal is the narrow boat in this instance. You can not base a licensing system upon the space that a boat takes up unless ALL boats take up space on the canal ALL the time. Time spent on a long term mooring can't count because you are already paying for the space that you occupy and that space is available exclusively to you all year round.

Keith

[dccruiser]

18 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Right one last time.

You said basically ( at least I think it was you ) that an area based licence would be fair because you are paying for the space that the boat takes up, yes?

The scenario I offered was to illustrate that if that is true it is unfair, because neither boat is taking up canal space continuously but one of them is paying considerably more for taking up much less space in reality. Choice has nothing to do with it. The boat taking up the most space on the canal is the narrow boat in this instance. You can not base a licensing system upon the space that a boat takes up unless ALL boats take up space on the canal ALL the time. Time spent on a long term mooring can't count because you are already paying for the space that you occupy and that space is available exclusively to you all year round.

Keith

Nope wasnt me! i think the current system works well enough and dont see a valid reason widebeam licenses wouldnt be more expensive than narrowbeam just as longer boats cost more to license than shorter boats. I dont think it should make a  difference how far you travel or not, you are paying for the choice to travel , whether you choose to or not is your choice ... just like the tax on a car , it allows you to drive on the roads whether you drive 100 or 50 000 miles a year again its your choice the point is you can if you want or your circumstances allow, i do agree to there being a 12 month concession to those who already have widebeams to make the decision whether to pay the extra or scale down to a narrowboat , whereas all boats sold or newly registered should accept that is the cost of owning one 

Rick

Edited January 5, 2018 by dccruiser

[Steilsteven]

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Keith,

A couple of questions cross my mind...

1) Do you ever take your boat on the Thames? Do you insist on using all of it once you've bought your licence (based on area!)

2) Should CRT implement a charging system similar to the Thames based on deck area as seems likely, will you pay it, refuse to pay it and get a narrowboat, or sell up and stop boating? 

Mike,

1) I'm on the Thames right now making the most of my Gold licence which, as you know, is based on length.

2) Well it depends on how much it costs but most likely I will pay it for as long as I can manage to.

At present a Gold licence is little more than a Thames registration but if an area charging system is applied by CRT a standard licence would be likely to cost more than my current Gold one. If that is the case I might be forced to Stay on the K&A or the GU to keep my costs down which I wouldn't be at all happy about. Of course if CRT does actually take over the Thames and it coincides with a new charging scheme whereby the licence includes the Thames for about the same cost as the Gold licence I'd be happy with that. A flock of pigs just flew over my head!

Keith

[Steilsteven]

23 minutes ago, dccruiser said:

Nope wasnt me! i think the current system works well enough and dont see a valid reason widebeam licenses wouldnt be more expensive than narrowbeam just as longer boats cost more to license than shorter boats. I dont think it should make a  difference how far you travel or not, you are paying for the choice to travel , whether you choose to or not is your choice ... just like the tax on a car , it allows you to drive on the roads whether you drive 100 or 50 000 miles a year again its your choice the point is you can if you want or your circumstances allow, i do agree to there being a 12 month concession to those who already have widebeams to make the decision whether to pay the extra or scale down to a narrowboat , whereas all boats sold or newly registered should accept that is the cost of owning one 

Rick

It was post 89 where you used the expression '' the area that your boat takes up'' but never mind.

Keith

[Alan de Enfield]

30 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

 '' the area that your boat takes up'' 

 

I wonder how C&RT would decide on the area of a proper 'boat-shaped-boat' (where it starts to sharply taper to the bow from about 1/3rd of its length).

 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I wonder how C&RT would decide on the area of a proper 'boat-shaped-boat' (where it starts to sharply taper to the bow from about 1/3rd of its length).

 

 

The same way as the EA. Draw a rectangle around it and charge for that. 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

I've said it before, but bigger boats displace more water. Therefore the bigger your boat the lower your licence cost should be as CaRT don' t need to supply so much water to keep the canal full.
 

Jen

[Steilsteven]

11 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

I've said it before, but bigger boats displace more water. Therefore the bigger your boat the lower your licence cost should be as CaRT don' t need to supply so much water to keep the canal full.
 

Jen

Sounds good to me.My vessel displaces 49 tonnes, how much discount should I get?

Keith

[mrsmelly]

17 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

I'm all for charging fatties more for their license, but I think it unreasonable to hit people who made decisions on their boat size some time ago hard, so I reckon it should be introduced slowly over 10 years or so.

I have been thinking that for some time. If they do go up then its not right to do it more or less overnight on such a large personal investment for many. Anyway all this discussing what may or may or should or should not happen is irrelevant. The decision on the new licensing methods were decided a year or two ago and then a consultation period started as kidology to make it look as though joe public is being consulted. We will know soon enough the decision that was made long ago quite soon methinks.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

30 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Sounds good to me.My vessel displaces 49 tonnes, how much discount should I get?

Keith

It is complicated. When the boat first enters CaRT waters the cost will be higher as the displaced water is lost over spill weirs. Subsequent years it wil be lower, provided the boat isn't dragged or lifted out, or leaves CaRT waters for whatever reason. Plenty of work for boat checkers at boat yards and at connections with the sea, EA and other navigation waters. I should get my CV to CaRT. I definitely have management potential with a proposal like this.

Jen

Edited January 6, 2018 by Jen-in-Wellies

[Steilsteven]

26 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I have been thinking that for some time. If they do go up then its not right to do it more or less overnight on such a large personal investment for many. Anyway all this discussing what may or may or should or should not happen is irrelevant. The decision on the new licensing methods were decided a year or two ago and then a consultation period started as kidology to make it look as though joe public is being consulted. We will know soon enough the decision that was made long ago quite soon methinks.

Very cynical but probably true and this discussion is academic but it's still interesting for some of us.

Keith

[mrsmelly]

5 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Very cynical but probably true and this discussion is academic but it's still interesting for some of us.

Keith

Yes. as you know I am not at all anti nice big boats having lived on a fab Fat narrowboat. Just to suddenly whack a large extra charge on some boating groups would be wrong. If a similar idea such as area like for instance the Thames is to be adopted then it certainly should not happen in one hit. Some of us who are not and never have been hobby boaters have sensibly over the years looked at boating costs that we can hopefuly afford in retirement and to just whack a lot more cost on a widebeam is not the way. If its a hobby then the hobbiest should also have time to offload his boat prior to a large rise in costs.

[peterboat]

If I am honest I think the consultation will get buried as it might not have got the answers it wanted plus the 1971 BW act would have to be changed so given how busy the Government is with Brexit do they want this?

[Steilsteven]

43 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Yes. as you know I am not at all anti nice big boats having lived on a fab Fat narrowboat. Just to suddenly whack a large extra charge on some boating groups would be wrong. If a similar idea such as area like for instance the Thames is to be adopted then it certainly should not happen in one hit. Some of us who are not and never have been hobby boaters have sensibly over the years looked at boating costs that we can hopefuly afford in retirement and to just whack a lot more cost on a widebeam is not the way. If its a hobby then the hobbiest should also have time to offload his boat prior to a large rise in costs.

Being one of those who is in retirement as you have described I can only agree with what you say.

When the charging system on the Thames was changed from length to area it was ''justified'' by the fact that larger vessels took up more space in locks leading to queues. Seems fair and logical but the rub is that the owners who pay the highest fees ( £2500 and upwards ) never had or were likely to be the cause of such queues because they were unable to get anywhere near said locks. There was also an agreement with Thames users to agree to an increase in fees of 10% per year for three years to finance the enlargement of a number of locks to relieve congestion, the result of this was the enlargement of one lock ( Hambledon ) and DEFRA reducing the grant by the amount of the increase.

If the justification for charging wide beams more is congestion the same will apply as on the Thames ie those who pay the most affect congestion on CRT waterways the least.

Keith

Edited January 6, 2018 by Steilsteven

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

...plus the 1971 BW act would have to be changed

Could you please explain to me why the introduction of another 'band' would require Parliamentary approval ?

Thank you in anticipation.

[Steilsteven]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Could you please explain to me why the introduction of another 'band' would require Parliamentary approval ?

Thank you in anticipation.

I can't answer that but it won't be an additional band it will be charging all boats by area rather than length I expect.

Keith 

[peterboat]

9 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Could you please explain to me why the introduction of another 'band' would require Parliamentary approval ?

Thank you in anticipation.

The act specifies length how long could it end up in court if CRT breaks the law [crowd funding from widebeam owners]