I dont want to pay more make him pay more.....

[magpie patrick]

Ah well, back from honeymoon so it's time to return to reality and wade in...

 

First, BW need to seek a fixed sum of money, so any "idealistic" schemes need to reflect this. I personally think there should be some regionalisation of the licence but in reality the majority of people don't leave their "region" and thus such regional licences would have to costs about the same as the current national one does.

 

Footprint. A number of navigation authorities use "footprint". The EA and the Broads for example, but they have navigations which don't have a fundamental constraint on width, BW's do. About one third of the network, (and a critical 1/3 as it splits the rest into three (BW owned) portions) is narrow beam. Thus if BW charge on footprint they charge wider boats more for less waterway. This is where I'd like the regional licence to come in (especially for the K and A, which is detached) but note what I said above about need to generate a fixed amount of revenue.

 

So you could charge broad beams more, but they'd complain because they can't use the narrow canals, or you could charge them less, because they can't use part of the system, and then the narrow boat owners would want the option of paying less in return for only using broad canals...

 

Length: I favour charging by length, but I'd be much more aggressive with break points around 30 and 40 feet, why? Well, my sixty two footer can't share a narrow lock with anything, a 30 footer and a 40 footer can share, and should be obliged to where possible. All this twaddle about use is slightly irrelevant: shorter boats use less canal: they always take less room at popular moorings and if there were more of them they would use less water when locking. It is my fault I can't find an eight foot long boat to share with, it isn't the twenty foot owners fault that he can't find anything less than fifty to share with.

 

In principle I half agree that wide beams (which need to mean can't fit in most narrow locks, niot 2.1m) should perhaps pay more because of water usage at wide locks, but then, that's only relevant on canals not rivers, and the mileage of canal available to them is very limited indeed.

 

And finally "pay as you go": see above about how much BW need to raise, it's more or less a fixed amount, so the occassional user would still pay a lot, and any regualr increment that would be meaningful would put people off longer trips, which in turn reduces use of the nwtork , which in turn leads to decline. If my licence fee doubled because we tend to be frequent cruisers I'd stop doing it, or possibly even get rid of the boat altogether. It's an old adage in cost benefit analysis that if you charge people for the benefit they receive many of them choose to forgo the benefit.

Edited September 22, 2008 by magpie patrick

[Eastern]

Canals should be used to move boats around. Not to be permanently moored on.

If, as a private boater, you move around the canals from November this year you will paying double the amount for your (diesel) fuel.

The exchequer will have gained a 'windfall' from this increase in taxation, so it seems reasonable that BW should ask for a share of this extra revenue, and use it to off set any additional licence fee.

Anyway, boaters are not the only users of canals.

[Mike on Janna]

Having sold my boat 6 months ago BW will not be getting a penny more off me I'm glad to say. I feel as a hobby boater the prices charged for moorings and licences were rediculous for how often I used my boat.

 

I am just one of many whose income BW have lost. How many more will follow I wonder and is each one that leaves being replaced by a newcomer?

 

Livaboards are a different matter altogether and their overall yearly costs are still far lower than living in a house (regardless of what figures and statistics they will throw at you)

 

I have and will continue to monitor the boating World thru this excellent forum as it will be very interesting to see what the future holds. Who knows in 15 yrs time I may be able to return to the hobby I loved, once sanity has returned to the boating World.

 

Untill then the powers that be will continue to do exactly as they please and you WILL do as your told or leave the waterways.

 

You are seriously deluded then if you think that living afloat is cheaper than living on land. I have done both (currently living afloat) and I can assure you that living afloat is often more expensive that living on land. The costs are in different areas and often in areas people do not expect or take into account.

 

However, I will not bore you with any statistics as you're mind is already made up

 

Mike

[carlt]

Should a boat on the Thames with a large air draught pay less because it can't fit under all the bridges on the upper reaches?

 

Should a 70ft boat pay less than a 55ft narrowboat because it can't access the whole system?

 

Should a very deep drafted boat pay less because it can't access the whole system?

No

 

No

 

No

 

Nor should they pay more.

[magpie patrick]

You are seriously deluded then if you think that living afloat is cheaper than living on land. I have done both (currently living afloat) and I can assure you that living afloat is often more expensive that living on land. The costs are in different areas and often in areas people do not expect or take into account.

 

However, I will not bore you with any statistics as you're mind is already made up

 

Mike

 

If you are living on a boat and paying more than we are to live in a house your are doing something wrong:

 

Mortgage £950 pcm

gas £30

Elec £30

council tax £100

water meter £40

 

plus things we don't need like virgin broadband etc: if your boat is costing in excess of £1000 a month I'd ask why. We live in a small terrace, admittedly in Bath, our boat costs us £250 pcm plus fuel and gas and maintenance: I'm being extravagant well before that reaches £500 pcm, even when we are cruisng hard.

[GUMPY]

If you are living on a boat and paying more than we are to live in a house your are doing something wrong:

You havent seen the size of Mikes boat

 

I do feel that excluding purchase cost, it is more expensive to live afloat.

We have a flat occupied by my step son and the bills on that excluding phone are £275 a month.

For the barge I pay £283 a month just for licence and mooring, on top of that there is elec and heating that is another £120 a month averaged over the year but that was with diesel heating it will be £60 a month this year as we have changed to solid fuel.

house £275

boat £343

Phone, broadband, etc excluded.

 

Julian