Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing

[Phoenix_V]

4 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Barge sized boats are, of course, fine on waterways designed for their use, but it is an undeniable fact that the explosion of wide beams on the GU is now having considerable impacts on the ability to enjoy that canal in the way one used to be able to.

 Charged by area, my 72' x 7' boat would still cost nearly as much as a 50' x 10.6" wide beam.  That doesn't sound like outright discrimination against the wide beam to me, particularly given that I can share locks and they can't.

As you say the GU is a local problem and hiking widebeam fees everywhere will not solve it.

Area charging may seem fairer to you but then you will be paying less.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

Problem is there are more leisure narrowboat owners than any other category and it appears their representatives are going flat out to persuade the crt to adopt  area charging purely to reduce the cost of their member's licences.

 

Do you have any evidence for this assertion please? I think it is baseless. Narrowboat owners simply want widebeams to pay their fair share for the extra space they occupy and boost the CRT coffers, in my opinion.

[Steilsteven]

11 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Although I'm not Alan, I'd say the object of the exercise is to make people with boats twice the size pay twice the licence fee.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it Mike if it means the more you pay the more you get, but in reality it means the more you pay the less you get.

It's an old fashioned way of looking at things I know but the term value for money seems to be lacking here.

Keith.

[MtB]

14 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Alan,

Is the object of the exercise to discourage people from buying wide beam boats?

Is the object to penalise those who actually have the nerve to buy wide beam boats?

Is the object of the exercise to make licenses cheaper for narrow boat owners ( over time that would be the true effect ) ?

 

I'd say the answer is "None of the above".

It is to increase CRT revenue in my opinion. I can't think of any other reason for spending money 'reviewing' the licence calculation method.

 

 

 

 

[MtB]

14 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Wide beam boats can only fit on wide beam waterways and can only access approximately 50% of them ( much less in my case through being made to feel unwelcome by narrow boat owners on the Grand Union )  but charging length x beam  would impose a 75% levy ( in the case of my barge at least ) resulting in having to pay almost twice as much as the same length narrow boat for a small cruising area.

 

 

Reductio absurdum this argument is "Oh look I've bought a boat too big for <some other waterway> so I should pay the same licence fee as some other boat that will fit <some other waterway>".

Not really valid is it?!

[Phoenix_V]

15 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Do you have any evidence for this assertion please?

Seems to me that it is significant that the only group who might benefit from changes - leisure only narrowboat owners outside London are those arguing most strongly for them, just call me an old cynic

[Scholar Gypsy]

Just now, Steilsteven said:

Nothing wrong with it Mike if it means the more you pay the more you get, but in reality it means the more you pay the less you get.

It's an old fashioned way of looking at things I know but the term value for money seems to be lacking here.

Keith.

I think this does take me back to an earlier post, namely the purpose of the consultation should be - assuming revenue neutrality -  to clarify the objectives of a new system, and the trade-offs between:

1) Administrative simplicity (so for example any area based measure uses simple and obvious definitions of length and width, not some measure of actual area of water occupied)

2) Equity between different types of user, different sizes and shapes of boat

3) Behavioural impacts - encouraging some (eg electric boats) and discouraging others. (If the system is to be used in this way then the concept of relating what you pay to what you get is only one issue - one also has to look at the costs a given user imposes on others, eg a wide beam boat on a canal that is not designed for it will impose costs - externalities in the jargon - on other users).

Of course, the charging regime is only one way to affect behaviour, one can also use straightforward regulatory powers (though these can be expensive to use), and "nudge" techniques which CRT are already using quite a bit (eg some of their publicity on double moorings, duck lanes etc.).

It's also worth noting that any attempt to make a new system revenue neutral will have to make assumptions about behaviour. So for example if there is a Y%  premium for boats without a permanent mooring who spend more than X days in a year inside the M25, then when setting the new rates one has to make an assumption about how owners/users will respond to that incentive. The assumption will no doubt be wrong - but could result in income being more or less than desired

[Steilsteven]

 

 

54 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

Grand Union north of Berkhamsted was not built with the intent it could accommodate barge size boats, it was built for narrow beam craft, despite the broad locks as far as Braunston.   The improvements from Braunston to Birmingham in the 1930s may have doubled lock sizes, but did very little to otherwise modify a channel designed for narrow boats.

Sorry Alan, that is urban myth, The Grand Junction Canal was designed and built for barges throughout it's length to Braunston. It was completed ( as you probably know ) in 1805 with broad  locks, bridges and tunnels. It would have been illogical to build broad locks for narrow boats, it would have been more efficient to have built pairs of narrow locks to aid two way traffic. Narrow boats became predominant due to other adjoining canal companies reluctance to invest in widening their canals. 

There is plenty of evidence concerning this fact, Alan H. Faulkner's book is a good starting point. 

Agreed about Braunston to Birmingham except to say that the profile is plenty good enough for modern leisure traffic but probably not suitable for the intended loaded barge traffic.

I believe that the encouragement of such myths  as these is where the narrow boat owners form their resentment towards wide beam craft, but there you are.

Keith

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Steilsteven

[WotEver]

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

Thats fine as long as they then discount widebeam licenses by 50% for where they cant go or more likely increase narrowboat licenses by 50% because they have that much a bigger cruising area! 

Why? Do they discount 70ft boats because they have a more limited cruising range than a 58ft boat?

[Giant]

I'm rather worried what the effect of all this widebeam bashing will be on the North East.

Lots of old Humber barges being kept going and/or lived on up there, in various beams from about 14'4" to 17'6", on massive broad canals where there's plenty of space, and 600 ton commercial traffic still going by.

Switch to area based charging and all those folk are suddenly paying 2-3x their current license fees, for no change in anything. It's not a rich part of the world.

Not everything is about the bloody Grand Union.

I say this as someone who won't be affected at all, as we're long since off CRT waters.

[alan_fincher]

18 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Sorry Alan, that is urban myth, The Grand Junction Canal was designed and built for barges throughout it's length to Braunston. It was completed ( as you probably know ) in 1805 with broad  locks, bridges and tunnels.

So how would you have passed two fully laden 14 foot wide barges in the cutting section of Tring summit then, or would timed one way working have been introduced over the worst parts?

There are several  stretches of the GU between Cow Roast and Braunston where the operation of barges the same size as the locks would have been a nightmare.

But I say for a third time, I don't think pricing by area will have a massive impact on the number of new wide-beams that continue to turn up on the GU.  Even at twice the current pricing, (which it would seldom be, as there are few that are a full 14 feet wide - fortunately!), it is still not a huge expense for those using them as a very much more spacious home than they would have if constrained to a "sewer tube".

[Steilsteven]

39 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Reductio absurdum this argument is "Oh look I've bought a boat too big for <some other waterway> so I should pay the same licence fee as some other boat that will fit <some other waterway>".

Not really valid is it?!

Until other boaters ( who would be unaffected by being charged length x beam ) decided there should be a change I have been quite happy to pay the £1300 it costs me for a Gold licence in the full knowledge that I would never be able to access most of the system.

That has been the case for twelve years now, now all of a sudden other people are telling me that, for no other reason than they think I should, to continue my lifestyle, pay nearly twice as much for the same thing. So yes it is totally valid to ask for justification of their views and to point out what a piss take it would be.

Keith

[Phoenix_V]

1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:

, it is still not a huge expense for those using them as a very much more spacious home than they would have if constrained to a "sewer tube".

it is though for those of us who bought a widebeam for a widebeam waterway only to find the goalposts being moved

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

Until other boaters ( who would be unaffected by being charged length x beam ) decided there should be a change I have been quite happy to pay the £1300 it costs me for a Gold licence in the full knowledge that I would never be able to access most of the system.

That has been the case for twelve years now, now all of a sudden other people are telling me that, for no other reason than they think I should, to continue my lifestyle, pay nearly twice as much for the same thing. So yes it is totally valid to ask for justification of their views and to point out what a piss take it would be.

Keith

 

I think the piss take you mention has been going on for years, given my Gold licence costs the same as yours, and my boat is tiny compared to yours.

Plans appear to be afoot to put the goalposts where they should have been all along!

[MtB]

In fact I wonder if the EA is the moving force here, given you say your Gold Licence costs only £1,300. What would a Thames License cost for your dutch barge based on their notional deck area calculation? More than £1,300?

[dmr]

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

Thats fine as long as they then discount widebeam licenses by 50% for where they cant go or more likely increase narrowboat licenses by 50% because they have that much a bigger cruising area! Their will be no winners here only losers Mike you should know that by now

This is an often repeated idea on this forum but its false logic. Should I get a discount for the parts of the system that I can't use because those daft northerners made the locks too short? Should I get a discount for not using the parts of the system that I did not visit in any given year? Should the folk in London get a huge discount because they are only using a tiny fraction of the system? If you don't move over the entire system you should pay more because you are obviously causing excessive wear and tear on a small part of the system.

................Dave

Edited March 8, 2017 by dmr
to insert a missing "not"

[Jess--]

It seems that the biggest arguments here are...

"I have a widebeam and have always been charged on length only, I have budgeted for that to remain the case"
or
"I have a motor and a butty that has to pay more than a widebeam taking up the same space"

the answer would seem to be that all boats registered (not necessarily licensed) after a fixed date (say 31/12/2018) would be licensed on a length + width basis.

this would mean that anyone purchasing a new boat after the date would know that they will be charged according to area (no moving goalposts), those that have a boat from before the date continue to pay on the old system of length only, this is similar to how changes have previously been made to the vehicle tax system.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Jess--

[Steilsteven]

1 hour ago, alan_fincher said:

Finally, although people are using emotive language like "twice the size" or "paying double" it is not quite like that is it?  Few are more than 12 feet wide, and probably far more only say 10' 6", or so.  Charged by area, my 72' x 7' boat would still cost nearly as much as a 50' x 10.6" wide beam.  That doesn't sound like outright discrimination against the wide beam to me, particularly given that I can share locks and they can't.

No, I have to agree it doesn't when put like that and if I were about to buy my first boat I might consider that as fair enough.

I have been paying on the basis of length for twelve years now and it is the difference between that method and changing to area calcs that hurts so much. By my ( rough ) calculations the cost of a standard licence would rise by £700, a  70% increase. Now that sounds like discrimination to me.

Keith

 

[Steilsteven]

24 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think the piss take you mention has been going on for years, given my Gold licence costs the same as yours, and my boat is tiny compared to yours.

Plans appear to be afoot to put the goalposts where they should have been all along!

Why shouldn't it cost the same as mine?

You get exactly the same from your licence as I do, namely permission to enter CRT and EA waters.

The same as when you drive a car into a car park, doesn't make any difference what size or value the car is, you pay the same charge as anyone else. You have paid the fee to enter and for whatever duration you like. The fee goes towards staffing and maintaining the car park plus future investment and profit.

That is the trouble with this fixation over size, it sets us against one another.

 

[Phoenix_V]

1 minute ago, Steilsteven said:

 it sets us against one another.

 

which is their intention

[WotEver]

28 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

... this is similar to how changes have previously been made to the vehicle tax system.

Oh no it isn't.

The government at the time said it would be but they lied. My missus had bought a gas guzzler in March and the following year her car tax more than doubled (and the second hand value plummeted). So with no prior notice she was left with a car that cost a lot more to run but which she was unable to sell without suffering a huge loss. I queried with our local MP how his government thought that a retrospective tax was fair and he responded with some waffle that said nothing. 

Edited March 8, 2017 by WotEver
Too many worms

[Steilsteven]

35 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

In fact I wonder if the EA is the moving force here, given you say your Gold Licence costs only £1,300. What would a Thames License cost for your dutch barge based on their notional deck area calculation? More than £1,300?

A little bit less actually.

 

[Steilsteven]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

So how would you have passed two fully laden 14 foot wide barges in the cutting section of Tring summit then, or would timed one way working have been introduced over the worst parts?

The same way as two narrow boats pass along Fenny Compton 'Tunnel' I guess.

[peterboat]

3 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

 

 

Sorry Alan, that is urban myth, The Grand Junction Canal was designed and built for barges throughout it's length to Braunston. It was completed ( as you probably know ) in 1805 with broad  locks, bridges and tunnels. It would have been illogical to build broad locks for narrow boats, it would have been more efficient to have built pairs of narrow locks to aid two way traffic. Narrow boats became predominant due to other adjoining canal companies reluctance to invest in widening their canals. 

There is plenty of evidence concerning this fact, Alan H. Faulkner's book is a good starting point. 

Agreed about Braunston to Birmingham except to say that the profile is plenty good enough for modern leisure traffic but probably not suitable for the intended loaded barge traffic.

I believe that the encouragement of such myths  as these is where the narrow boat owners form their resentment towards wide beam craft, but there you are.

Keith

 

• Virtual greenie Keith but unfortunately they wont let facts get in the way of the jealousy that is directed towards the fat boat owners

[peterboat]

2 hours ago, Jess-- said:

It seems that the biggest arguments here are...

"I have a widebeam and have always been charged on length only, I have budgeted for that to remain the case"
or
"I have a motor and a butty that has to pay more than a widebeam taking up the same space"

the answer would seem to be that all boats registered (not necessarily licensed) after a fixed date (say 31/12/2018) would be licensed on a length + width basis.

this would mean that anyone purchasing a new boat after the date would know that they will be charged according to area (no moving goalposts), those that have a boat from before the date continue to pay on the old system of length only, this is similar to how changes have previously been made to the vehicle tax system.

Yes this^^^^^^^^ my boat would have a huge premium if they did this so thousands of greenies