BW surcharges for wider craft

[Adrian-87]

Worryingly, the suggestion that a British Waterways licence for craft
wider than a narrow boat should cost more is still alive.

I understand that the BW Advisory Forum discussed this idea again at
its recent meeting, and instead of throwing it out as hoped BW is now
modelling a proposal to charge all such craft an additional £50/year.

Although those with narrow boats have put forward various
justifications for such a surcharge, in fact none is valid.  For a
full discussion of this, please see my "Broader View" article in
Waterways World, magazine (2008 April, page 53).  I'll be glad to
email a copy to anyone who wants one - phone [phone].

This surcharge would be the thin end of the wedge, sure eventually to
lead to BW's adopting the very unfair EA system of charges based on
Length X Beam.  DBA has previously suggested that EA should instead
drop dependence on beam now (to be compatible with BW and thus to
allow a single ticket covering all waterways to replace the existing
single-jurisdiction ones), and, in the end, that craft size should be
abandoned altogether as a criterion for calculating navigation charges
by both BW and EA.

DBA has been fighting this (successfully) for years.  Could someone
from UK Representation please tell us what DBA members can do now to
help in this round of the battle?

Adrian  

.



Adrian Stott
Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
or (0)208-123-3557 (Skype)
-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Andy Soper]

DBA still continues to oppose, successfully, length x beam demands from both BW and its other users.  A proposal of this nature would have resulted in a 20m wide beam craft facing a doubling of their licence fee from £680 to £1360.  DBA is the lone voice on the British Waterways Advisory Forum (BWAF) against bigger boats paying more.
   
  BW is seeking a 12% increase in licence income next year and a number  of proposals are being modelled. These include an increase for continuous cruisers of £150 pa and an increase of £50 for boats wider than 2.04m.   Another consideration, successfully put off for this year, was removal of the 40% discount that BW 'river only' users enjoy.  Another proposal is to lower the licence fee for the smallest boats to make the waterways more accessible.
   
  Rest assured that DBA continues to lobby for fair treatment for our members.  BWAF members now awaits the outcome of BW's number crunching before meeting with them again to discuss the proposals.
   
  Best Wishes
  Andy Soper
  Chairman and UK Representation
   
  Adrian <adrian@...> wrote:
  Worryingly, the suggestion that a British Waterways licence for craft
wider than a narrow boat should cost more is still alive.

I understand that the BW Advisory Forum discussed this idea again at
its recent meeting, and instead of throwing it out as hoped BW is now
modelling a proposal to charge all such craft an additional £50/year.

Although those with narrow boats have put forward various
justifications for such a surcharge, in fact none is valid. For a
full discussion of this, please see my "Broader View" article in
Waterways World, magazine (2008 April, page 53). I'll be glad to
email a copy to anyone who wants one - phone [phone].

This surcharge would be the thin end of the wedge, sure eventually to
lead to BW's adopting the very unfair EA system of charges based on
Length X Beam. DBA has previously suggested that EA should instead
drop dependence on beam now (to be compatible with BW and thus to
allow a single ticket covering all waterways to replace the existing
single-jurisdiction ones), and, in the end, that craft size should be
abandoned altogether as a criterion for calculating navigation charges
by both BW and EA.

DBA has been fighting this (successfully) for years. Could someone
from UK Representation please tell us what DBA members can do now to
help in this round of the battle?

Adrian

.



Adrian Stott
Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
or (0)208-123-3557 (Skype)
-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment. ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Julian Tether-3]

"Andy Soper" <andy.soper@...> wrote in message
news:mailman.113.1216399038.14880.dbamain@......
. These include an increase for continuous cruisers of £150 pa and an
increase of £50 for boats wider than 2.04m.



Well considering 2.04m is 6ft 8.3 inches that means that just about every
boat on the system will pay more!!!!!!!!
Even at 2.1 that would mean all the historic craft and many others would pay
more!

Are these people that propose this clueless?

Julian



-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Julian Tether-3]

"Julian" <julian@...> wrote in message
news:1216401310_39731@......

>
> "Andy Soper" <andy.soper@...> wrote in message
> news:mailman.113.1216399038.14880.dbamain@......
> . These include an increase for continuous cruisers of £150 pa and an
> increase of £50 for boats wider than 2.04m.
>
>
>
> Well considering 2.04m is 6ft 8.3 inches that means that just about every
> boat on the system will pay more!!!!!!!!

Maybe it was a typo and that should have been 2.14 which is  a knats over
7ft ;-)



-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Chris Moss-4]

Adrian,

I've read your article (which you sent me) and it seems to have a
misconception. You say APCO proposed that "navigation charges should
vary with beam" and refute this with the argument that widebeams already
pay more for mooring charges: "These properly vary with craft size
because water space at moorings is in short supply".

I presume by "navigation charges" you mean the licence fees since BW
doesn't make other charges. But APCO appear to be talking about "public
moorings" - that's what you refer to wrt continuous cruisers. Most
public moorings are longitudinal on the canals/rivers so it's primarily
length that governs the use. But where boats are moored up side by side,
as they often are at peak periods, then the width certainly makes a
difference. Indeed on some sections of the Grand Union, widebeams aren't
supposed to moor up at all.

Their current proposals are a very thin edge to the wedge and I agree we
should oppose them, but I think we need better arguments.

A better argument would be that broad boats can only use part of the
network. We can't use the narrow canals at all and therefore don't get
as much value as narrow boats. You talk about 90% of BW's costs being
fixed, and I don't know how much the narrow part of the system takes to
maintain compared with the broad part, but it must be comparable. That's
the important number, rather than the length of the two systems.

As a continuous cruiser, I also oppose steep increases for us, as I
think the arguments are as marginal as for widebeams. I'm not opposed to
paying, say, 20% more, but the wedge argument applies there too.

Chris

--
on barge Watergeus  [phone]

"No more sustainable development; what we need is a well-planned sustainable retreat"
James Lovelock, 2005


-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Adrian-87]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:54:06 +0100, Chris Moss
<moschris@...> wrote:

>Adrian,
>
>I've read your article (which you sent me) and it seems to have a
>misconception. You say APCO proposed that "navigation charges should
>vary with beam" and refute this with the argument that widebeams already
>pay more for mooring charges: "These properly vary with craft size
>because water space at moorings is in short supply".
>
>I presume by "navigation charges" you mean the licence fees since BW
>doesn't make other charges.

Not quite true.  For example, the charge I pay to BW is a
registration, not a licence.  There are other types of charge too
(permits, etc.).  "Navigation charges", as generic term, covers them
all.

> But APCO appear to be talking about "public
>moorings" - that's what you refer to wrt continuous cruisers. Most
>public moorings are longitudinal on the canals/rivers so it's primarily
>length that governs the use. But where boats are moored up side by side,
>as they often are at peak periods, then the width certainly makes a
>difference. Indeed on some sections of the Grand Union, widebeams aren't
>supposed to moor up at all.

Again, not quite.

If continuous cruisers (i.e. craft without a paid-for base mooring)
were charged the market rate for mooring at public on-line moorings, I
expect many would considering mooring off-line (see below).  It is
therefore necessary to consider the pricing of moorings in both
locations.  Moorings in basins are already quite likely to be charged
for based on craft plan area.  Some on-line moorings are charged for
in that way too.  If the on-line operator can rent moorings to
breasted narrow boats (thus getting two rents for a length of bank),
then he will want to charge a broad craft more (maybe double) as he
will be able to get only one rent for that length of bank if such a
craft moors there.  

>Their current proposals are a very thin edge to the wedge and I agree we
>should oppose them, but I think we need better arguments.

A better argument is always a good idea!

>A better argument would be that broad boats can only use part of the
>network. We can't use the narrow canals at all and therefore don't get
>as much value as narrow boats. You talk about 90% of BW's costs being
>fixed, and I don't know how much the narrow part of the system takes to
>maintain compared with the broad part, but it must be comparable. That's
>the important number, rather than the length of the two systems.

The current consideration of a surcharge on the navigation charges for
broad (and wide) craft on BW waters has arisen from the APCO proposal.
APCO made two proposals -- concerning wider craft, and concerning
continuous cruisers.  It is these that BWAF is looking at now.

BW's (and, indeed, EA's, as we have seen recently from the
"harmonisation" fiasco) system of navigation charges is far from
rational (to put it kindly).  Several BW staff have agreed over the
years that that is the case.  It needs to be redesigned from scratch.
Trouble is, BW has developed a bad case of pedal icing when this has
been suggested, and boating organisations have tended to want to stick
to the devil they know and only tinker at the edges of what is now in
place (thus continually making it worse).

Of course a craft that can use less of the network due to its size
should pay less than one that can use the whole network!  But that
issue isn't on the BWAF table at present, and this just wasn't the
right time to raise it again.

>As a continuous cruiser, I also oppose steep increases for us, as I
>think the arguments are as marginal as for widebeams. I'm not opposed to
>paying, say, 20% more, but the wedge argument applies there too.

I'm agraid I disagree.  I've just emailed you a copy of my article
previous to the one discussing APCO's broader-pay-more proposal, which
discussed its continuous-cruisers-pay-more one.  In that, I concluded
that since continuous cruisers make so much more use of public
moorings than those with their own long-term moorings, they should pay
more for that service (but not for navigating).  If they were charged
that way, I believe a lot of the spurious continuous cruisers
(actually, continuous moorers, as they hardly ever navigate) clogging
the visitor moorings would be likely to get long term moorings,
probably off-line.  I think it is not at all unreasonable to expect
that those who use visitor moorings should pay for them.  That's the
norm on e.g. the Thames even for an overnight, for which I paid up to
£10 on my trip to Reading this spring, let alone at coastal moorings.

The proposal (which I was involved in drafting) for a redesigned
system of navigation charges that DBA has put forward before several
times has the following features:

- Charges should *not* vary with distance travelled, craft size, craft
use (e.g. private or commercial), nor type of owner (e.g. single or
boat-share group), as BW's costs vary hardly at all with respect to
any of these factors.

- Charges *should* vary with the total amount of navigable waterway
(in km) in the craft's cruising range, i.e. how far it can get from
its base mooring.  In effect, the owner should pay for access to his
boat's cruising range.  This range should include waterways of *all*
navigation authorities.

- There should be a national charges collection body.  The charge it
collects from each boat should be distributed among the navigation
authorities in proportion to the length of the boat's cruising range
that is within each authority's jurisdiction.

In other words, there would be a national £/km/day rate, which would
be multiplied by each boat's cruising range and by how many days/year
it is in the water to get its annual charge.  All boats would be
treated the same.  One "ticket" would cover all waterways,
irrespective of their operators.

Carrying out the calculation of the size of the cruising range for
each boat, and the split of the take from each among the navigation
authorities, is now trivial given the computerised databases of the
sizes of waterway structures that now exist (think of PC Navigo).  It
could all be done automatically, once the dimensions of the boat and
the location of its base moorings are provided.  (I've left out
details such as how to deal with trailable boats)

This would be much simpler and fairer than the current mess, and much
less expensive for the navigation authorities to administer.  I hope
DBA is still supporting it.

But that's probably an issue to take up with BW (and EA, and NT, etc.)
another day.  For now, we need to oppose resolutely any idea that
wider craft on BW waters should pay more than narrow ones, the £50
surcharge in particular.  There is simply no valid justification for
it, and it would create a dreadful precedent..

Adrian

.
Adrian Stott
Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
or (0)208-123-3557 (Skype)
-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Chris Moss-4]

Adrian,

I'm glad that you had been using the "widebeam" limitation argument, but
oh dear, you've opened a can of worms otherwise!

If people are to be charged according to their use of visitor moorings,
BW would have to radically change their whole tactic of reducing the
staff on the waterways and actually monitor what people do!

Do you propose that the large number of narrow boats who cruise the
waterways most of the summer should be charged accordingly or are we
only talking about the winter? However in the winter all these visitor
moorings are empty anyway so it really doesn't make much difference.
Since many of those moorings are in private hands, the profit is not
going to BW, and the mooring charges don't help their finances.

The real problem as we all know is that BW does not enforce the
regulations that already exist to prevent people shuffling up and down a
mile or two of canal the whole time. It was interesting that when I came
through the Regent's canal at the beginning of last year, a young man
who had been in an executive post was doing a stint on the cut. He
ticked me off for mooring on the Regent's Park side! But also said that
he had just given tickets to all the boats moored up on the visitor
moorings above the Camden locks. And he was quite right. When I got
there, there wasn't a boat in sight - totally different to previous
times I'd been there.

Clearly that is a high-profile canal with a lot of pressure as house
prices have been unaffordable in London for a long time. I've heard
every sort of explanation of why BW doesn't do enough. Most of it seems
to come down to the difficulties and expense of prosecuting people. But
in other areas (e.g. removal of shopping carts from the cut) BW has
already had successes by simply charging people and I don't see why that
can't be extended to the shufflers. Every time they are observed
breaking the movement regulations they could be charged extra if the
appropriate regulations were in force.

It doesn't deal with those who are totally skint, but neither does a
proposal that raises their licence fee, as they probably don't pay it
anyway. Don't expect your proposal will make any difference to the
shufflers except make them even less transigent! If they're paying for
the privilege, BW will get even shorter shrift when they try to move
them on.

Chris

Adrian wrote:
> I think it is not at all unreasonable to expect
> that those who use visitor moorings should pay for them.  That's the
> norm on e.g. the Thames even for an overnight, for which I paid up to
> £10 on my trip to Reading this spring, let alone at coastal moorings.
>  


> - Charges *should* vary with the total amount of navigable waterway
> (in km) in the craft's cruising range, i.e. how far it can get from
> its base mooring.

--
on barge Watergeus  [phone]

"No more sustainable development; what we need is a well-planned sustainable retreat"
James Lovelock, 2005


-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Adrian-87]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 08:56:06 +0100, Chris Moss
<moschris@...> wrote:

>If people are to be charged according to their use of visitor moorings,
>BW would have to radically change their whole tactic of reducing the
>staff on the waterways and actually monitor what people do!
>
>Do you propose that the large number of narrow boats who cruise the
>waterways most of the summer should be charged accordingly or are we
>only talking about the winter?

Neither.

My comment about charging for visitor moorings being justified was in
context of my proposal that BW's Continuous Cruising licences should
should come with only two months use of public moorings (official
"visitor" and all the towpath).  In that way, a person buying an
annual CC licence would have also to pay a charge reflecting ten
months mooring at a rate reflecting an average of long-term mooring
charges in the market at the time.  The boat could moor to any public
mooring, but, as it would already have paid, BW would have no further
collection of charges to do.

I was not proposing that all visitor moorings be charged for every
night for those with conventional licences.  However, I believe this
*is* justified in locations where there is congestion (i.e. when you
get to some place and find that all the visitor moorings are in use),
to spread the traffic around and to reduce the lengths of stay, both
of which would ensure at least some visitor moorings were always
available in every location.

>in the winter all these visitor moorings are empty anyway so it really doesn't make much difference.

In fact, BW *does* rent visitor moorings out over the winter.  This is
to allow CC boats to stay legally in once place for more than two
weeks, which otherwise is against the rules.  This seems to work well,
except ...

>The real problem as we all know is that BW does not enforce the
>regulations that already exist to prevent people shuffling up and down a
>mile or two of canal the whole time.

Why BW has such a problem with this is hard to fathom, although part
of it is that the rules are badly written (and have been for years).
However, a new, and tough, woman has recently taken over enforcement
in my home patch, and the word is that the blow is at last starting to
fall on the local towpath squatters and legal action concerning
several of them is already under way.  

Incidentally, there is already a rule that if a boat stays on public
moorings in one place (a serious weakness is that "place" is not
really defined) for more than two weeks, BW can charge it £25/day for
all subsequent days there.  Not only would this discourage
overstaying, but it would also generate revenue to pay for
enforcement.  Unfortunately, BW seems not to do that very often.

BTW, collection of that charge is easy.  If it is not paid by the
expiry of the boat's current licence, BW can refuse to renew the
licence.  See below.

>It doesn't deal with those who are totally skint, but neither does a
>proposal that raises their licence fee, as they probably don't pay it
>anyway.

BW can (and actually does on occasion) have boats without licences
evicted from its waterways (or have it craned out and either sold or
scrapped).

> Don't expect your proposal will make any difference to the
>shufflers except make them even less transigent! If they're paying for
>the privilege, BW will get even shorter shrift when they try to move
>them on.

I think that, if they had to pay for mooring (which CCs currently
don't, which I believe is why their number has increased so much),
many towpath squatters would give up living in boats.  I suspect that
most of the rest would then get conventional long-term moorings, as
they would cost the same but provide more amenities (security,
utilities, etc.).

Adrian

Adrian Stott
Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
or (0)208-123-3557 (Skype)
-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint 

[Keith Norfolk]

Adrian,
a couple of points;
With a Gold Licence any craft over 11'5'' beam is charged an aditional amount already.This always seems to be overlooked when this subject arrises.
It is against B.W.s policy to charge extra for wide beams on a linier mooring where two narrow boats would otherwise be moored abreast. See hNBOC website bylaws 'breasted boats'
I was being charged one and a half times the narrow boat rate at my mooring until I disputed this, the mooring is B.W. owned but leased out.
Keith.



.



      __________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
-------------------------------------------------
Visit http://www.barges.org for info, events, to buy and sell barges or equipment.  ------------------------------------------------------
You can manage your records yourself, including unsubscribing and retrieving lost passwords at http://www.barges.org/newsgroups#maint