After the trials and tribulations on the Montgomery I would be a little
worried how BW would operate a congestion charge for locks scheme. How, for
example would hire and share boats fit in and would BW have to have a whole
raft of new rules, working hours and lots of new money collectors on the
payroll but no more bank staff. Such a scheme seems very prone to abuse and
might make more rather than less frustration for us boaters.
Being a regular through that bottle neck at Grindley Brook the more I think
on a pay for locks scheme the more dodgy the idea gets.
Captain Beeky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11, Feb 2007, at 10:03, Adrian Stott wrote:
> Captain Beeky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 10, Feb 2007, at 10:47, Bruce Napier wrote:
>>
>>> Agreed the road pricing proposals have their downsides, but on
>>> balance,
>>> why shouldn't people pay by use?
>>
>> God forbid that kind of idea should ever spread to the waterways !
>
> Why?
>
> In fact, BW has been thinking about it. However, so far, it appears
> that the marginal cost of a vessel navigating a km of waterway is very
> very small, perhaps too small to charge for economically.
>
> OTOH, congestion charges at (e.g.) busy locks on busy summer weekends
> look to me to be a very good idea. They would encourage the traffic
> to go elsewhere, which would both reduce the congestion and get boats
> on to under-used routes. Yet they would allow those who really need
> to to use the (previously) congested routes at any time, by paying the
> charge.
>
> I'm strongly in favour of this.
It seems reasonable to me in theory as well, and has been aired on this
list previously. That's why I nudged it back on the table.
At least it is controversial and on topic.
{;>)
Beeky
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
