Adrian Stott wrote: > Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Adrian Stott wrote: >
>> That applies to mooring on any part of the waterway. Especially >> at busy moorings where boats breast up and where two boats going >> in opposite directions cannot pass because of limited width. > > I know some places where it is hard to a single craft to get through > without touching craft inappropriately moored craft on both sides. Exactly. And wide beam boats make that a more common circumstance and so, IMO, a wide boat should pay for the inconvenience caused. >> It is not only about locking. It is about getting through bridge >> holes, passing in narrower stretches of waterway. Just like a >> wide-load on the road, special care needs to be taken passing >> wider boats. > > Since most of almost every waterway was built to allow two gauge-beam > craft to pass, and since very few bridges were designed to craft to > pass in them, I think it actually is, effectively, only about locking. > It isn't about numbers. Otherwise you could just say there aren't many wide-beamed boats, just ignore them. The point is that one wide beam boat effects the passage of every other boat on the same waterway. >>> However, BW has calculated that the >>> marginal cost of of any vessel navigating a waterway is so small that >>> it is not worth charging for, so the difference between "so small" and >>> "half so small" is not significant enough to reflect in the charges. >>> >> You keep saying that. Could you please provide a reference/quote? > > There was a statement to this effect made by BW during a consultation > meeting on the 2002 charges review. Perhaps you should ask Ms Ash for > a copy of the paper. > Sorry Adrian. It is you that keeps quoting this 'fact' so it is up to you to supply the reference or stop quoting it. >>> The same arguments apply to length as to beam. So there is no logical >>> argument for the current BW practice of levying a higher navigation >>> charge on a longer boat than on a smaller one. >> Oh, really? And have you made that case to BW? And if that is so, >> do you claim that BW have calculated this to be so? > > I quote from "Reviews of Craft Licensing -- Final Report and > Conclusions", BW 2003 January, page 3. > > "We concluded that ... in principle the rationale for charging (by) > length was not particularly strong" > Thanks for that. It looks interesting (though on an initial scan I couldn't see he quote) - I'll read it carefully later. -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
