Adrian Stott wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:46:30 +0100, Brian on Harnser > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote : >> >>> >>> And no more gold licences! >>> >> But they would still require the same income so we would all need to >> pay more, its not just the Thames, you also have the Fens to pay for. > > Among other benefits from this might therefore be that at last we > could have a zero-based review of how and what boaters pay for the > right for a boat to use the waterways. For example, no longer > charging for the right to use waterways the boat can't fit in (e.g. > full-length narrow boats and the Leed & Liverpool) > > My barge can't get to the fens waterways (without a truck or a > hazardous sea voyage), so why should its licence include the right to > use those waterways? OTOH, that might provide a wonderful incentive > to BW to provide a broad bypass to the Northampton branch (maybe by a > lift between the GU and the Nene at Weedon), because then it would be > able to increase the charges for craft such as mine. > > There are many ways moving to a combined authority could result in > significant improvements into how the waterways are managed, as well > as by whom. > > Adrian
Maybe (at renewal time) we should be given a list of canals/rivers that we want to use, the license then based on boat length & boat width & potential miles/locks of our selected choice. Since BW can check licenses with a laptop, it should be easy for them to see a boat "out of place". Ron Jones Process Safety & Development Specialist Don't repeat history, unreported chemical lab/plant near misses at http://www.crhf.org.uk Only two things are certain: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. ~ Albert Einstein
