Thames vs Medway Cost comparo....

[oldgit]

Boat is now lifted out and awaiting a good wash, a smear of antifoul and insurance survey.
It ,of course rained dogs and cats during the entire lift operation so all other jobs put off till morning.

While waiting for rain to stop considered this fact ...if we go up the Medway more than a half dozen days this year it will actually be worth buying a annual Medway licence for my boat ie £290 pa for my... ahem .....11M.... boat but only if we come round and see you lot because will get me 10 days free visitoring which will prevent Teddington relieving me of £148.00 at the lock.(15 day ticket).My tape measure tells me we are 43sq metres.

 

[miket]

and your point is?

You're not trying to draw comparisons in value between Thames and Medway, surely?
I think the Thames is a couple or so miles longer than the Mudway?

 

[apollo]

You're not trying to draw comparisons in value between Thames and Medway, surely?
I think the Thames is a couple or so miles longer than the Mudway?

and.......less MUD?

No comparison.

 

[oldgit]

You're not trying to draw comparisons in value between Thames and Medway, surely?
I think the Thames is a couple or so miles longer than the Mudway?

Nah....just wondering why with 8000 (registered) leisure craft,zillions of rowing clubs,boat hire companies,day hire and commercial trip boats,not to forget loads of liveaboards on everything from monster barges to narrowboats plus some very expensive eateries,it costs well over twice as much for a licence for a 11m boat as anywhere else ?

 

[teddington_lock]

Because there is a huge and in places very old infrastructure to maintain / improve.

Expensive eateries contribute nothing towards the cost of maintaining the river and there's not as many commercial trip boats as you might think , well under 50 i would say.

Most 'constant cruising ' liveaboards only pay the cost of an annual licence and true 'houseboats' (no engines ) are approximately 50% of the licence cost of a powered launch of comparable size.

Granted , a licence for a hire boat is a bit more expensive at just under double the cost for a non hire annual , but there are so few hire boats on the Thames these days as to be almost insignificant.

Look at what you get for your Thames licence though , when you stop to think about it.

An annual licence for a 43 sq/m is £673 , people pay more to tax their cars nowadays and what do they get for that ? the ability to sit in a small steel box , in traffic , driving in potholes getting speeding tickets every other day .

You get to cruise one of the most famous rivers in the world , steeped in history , manned by friendly staff , having wonderful experiences.

Perhaps i should transfer to the press department ?

 

[oldgit]

Inevitable reduction in public funding on its way ?

Because there is a huge and in places very old infrastructure to maintain / improve.

Expensive eateries contribute nothing towards the cost of maintaining the river and there's not as many commercial trip boats as you might think , well under 50 i would say.

Most 'constant cruising ' liveaboards only pay the cost of an annual licence and true 'houseboats' (no engines ) are approximately 50% of the licence cost of a powered launch of comparable size.

Granted , a licence for a hire boat is a bit more expensive at just under double the cost for a non hire annual , but there are so few hire boats on the Thames these days as to be almost insignificant.

Look at what you get for your Thames licence though , when you stop to think about it.

An annual licence for a 43 sq/m is £673 , people pay more to tax their cars nowadays and what do they get for that ? the ability to sit in a small steel box , in traffic , driving in potholes getting speeding tickets every other day .

You get to cruise one of the most famous rivers in the world , steeped in history , manned by friendly staff , having wonderful experiences.

Perhaps i should transfer to the press department ?

Agree with every single thing you say and am a real fan of the Thames,but it appears to me that generating income to finance "Thames PLC" falls to very small proportion of the people or organisations,both commercial and private who actually use the river assets.
Time to use the imagination and cast the income net a little wider than the owner of a single private boat,to replace that lost goverment money ?

Ferrinstance....just how much of Uri s mooring charges or income from pubs along the towpath get back to the EA and what about the various river festivals held by local authorities,does any of that extra income filter its way into the coffers.?

 

[boatone]

Agree with every single thing you say and am a real fan of the Thames,but it appears to me that generating income to finance "Thames PLC" falls to very small proportion of the people or organisations,both commercial and private who actually use the river assets.
Time to use the imagination and cast the income net a little wider than the owner of a single private boat,to replace that lost goverment money ?

Ferrinstance....just how much of Uri s mooring charges or income from pubs along the towpath get back to the EA and what about the various river festivals held by local authorities,does any of that extra income filter its way into the coffers.?

Well done Fred - right on the button.

As far as I know none of the examples you quote contribute unless they have structures in the river and pay an 'accommodation' charge or have boats of their own for which they pay a registration fee. . I believe Henley, for instance, pay a pro rata accommodation charge for the structures they install during the regatta and festival period.

I am pretty certain there is nothing that entitles the EA to share in 'windfall' income.