The future of our canals?

[jetzi]

13 hours ago, MartynG said:

I think boaters pay plenty for license fees already

What do you base this on? 

If boaters license fees are not paying for the product (i.e. well maintained, navigable canals) then clearly boaters aren't paying enough? Why should anglers, volunteers and general taxpayers be subsidising our navigation?
 

If there was a massive locust swarm that came and ate half the wheat in the world and the bread price doubled, people say "oh, but we're paying too much for bread". But surely the price of the production of the bread needs to be reflected in the cost of the bread, otherwise why would anyone sell bread?

As it stands it seems that we're benefiting from the investment made by the freight industry over 100 years ago, and that this has a time limit unless further investment is made - and the people who benefit from this are boaters. Anglers don't need deep water, people walking along the towpath don't need to have boats there (if anything they're competing for the space).

 

I think it's fair to ask what would it cost for boaters to pay their way - and if it's genuinely too much for us to afford then to ask whether boaters navigating is enough of a public good that the taxpayer should cover it.

 

Alan said "100's of millions needs spending". So can we say 200 million over the next 20 years? That's 10 million per year. According to CaRT website there are about 34 000 canal boats in the UK. 

 

300 GBP extra per boat per year would raise that number. Why shouldn't boaters pay it? 

And if that's too much then perhaps CaRT does need to consider closing some of the canals so that we can afford to maintain the remainder. 

Let's be practical about this - not idealistic. Perhaps the truth of the matter is somewhere between "I won't pay more nor have any hand in helping - the canals will be closed in our lifetime" and "boaters can pay 1000s more and volunteer hard and the waterways will stay 100% open".

I for one hope there is enough of a core following of boating that at least some of the major waterways (e.g. Grand Union) will survive pretty much forever. 

[Detling]

On 06/07/2020 at 07:44, robtheplod said:

I'm sticking my neck out here and think the canals best days are to come. As international travel becomes more troublesome and the world becomes less stable I think people will want to holiday in their own country. Canals offer a really good alternative where the journey is the holiday rather than just a part of it - no problems finding what to do each day. I have had several recent conversations with people who have never considered narrowboats/canals but as I describe/show videos (not in a anorak way!) now want to try it. The UK weather is also improving so when we have longer hot spells people may question queueing in the airport!  The UK canal system is USP of the UK so I can see international travel this way as foreigners come to try...

 

It always amazes me people want to fly to sandpits full of crowds when they haven't seen their own beautiful country yet.

I also think international travel will become more personally invasive and more restricted, making holidaying in the UK more common. However the younger generation ( under 50) are much more mega thrill seeking (think bungie jumps, zipwires) for a huge adrenaline rush. Their children, who we do sometimes see when on a hire boat, tend to be inside looking at some screen or othe, and take no part in working the locks and admiring the scenery, this does not make it a good choice of holiday for mum and dad. My son (35) enjoys the canals but mainly because he can moor by a series of pubs with his current girlfriend, my daughter has no interest whatsoever, both have Duke of Edinburgh gold award and had active and adventurous teenage years, sailing, skiing, swimming, camping etc. So the appeal of the canal holiday is not as widespread as it was 50 years ago when it was on most family's bucket list.

Against that we still have a housing shortage, expensive rail fares, and young people who want to have a place to call theirs, but don't necessarily want to keep moving, for them a series of isolated pounds sounds wonderful.

[Momac]

12 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

What do you base this on? 

I base it on the benefit received  not seeming to be good value . 

I would be happy to pay more to get more. But I am asked to pay ever  increasing license fees and  receiving less each year and see no sign of investment in modern upgrades.

 

 

[peterboat]

23 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

What do you base this on? 

If boaters license fees are not paying for the product (i.e. well maintained, navigable canals) then clearly boaters aren't paying enough? Why should anglers, volunteers and general taxpayers be subsidising our navigation?
 

If there was a massive locust swarm that came and ate half the wheat in the world and the bread price doubled, people say "oh, but we're paying too much for bread". But surely the price of the production of the bread needs to be reflected in the cost of the bread, otherwise why would anyone sell bread?

As it stands it seems that we're benefiting from the investment made by the freight industry over 100 years ago, and that this has a time limit unless further investment is made - and the people who benefit from this are boaters. Anglers don't need deep water, people walking along the towpath don't need to have boats there (if anything they're competing for the space).

 

I think it's fair to ask what would it cost for boaters to pay their way - and if it's genuinely too much for us to afford then to ask whether boaters navigating is enough of a public good that the taxpayer should cover it.

 

Alan said "100's of millions needs spending". So can we say 200 million over the next 20 years? That's 10 million per year. According to CaRT website there are about 34 000 canal boats in the UK. 

 

300 GBP extra per boat per year would raise that number. Why shouldn't boaters pay it? 

And if that's too much then perhaps CaRT does need to consider closing some of the canals so that we can afford to maintain the remainder. 

Let's be practical about this - not idealistic. Perhaps the truth of the matter is somewhere between "I won't pay more nor have any hand in helping - the canals will be closed in our lifetime" and "boaters can pay 1000s more and volunteer hard and the waterways will stay 100% open".

I for one hope there is enough of a core following of boating that at least some of the major waterways (e.g. Grand Union) will survive pretty much forever. 

Be very careful CRT follow these discussions, realistically about 5k per year for a license would cover the cost most boaters dont have that so the canals would close and roads/railways/houses would cover our historic waterways good luck with that

[jetzi]

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I base it on the benefit received  not seeming to be good value . 

I would be happy to pay more to get more. But I am asked to pay ever  increasing license fees and  receiving less each year and see no sign of investment in modern upgrades.

But from the discussion that doesn't appear to be CaRT's fault, this is just the result of maintaining aging infrastructure. If the cost to maintain the canals is increasing, then surely so must the license fees? Otherwise the canals will fall into disrepair and there will be no need for license fees because there will be no more boats?

[Alan de Enfield]

39 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Alan said "100's of millions needs spending".

That is to cover the backlog of things that are already broken.

 

C&RT did publish the backlog up until a few years ago when it got so big it was an embarrassment - I doubt it has reduced since then.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Be very careful CRT follow these discussions, realistically about 5k per year for a license would cover the cost most boaters dont have that so the canals would close and roads/railways/houses would cover our historic waterways good luck with that

CaRT budget per year is about 200M; an extra 300 quid per canal boat (ivan&alice's optimistic figure) would raise about 10M, which is only a 5% increase, which is a drop in the bucket. Let's assume that to make a really noticeable difference and catch up on the maintenance backlog CART would need to spend 25% more (an extra 50M per year), this would be 1500 quid extra per boat -- a lot more than 300 quid, but a lot less than 5000 (peterboat's pessimistic figure)...

 

Which is only 30 quid a week extra -- I realise this is a lot for people who aren't well off, but if that's what it's going to cost to fix the canal network that they live on, who else should pay? Saying "oh I can't afford that" is another way of saying "I don't want to pay for the amenities I'm using", it's no different to some CC/CM complaining that following the rules about moving make it difficult for their kids to get to school (which the CC rules specifically exclude...) but they can't afford (or find) a home mooring so have to CC -- or not, in some cases...

 

Yes I know that 50M a year is a drop in the bucket compared to Government spending in general, but there are a lot of drops from people in all walks of life who think "The Government" should pay for something they want to use, not them. What they actually mean is that this should be paid for by general taxation from everybody else, not by them.

 

Of course there's a counter-argument that the necessities of life should be financed this way, which they are in more socialised and freer-spending countries like Scandinavia -- the price to be paid is higher taxation and higher prices, which means people have to be paid more, which raises the cost of everything. I might agree with this (because I could afford it) but few people in the UK seem willing to accept that if they're better-off they should subsidise people who aren't, so we're back to the general principle that most things are paid for by those who use them.

 

The right way to fix this would be the same way that on-land housing for poorer people is (or should be...) dealt with; if housing benefit can pay rent for poor people who live on the land, it can also pay (increased) CaRT fees for poor people who live on the canals -- after all 30 quid a week is tiny compared to rents.

 

All this is not a valid reason for saying that CaRT shouldn't charge boaters enough (e.g. an extra 30 quid a week) to pay for the upkeep of the canals that they live on.

[Momac]

49 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

But from the discussion that doesn't appear to be CaRT's fault, this is just the result of maintaining aging infrastructure. If the cost to maintain the canals is increasing, then surely so must the license fees? Otherwise the canals will fall into disrepair and there will be no need for license fees because there will be no more boats?

The quality product and service  has to be provided ....then, if the product and  service is good ,   the customers to buy it.

A business  can't expect the customers to pay up front and then wait for the service and the product to improve.

 

[jetzi]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

if that's what it's going to cost to fix the canal network that they live on, who else should pay?

Exactly - this is my overall point. 

 

If the license fees are too low to cover maintenance of navigation, then they should be raised. 

 

If boaters can't afford to pay the increase that it would take, then boaters can't afford to boat. 

 

It's not fair to socialise the cost of what is - mostly - a leisure activity for the a small portion of the middle class. IMO that's the reason it's being turned into social housing in some areas - because it's actually subsidised by the public. If boaters had to pay for what they use it would perhaps cease to be an affordable way to life cheap?

[Momac]

Canals are not just for the benefit of boaters .

If the public expect free access for walking and cycling for example they should also pay . So the canals should be maintained out of public funds and not by boat license fees.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ivan&alice said:

Exactly - this is my overall point. 

 

If the license fees are too low to cover maintenance of navigation, then they should be raised. 

 

If boaters can't afford to pay the increase that it would take, then boaters can't afford to boat. 

 

It's not fair to socialise the cost of what is - mostly - a leisure activity for the a small portion of the middle class. IMO that's the reason it's being turned into social housing in some areas - because it's actually subsidised by the public. If boaters had to pay for what they use it would perhaps cease to be an affordable way to life cheap?

Harsh if I may say so.

 

People have made a decision to buy a boat (live aboard and leisure) based on what their expected expenditure is going to be, most sensible ones will also have factored in a reasonable forecast of how those costs will increase.

 

A sudden and exponential increase in the licence fee would completely wreck this, be unreasonable and will actually make even more people homeless, the last thing we need in the UK.

 

Increasing the costs of new licences might be a better way of doing it, thus people would know what they are taking on.

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

Canals are not just for the benefit of boaters .

If the public expect free access for walking and cycling for example they should also pay . So the canals should be maintained out of public funds and not by boat license fees.

'Joe public' does not require a canal 'in water' to be able to walk, run, or cycle.

 

I have said this before, but, we are a minority contributor to C&RTs income, even Farmers & Industry pay more for water extraction / drainage licences that 30,000 boaters pay for their 'licence to float'

 

Without checking exact amount :

 

Boaters licences £21m

Water extraction / drainage licences £29m

 

C&RT need to keep the water flowing, but the cut doesn't need dredging or keeping navigable depths, or functioning locks to satisfy them.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Harsh if I may say so.

 

People have made a decision to buy a boat (live aboard and leisure) based on what their expected expenditure is going to be, most sensible ones will also have factored in a reasonable forecast of how those costs will increase.

 

A sudden and exponential increase in the licence fee would completely wreck this, be unreasonable and will actually make even more people homeless, the last thing we need in the UK.

 

Increasing the costs of new licences might be a better way of doing it, thus people would know what they are taking on.

I seem to remember the Government pushing hard to get everyone to change from petrol to diesel as it was 'cleaner', they even kept the price several pence below the price of petrol, as soon as a large majority changed over, Diesel became 'dirty' and the price per litre quickly overtook petrol by several pence per litre.

 

I had made my decision based on factoring in likely cost increase, but never envisaged a complete UK turn.

 

 

No doubt there will be some who say that C&RT should offer 'affordable licences' to those who cannot afford the going-rate.

[Dav and Pen]

We were told years ago by a Bwb certain chief engineer that he could run a very nice canal without boats. That was because we kept on sending him voyage reports listing all the bad places and rubbish in bridgeholes. 

[Allan(nb Albert)]

4 minutes ago, Dav and Pen said:

We were told years ago by a Bwb certain chief engineer that he could run a very nice canal without boats. That was because we kept on sending him voyage reports listing all the bad places and rubbish in bridgeholes. 

... and I can remember ex chair, Tony Hales, stating quite categorically that it would only be marginally less expensive to run a non-navigable waterway. I always took this as meaning that the loss of income from boating (over £50m gross p.a.) would offset any savings made by closing waterways to navigation.

 

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Harsh if I may say so.

 

People have made a decision to buy a boat (live aboard and leisure) based on what their expected expenditure is going to be, most sensible ones will also have factored in a reasonable forecast of how those costs will increase.

 

A sudden and exponential increase in the licence fee would completely wreck this, be unreasonable and will actually make even more people homeless, the last thing we need in the UK.

 

Increasing the costs of new licences might be a better way of doing it, thus people would know what they are taking on.

The same objection always comes up when it's realised that what people have been historically paying for something doesn't actually cover the real cost. Given the obvious fact that it costs a lot to maintain canals, people who've decided to live aboard "because it's really cheap" should have realised that they've pretty much been getting something valuable for (almost) nothing.

 

Should people who've taken out enormous mortgages on houses because interest rates are at an all-time low be allowed to complain "it's not fair, I can't afford the repayments, my house will be repossessed" if interest rates go back up to "normal" levels of a few percent? I think most people would say that they took advantage of a favourable situation, so they can't complain when things are levelled out and they end up worse off.

 

If a big license fee hike does put some people into real financial problems, the solution is the same as if rents suddenly go up -- if it's cheaper for the government to pay the fee than have to house a homeless family, this is what should happen. If it means some people who can actually afford it but don't like paying complain, tough, that's life things have changed, spend less on something else. It's the government's job to provide a safety net for the basic necessities of life (health, housing, water, food, electricity) not to subsidise people's lifestyle choices, because circumstances can always change...

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

... and I can remember ex chair, Tony Hales, stating quite categorically that it would only be marginally less expensive to run a non-navigable waterway. I always took this as meaning that the loss of income from boating (over £50m gross p.a.) would offset any savings made by closing waterways to navigation.

 

Wouldn't the loss be almost solely the licence fee and the 'trade' income ? 

Boats could still moor and generate the £7.7m mooring income and they wouldn't be required to move making many people happy.

C&RT have already 'lost' £6.2m income by selling off BWML.

 

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

The same objection always comes up when it's realised that what people have been historically paying for something doesn't actually cover the real cost. Given the obvious fact that it costs a lot to maintain canals, people who've decided to live aboard "because it's really cheap" should have realised that they've pretty much been getting something valuable for (almost) nothing.

 

Should people who've taken out enormous mortgages on houses because interest rates are at an all-time low be allowed to complain "it's not fair, I can't afford the repayments, my house will be repossessed" if interest rates go back up to "normal" levels of a few percent? I think most people would say that they took advantage of a favourable situation, so they can't complain when things are levelled out and they end up worse off.

 

If a big license fee hike does put some people into real financial problems, the solution is the same as if rents suddenly go up -- if it's cheaper for the government to pay the fee than have to house a homeless family, this is what should happen. If it means some people who can actually afford it but don't like paying complain, tough, that's life things have changed, spend less on something else. It's the government's job to provide a safety net for the basic necessities of life (health, housing, water, food, electricity) not to subsidise people's lifestyle choices, because circumstances can always change...

So if the VED on existing vehicles is suddenly exponentially ramped up and the increase actually added to the roads budget in order properly maintain our roads. But that then means that lots of people can no longer afford to run a vehicle?

 

Fair?

 

No of course it isnt.

 

As to mortgage costs suddenly increasing from an all time low, yes that is fair, because historically we know mortgage costs can fluctuate massively and will likely do so again.

 

Historically licence fees have generally being much more stable.

Edited July 7, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

So if the VED on existing vehicles is suddenly exponentially ramped up and the increase actually added to the roads budget in order properly maintain our roads. But that then means that lots of people can no longer afford to run a vehicle?

 

Fair?

 

No of course it isnt.

Does my car (VED at £330 per annum), wear out the roads any more than another car (with zero VED) ?

Nothing is done with the 'money' to clean the emissions, it is simply a tax to discourage use.

 

Just as it is Government policy that by 2050 no boats in UK waters (inland or coastal) will be allowed to have Diesel / Petrol ICE engines, is it fair that we will all have to scrap, or re-'engine' out boats ?

 

 

Who ever said life is 'fair' ?

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Who ever said life is 'fair' ?

 

The boaters who are paying around 20% of CRT's operating costs and constantly complaining that not enough money is being spent ...

 

I wonder how many of them also donate money every month to the "Friends of CRT" to help improve the situation or indeed volunteer time and effort to help with simple maintenance allowing the paid staff and contractors more time to do the trickier jobs.

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Does my car (VED at £330 per annum), wear out the roads any more than another car (with zero VED) ?

Nothing is done with the 'money' to clean the emissions, it is simply a tax to discourage use.

 

Just as it is Government policy that by 2050 no boats in UK waters (inland or coastal) will be allowed to have Diesel / Petrol ICE engines, is it fair that we will all have to scrap, or re-'engine' out boats ?

 

 

Who ever said life is 'fair' ?

You are missing the point. You bought that car knowing how much it cost to tax it. You also knew that there are cars that attracted zero VED.

 

There is 30 years to plan for the boat engine issue, so yes if CRT are planning to exponentially increase licence fees in 30 years and let people know that too would be fair(er).

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

CaRT budget per year is about 200M; an extra 300 quid per canal boat (ivan&alice's optimistic figure) would raise about 10M, which is only a 5% increase, which is a drop in the bucket. Let's assume that to make a really noticeable difference and catch up on the maintenance backlog CART would need to spend 25% more (an extra 50M per year), this would be 1500 quid extra per boat -- a lot more than 300 quid, but a lot less than 5000 (peterboat's pessimistic figure)...

 

Which is only 30 quid a week extra -- I realise this is a lot for people who aren't well off, but if that's what it's going to cost to fix the canal network that they live on, who else should pay? Saying "oh I can't afford that" is another way of saying "I don't want to pay for the amenities I'm using", it's no different to some CC/CM complaining that following the rules about moving make it difficult for their kids to get to school (which the CC rules specifically exclude...) but they can't afford (or find) a home mooring so have to CC -- or not, in some cases...

 

Yes I know that 50M a year is a drop in the bucket compared to Government spending in general, but there are a lot of drops from people in all walks of life who think "The Government" should pay for something they want to use, not them. What they actually mean is that this should be paid for by general taxation from everybody else, not by them.

 

Of course there's a counter-argument that the necessities of life should be financed this way, which they are in more socialised and freer-spending countries like Scandinavia -- the price to be paid is higher taxation and higher prices, which means people have to be paid more, which raises the cost of everything. I might agree with this (because I could afford it) but few people in the UK seem willing to accept that if they're better-off they should subsidise people who aren't, so we're back to the general principle that most things are paid for by those who use them.

 

The right way to fix this would be the same way that on-land housing for poorer people is (or should be...) dealt with; if housing benefit can pay rent for poor people who live on the land, it can also pay (increased) CaRT fees for poor people who live on the canals -- after all 30 quid a week is tiny compared to rents.

 

All this is not a valid reason for saying that CaRT shouldn't charge boaters enough (e.g. an extra 30 quid a week) to pay for the upkeep of the canals that they live on.

200million divided by 34k boaters is 5800 a year per boat so thats a rise for me of 5k

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

CaRT budget per year is about 200M; an extra 300 quid per canal boat (ivan&alice's optimistic figure) would raise about 10M, which is only a 5% increase, which is a drop in the bucket. Let's assume that to make a really noticeable difference and catch up on the maintenance backlog CART would need to spend 25% more (an extra 50M per year), this would be 1500 quid extra per boat -- a lot more than 300 quid, but a lot less than 5000 (peterboat's pessimistic figure)...

 

Which is only 30 quid a week extra -- I realise this is a lot for people who aren't well off, but if that's what it's going to cost to fix the canal network that they live on, who else should pay? Saying "oh I can't afford that" is another way of saying "I don't want to pay for the amenities I'm using", it's no different to some CC/CM complaining that following the rules about moving make it difficult for their kids to get to school (which the CC rules specifically exclude...) but they can't afford (or find) a home mooring so have to CC -- or not, in some cases...

 

Yes I know that 50M a year is a drop in the bucket compared to Government spending in general, but there are a lot of drops from people in all walks of life who think "The Government" should pay for something they want to use, not them. What they actually mean is that this should be paid for by general taxation from everybody else, not by them.

 

Of course there's a counter-argument that the necessities of life should be financed this way, which they are in more socialised and freer-spending countries like Scandinavia -- the price to be paid is higher taxation and higher prices, which means people have to be paid more, which raises the cost of everything. I might agree with this (because I could afford it) but few people in the UK seem willing to accept that if they're better-off they should subsidise people who aren't, so we're back to the general principle that most things are paid for by those who use them.

 

The right way to fix this would be the same way that on-land housing for poorer people is (or should be...) dealt with; if housing benefit can pay rent for poor people who live on the land, it can also pay (increased) CaRT fees for poor people who live on the canals -- after all 30 quid a week is tiny compared to rents.

 

All this is not a valid reason for saying that CaRT shouldn't charge boaters enough (e.g. an extra 30 quid a week) to pay for the upkeep of the canals that they live on.

Indeed people who can't afford it can claim benefits to pay for their license if they live on the boat. 

 

I've always viewed the less than £1000 a year I have paid for licenses for the last 25 years a ridiculous bargain. 

 

You get so much for the money, specially if you are in a position to cruise around the network, which I did for ten years. 

 

Amazing value. Nothing comes close. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by magnetman

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

You are missing the point. You bought that car knowing how much it cost to tax it. Y

No I didn't there was a Humungous hike in VED of 'dirty diesel' after I had bought it.

 

It is my choice to keep it and pay the £1 a day VED and 25p per gallon premium for using diesel, just as it is a boaters choice to keep boating or to 'sell up'.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Wouldn't the loss be almost solely the licence fee and the 'trade' income ? 

Boats could still moor and generate the £7.7m mooring income and they wouldn't be required to move making many people happy.

C&RT have already 'lost' £6.2m income by selling off BWML.

 

 

I think Tony Hales was not assuming any income at all from boating. He was on record as saying that any closure would be over his dead body.

Lost gross income from BWML is about £8.5 pa. The £6.2m reflects that it was sold off part way through 2018/19.

BW/CRT has always shown boating property income under "property" rather than "boating".