The future of our canals?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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'.

Was there?

 

What were the figures and when please.

 

I have run diesels for decades and I don't recall a humungous rise on any existing one I have already owned. Yes there has been an increase but a humongous one?

 

Yes it is inceasing on newly bought diesel vehicles but then you know exactly what one is getting into when one buys it.

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Was there?

 

What were the figures and when please.

 

I have run diesels for decades and I don't recall a humungous rise on any existing one I have already owned. Yes there has been an increase but a humongous one?

 

Yes it is inceasing on newly bought diesel vehicles but then you know exactly what one is getting into when one buys it.

When new the VED was £165 pa, I see that now it has gone up to £565

 

Fuel economy for this used diesel MERCEDES-BENZ M-Class (W163) Estate model is 30 MPG, giving an indicative fuel cost of 16.9 p/mile; in VED Band L this estate car's standard 12 month car tax rate is £565.

This doors and seat used MERCEDES-BENZ M-Class (W163) Estate ML270 CDI has a 2.7 litre engine, automatic transmission, a top speed of 0 mph and 0-60 acceleration of seconds.

Tailpipe CO2 emissions for this used MERCEDES-BENZ M-Class (W163) Estate estate are 248 g/km and it has obtained Euro Standard E3 for air quality. Overall this model has an NGC rating of 84 and is not one of the greenest used models in the estate class.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

When new the VED was £165 pa, I see that now it has gone up to £565

 

Fuel economy for this used diesel MERCEDES-BENZ M-Class (W163) Estate model is 30 MPG, giving an indicative fuel cost of 16.9 p/mile; in VED Band L this estate car's standard 12 month car tax rate is £565.

This doors and seat used MERCEDES-BENZ M-Class (W163) Estate ML270 CDI has a 2.7 litre engine, automatic transmission, a top speed of 0 mph and 0-60 acceleration of seconds.

Tailpipe CO2 emissions for this used MERCEDES-BENZ M-Class (W163) Estate estate are 248 g/km and it has obtained Euro Standard E3 for air quality. Overall this model has an NGC rating of 84 and is not one of the greenest used models in the estate class.

When was it new?

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

When was it new?

2006

 

If you want any more info, then do your own research.

[Dave123]

1 hour 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.

 

They actually was a study done into this in the 60s (it was mentioned in a history on the K&A I have just finished reading but dont have to hand to quote). It was concluded that closing canals didn't save that much money compared to keeping them navigable mostly because there is either a massive cost outlay on completely filling them in or a constant cost in keeping bridges, embankments, cuttings etc safe. Locks would need turning into weirs which still need maintaining and the canals will have to continue draining water/sewage etc from the land, especially in times of flood. And supplying water to sewage plants. They can't just fill them in. 

Also the point some make about walkers etc not interested in boats is not true. Seeing boats is the main reason for many visits to canals. CRT do realise this.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

2006

 

If you want any more info, then do your own research.

I have done. That year doesnt appear to correlate to Euro 3 emission stds.

 

But putting that aside - So over 14 years the VED has increased from £165 to £565.

 

Humongous? I dont really think so and certainly not when considered at around £30 per year.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

I have done. That year doesnt appear to correlate to Euro 3 emission stds.

 

But putting that aside - So over 14 years the VED has increased from £165 to £565.

 

Humongous? I dont really think so and certainly not when considered at around £30 per year.

 

 

So you'd be happy to have your boat licence go up from (say) £1000 pa to £3500 pa over the same time period ?

 

In 2005 BW 15m boat licence cost £542

in 2020 C&RT 15m boat licence costs £932

 

A 170% increase, compared to my car VED 340% increase.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

So you'd be happy to have your boat licence go up from (say) £1000 pa to £3500 pa over the same time period ?

 

In 2005 BW 15m boat licence cost £542

in 2020 C&RT 15m boat licence costs £932

 

A 170% increase, compared to my car VED 340% increase.

Where do I suggest that I would be happy?

 

Because the boat licence costs more in the first place its obvious the actual figure extrapolated on a percentage basis is going to be a lot more.

 

The question is an increase of £30 per annum over 14 years affordable for most people.

 

I believe yes it is.

 

However to extrapolate the same percentage across to a boat licence would result in a actual figure that IMHO that would not be for lots.

 

Of course it would consign the waterways to become a playground for the wealthy?

 

I guess actually some boaters would like that very much.

Edited July 7, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[Allan(nb Albert)]

34 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

They actually was a study done into this in the 60s (it was mentioned in a history on the K&A I have just finished reading but dont have to hand to quote). It was concluded that closing canals didn't save that much money compared to keeping them navigable mostly because there is either a massive cost outlay on completely filling them in or a constant cost in keeping bridges, embankments, cuttings etc safe. Locks would need turning into weirs which still need maintaining and the canals will have to continue draining water/sewage etc from the land, especially in times of flood. And supplying water to sewage plants. They can't just fill them in. 

Also the point some make about walkers etc not interested in boats is not true. Seeing boats is the main reason for many visits to canals. CRT do realise this.

The outcome was, I think, the British Waterways Act 1968 which categorised waterways as commercial, leisure and remainder. The K&A was classified as remainder but has since been upgraded.

Edited to add - Government accepted the 1959(?) Bowes report that recommended schemes to regenerate and maintain canals no longer able to collect sufficient tolls for adequate maintenance.

Edited July 7, 2020 by Allan(nb Albert)

[jetzi]

2 hours 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.

Fair enough, but those users don't need the canals to be navigable. Having taken a walk along the abandoned Buckingham and Wendover arms of the GU recently, I'm not sure that these are significantly worse places for walking and cycling being that they haven't been navigable in years. I would hazard that the largest costs are in maintaining locks and keeping them deep enough to navigate?

 

 

2 hours 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.

Sure it is harsh, but we're dealing with a harsh reality here. Is it harsher to let the canals disappear entirely or to have the people who use them pay for their upkeep? I think those who have paid for a boat would rather that the canals stay open than for their investment to become completely useless!

 

To me it's far harsher to suggest that people who DON'T navigate the canals be forced to pay for the upkeep.

 

2 hours ago, The Happy Nomad said:

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.

It doesn't have to be sudden. My understanding of the problem from this thread is not that we need to find 200 million right now or the canals will disappear. Rather, there is a growing backlog of maintenance that needs doing - and presumably this could be done over the next several years.

I suggested 300 GBP extra per year per boat over the next 20 years to raise 200M. For me that would represent a one-time 30% increase. It might be better to increase the license by 10% YoY until we get to that number. Starting with the 21M number then a 10% increase per year would mean that we'd raise 200M extra in 11 years.

 

Also I don't know that 200M is the number we need - I'm just trying to make the leap from "oh no it's too much money the canals are doomed" to practically how can we make the canals sustainable?

1 hour ago, IanD said:

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.

I don't blame those people, if anything I blame the govmt for subsidising the waterways for so long so as to have created a false expectation that the canals are cheap to run. But I also don't see the argument that just because something has been historically cheap that we should continue to socialise the cost. I too find that a really weird argument. I think a gradual increase to a point that navigation pays for itself is good for the network, it's good for the public, and it's ultimately good for future generations of boaters who will still have have canals to enjoy.

It's not fair to use public funds to support leisure navigation, and if someone wants to argue that it's to support cheap housing, then let's redirect those funds to support actually cheap housing.

 

 

1 hour 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.

It's a lot more fair than having those who don't drive pay for the roads.

And I'd argue this is much more true of boating, since even though I don't drive, I benefit from trucks being able to deliver goods on the road, and emergency services being able to access, etc. Those who aren't boating don't derive any value from keeping the canals navigable, so it's very unfair to expect non-boaters to pay for the canals.

That's essentially my point. Why should non-navigators pay for navigators to enjoy the canals? "because they always have" is hardly a fair answer.

 

 

1 hour ago, peterboat said:

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

I don't think anyone is arguing that we need 200M per year are they?

 

 

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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 this really true? How are they going to be able to achieve this - charging points? How could you run a boat in the winter without diesel/petrol?

 

 

1 hour ago, magnetman said:

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. 

Agreed - as a newbie I was absolutely staggered at how cheap this is. My license fee is worth it just for the refuse, water and elsan alone. I can't even fathom the cost of replacing locks, maintaining the banks, dredging and keeping the canals full of water. It's mindblowing to me that the license fees are so cheap.

35 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Of course it would consign the waterways to become a playground for the wealthy?

 

I guess actually some boaters would like that very much.

But someone still has to pay. If not the wealthy, then the poor. Why is it fair for the poor to pay for something they don't use?

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Is this really true? How are they going to be able to achieve this - charging points? How could you run a boat in the winter without diesel/petrol?

If you are interested, send me your email address and I'll send the documents to you.

I cannot post them here as they Pdf's and the forum doesn't allow them.

 

By 2050, we want zero emission shipping to be
commonplace globally. We want the UK to have
taken a proactive role in leading this transition,
to be seen globally as a role model, and to have
successfully captured a significant share of the
economic, environmental and health benefits
that will follow.

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Fair enough, but those users don't need the canals to be navigable. Having taken a walk along the abandoned Buckingham and Wendover arms of the GU recently, I'm not sure that these are significantly worse places for walking and cycling being that they haven't been navigable in years. I would hazard that the largest costs are in maintaining locks and keeping them deep enough to navigate?

 

 

Sure it is harsh, but we're dealing with a harsh reality here. Is it harsher to let the canals disappear entirely or to have the people who use them pay for their upkeep? I think those who have paid for a boat would rather that the canals stay open than for their investment to become completely useless!

 

To me it's far harsher to suggest that people who DON'T navigate the canals be forced to pay for the upkeep.

 

It doesn't have to be sudden. My understanding of the problem from this thread is not that we need to find 200 million right now or the canals will disappear. Rather, there is a growing backlog of maintenance that needs doing - and presumably this could be done over the next several years.

I suggested 300 GBP extra per year per boat over the next 20 years to raise 200M. For me that would represent a one-time 30% increase. It might be better to increase the license by 10% YoY until we get to that number. Starting with the 21M number then a 10% increase per year would mean that we'd raise 200M extra in 11 years.

 

Also I don't know that 200M is the number we need - I'm just trying to make the leap from "oh no it's too much money the canals are doomed" to practically how can we make the canals sustainable?

I don't blame those people, if anything I blame the govmt for subsidising the waterways for so long so as to have created a false expectation that the canals are cheap to run. But I also don't see the argument that just because something has been historically cheap that we should continue to socialise the cost. I too find that a really weird argument. I think a gradual increase to a point that navigation pays for itself is good for the network, it's good for the public, and it's ultimately good for future generations of boaters who will still have have canals to enjoy.

It's not fair to use public funds to support leisure navigation, and if someone wants to argue that it's to support cheap housing, then let's redirect those funds to support actually cheap housing.

 

 

It's a lot more fair than having those who don't drive pay for the roads.

And I'd argue this is much more true of boating, since even though I don't drive, I benefit from trucks being able to deliver goods on the road, and emergency services being able to access, etc. Those who aren't boating don't derive any value from keeping the canals navigable, so it's very unfair to expect non-boaters to pay for the canals.

That's essentially my point. Why should non-navigators pay for navigators to enjoy the canals? "because they always have" is hardly a fair answer.

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that we need 200M per year are they?

 

 

Is this really true? How are they going to be able to achieve this - charging points? How could you run a boat in the winter without diesel/petrol?

 

 

Agreed - as a newbie I was absolutely staggered at how cheap this is. My license fee is worth it just for the refuse, water and elsan alone. I can't even fathom the cost of replacing locks, maintaining the banks, dredging and keeping the canals full of water. It's mindblowing to me that the license fees are so cheap.

I cant be bothered to re hash everything Ive already said but I will say just one thing.

 

The reason some none boaters should (and do at the moment) contribute to the canals is because they enjoy the benefits of them too. Yes in the main most visitors dont directly cause maintenance issues (cyclists being a possible exception) but if towpaths were not kept in order there would be no where to walk or cycle and if boats are priced off the system no boats to see, where is the attraction in that.

[TheBiscuits]

9 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

My license fee is worth it just for the refuse, water and elsan alone. I can't even fathom the cost of replacing locks, maintaining the banks, dredging and keeping the canals full of water. It's mindblowing to me that the license fees are so cheap.

 

It's even worse than that - as CRT have given an extra free month to all longterm leisure licence holders and between 3 and 6 months free to boating businesses the net licence income is going to be down over £2 million this year.

 

 

[Momac]

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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.

When did the price of diesel increase above petrol (due to duty increases)? I think it was in the 1990's?

[Naughty Cal]

Perhaps all of those narrowboaters who voted for wide beam owners to pay more in licence fees would like to put their hands in their pockets and also pay more for their licences?

[Alan de Enfield]

17 minutes ago, MartynG said:

When did the price of diesel increase above petrol (due to duty increases)? I think it was in the 1990's?

it was 93 when the price of diesel rose above petrol.( no tax)

But in 2006 the duty on diesel was 6.5p litre higher than petrol

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[magnetman]

55 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

It's even worse than that - as CRT have given an extra free month to all longterm leisure licence holders and between 3 and 6 months free to boating businesses the net licence income is going to be down over £2 million this year.

 

 

That's interesting. I have 3 boats with CRT licenses and one with a gold license but I never heard anything about getting an extra month for free on any of them. 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by magnetman

[TheBiscuits]

15 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Perhaps all of those narrowboaters who voted for wide beam owners to pay more in licence fees would like to put their hands in their pockets and also pay more for their licences?

 

Or steel boats pay higher fees?

 

GRP and wood do a lot less damage to the infrastructure than steel boats do when they ram stone or brick or concrete structures ...

 

 

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That's interesting. I have 3 boats with CRT licenses and one with a gold license but I never heard anything about getting an extra month for free on any of them. 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/safety-on-our-waterways/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-boating-faqs

 

Is there going to be any reduction in licence fees?

We recognise that due to the national lockdown boats have not been able to move for some time so, in recognition of the severe restrictions on boating, we have extended leisure boat licences by one month at no cost to boaters.

 

Do I need to do anything now?

No, we’ll automatically extend all licences.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by TheBiscuits
spellink

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That's interesting. I have 3 boats with CRT licenses and one with a gold license but I never heard anything about getting an extra month for free on any of them. 

Have you renewed any licenced since April ?

[magnetman]

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

Have you renewed any licenced since April ?

No they are all 1st January as have been on gold licenses previously which resets the renewal date to 1st January due to that being the renewal date for Environment Agency registrations. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by magnetman

[matty40s]

4 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That's interesting. I have 3 boats with CRT licenses and one with a gold license but I never heard anything about getting an extra month for free on any of them. 

 

 

The Gold licence does not come under this umbrella.

[magnetman]

Just now, matty40s said:

The Gold licence does not come under this umbrella.

I would not expect it to but interested in the CRT ones which include two ordinary licenses and one a CRT river registration (erroneously described by CRT as a "Rivers only license" when they don't actually have the power to license use of PRN river waterways). 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by magnetman

[Mike Todd]

7 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

The important thing about visitor numbers is that they have fallen from the 400,000,000 quoted some years ago. However, as CRT are now estimating by a different method look out for a claim of around 1,000,000,000 in the next annual report.

CRT has failed to publish information required by its grant agreement this year. This 'publication data' must be published by 1 July at the latest.

 

With regard to infrastructure failures, a couple of years ago I wrote a program that analysed CRT's 'stoppage database'. In 2017/18 we suffered 2482 days of unplanned closures. CRT's KPI (which excludes stoppages the Trust deems to be outside its control) gives a figure of 490 days. 

The 'outside our control' was allowing the trust to under report days lost by 80%.

One might have expected various boating organisations to pick up on this as it is an indicator of the general condition of the waterways.

 

You may well be right, but what is your solution?

[Alan de Enfield]

10 minutes ago, magnetman said:

No they are all 1st January as have been on gold licenses previously which resets the renewal date to 1st January due to that being the renewal date for Environment Agency registrations. 

You may find they 'give' you an extra month when you come to renew, or the 'offer' may be withdrawn by then.

 

It was offered as a 'refund' because boaters have been unable to use their boats for a couple of months.

[Alan de Enfield]

9 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

You may well be right, but what is your solution?

 

If the B Member is not happy that C&RT are operating correctly and meeting the requirements of the Articles of Association, he can 'sack' C&RT and hand the assets to another charity.

 

 

 

 

28.1 There shall be two classes of Members, as follows:
28.1.1 “A Members” shall be those individuals who serve on the Council, appointed in accordance with Article 29 and the Rules, and collectively the A Members shall be known as the Council.
28.1.2 The “B Member” who shall be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

 

 

 

30. The B Member
30.1 Subject to Article 30.2, the B Member shall have the Special Powers prescribed in Article 30.4.

Invoking the Special Powers
30.2 The Special Powers may only be exercised by the B Member if they have been brought into effect as follows:
30.2.1 circumstances have arisen such that the B Member has become entitled to serve written notice on the Trust terminating its trusteeship of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust pursuant to the terms of the Trust Settlement (whether or not the B Member intends to, or does, serve such notice of termination of trusteeship on the Trust); and
30.2.2 the B Member has notified the Trust in writing of such circumstances and that the Special Powers are being brought into effect by the B Member.

Suspending the Special Powers
30.3 If the Special Powers have been brought into effect pursuant to Article 30.2 and the circumstances which led to the Special Powers being brought into effect are considered by the B Member to cease to exist, the B Member may determine that the Special Powers are no longer to be in effect, and shall notify the Trust in writing accordingly. The B Member shall have due regard to any request from the Trust that the Special Powers should cease to have effect pursuant to this Article 30.3. If the Special Powers cease to have effect pursuant to this Article 30.3 this shall not prevent the B Member from invoking the Special Powers again on future occasions in accordance with Article 30.2.

Exercise of the Special Powers
30.4 The Special Powers are as follows:
30.4.1 the B Member may remove any or all of the Trustees of the Trust and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the Trustee Replacement Power”);
30.4.2 the B Member may remove any or all of the A Members and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the A Member Replacement Power”); and
30.4.3 the B Member may direct that the Protected Assets (subject to attendant liabilities) shall be transferred to another institution which is regarded as charitable under the law of England and Wales with objects compatible with those of the Trust or to be held upon trust for the objects of the Trust by a person or institution which has been appointed as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust on such terms as the B Member thinks fit (subject to the requirements of charity law) (“the Transfer of Assets Power”).

30.5 The B Member may exercise the Trustee Replacement Power at any time once the Special Powers have been brought into effect pursuant to Article 30.2. In addition the B Member may exercise either the A Member Replacement Power or the Transfer of Assets Power, but he or she shall not be permitted to exercise both the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power simultaneously (as the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power are intended to provide alternative options for the B Member to facilitate the ongoing application of the Protected Assets in furtherance of the objects for the public benefit).

30.6 For the avoidance of doubt, the exercise of the Special Powers by the B Member shall not be subject to any rights or powers or require the consent of any of the A Members, but in determining whether the B member has become entitled to exercise the Special Powers or in exercising them, the B Member must act in the way that he or she reasonably and in good faith considers to best further the objects of the Trust for public benefit.