The future of our canals?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Can you explain the "non-operational assets" comment?

 

I will try ....

Historically, BW had two types of assets. Operational assets were those concerned with discharging BW's legal responsibility as a navigation authority. Think canals, reservoirs, embankments, cuttings, locks, bridges, culverts, maintenance yards and buildings. Operational assets were used generate income. Think licence fees, mooring fees, water supply, drainage, pipes under towpaths etc.

 

In addition BW had assets that were non-operational in nature - mostly land and property surplus to operational requirements. Again these assets were used to generate income.

 

Since about 2002, BW told government that it could develop its non-operational property income such that its need for goverment grant would diminish.

 

When BW became CRT, both operational assets and non-operational assets valued at £460m were transferred. Part of the deal was that the value of those assets should not diminish over time. Indeed, Defra's objective over the 15 years of the grant agreement is that income from non-operational assets together with income from charitable giving will reduce or eradicate the need for grant.

 

The point I was trying to make was that CRT has almost doubled the value of the non-operational assets given to it. Bearing in mind its agreement with Defra, it could have converted hundreds of millions into cash to tackle its maintenance backlog.

 

 

 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I will try ....

Historically, BW had two types of assets. Operational assets were those concerned with discharging BW's legal responsibility as a navigation authority. Think canals, reservoirs, embankments, cuttings, locks, bridges, culverts, maintenance yards and buildings. Operational assets were used generate income. Think licence fees, mooring fees, water supply, drainage, pipes under towpaths etc.

 

In addition BW had assets that were non-operational in nature - mostly land and property surplus to operational requirements. Again these assets were used to generate income.

 

Since about 2002, BW told government that it could develop its non-operational property income such that its need for goverment grant would diminish.

 

When BW became CRT, both operational assets and non-operational assets valued at £460m were transferred. Part of the deal was that the value of those assets should not diminish over time. Indeed, Defra's objective over the 15 years of the grant agreement is that income from non-operational assets together with income from charitable giving will reduce or eradicate the need for grant.

 

The point I was trying to make was that CRT has almost doubled the value of the non-operational assets given to it. Bearing in mind its agreement with Defra, it could have converted hundreds of millions into cash to tackle its maintenance backlog.

 

 

 

So these assets are a good thing, it's just that CaRT are not extracting revenue from them to feed back into the network?

 

Either way, they're a positive thing in addition to operational assets, not a bad idea which was the original implication...

[Tony Brooks]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Let me just check that I've understood the argument against CaRT increasing the annual license fee to pay for much-needed canal maintenance...

 

-- CaRT doesn't spend enough on canal maintenance and hasn't for many years

-- this is causing the system to deteriorate and we don't want this to continue (or get worse)

-- we like paying a tiny amount to cruise/live on the canals just like we have for many years, it's a really cheap way to live innit

-- we don't want to pay more 'cos it's not fair and some people couldn't afford it (and/or don't want to / can't ask welfare to pay)

-- so somebody else (e.g. walkers, cyclists, Joe Public) should cough up, not us, even though we get by far the biggest benefit from the canals

 

Is that right? Really?

 

Boat license fees are currently in the region of £1000 which is £20 a week. To increase the overall CRT budget by 25% (£50M) -- probably what is needed make a big enough difference to fix the problem -- it would need to increase to about £2500 which is £50 a week. For what this gets you and compared to the other costs of buying/running a boat -- and certainly compared to the costs of living on land -- this is an increase from ludicrously cheap to very cheap...

 

CaRT wouldn't be able to make such a big change overnight anyway because they don't have the maintenance staff or equipment to suddenly use up another £50M a year, this would have to be built up over maybe 5 years -- and it would be better value to do this in-house instead of subcontracting it, that way money isn't creamed off to service company shareholders and CaRT build up a skilled workforce who maybe even care about the canals a bit.

 

So the fee might go up by about £300 a year for 5 years, by which time we could have a properly maintained canal system that works in the long term. This increase is gradual enough that it wouldn't immediately throw people out onto the street, and if it makes them change their lifestyle it gives enough time to do it.

 

Could anybody who really loves the canals -- presumably, most people on this forum -- honestly object to this? ?

 

CaRT receive a grant from the government and this is (hopefully) pad by all tax payers. Then boaters individually pay a further "tax" ass their license fee so boaters and, to an extent I have not been able to work out, anglers pay twice while the cyclists and walkers only pay their tax. If we had an equitable funding system for CaRT ALL users of the system would pay twice, not just boaters and anglers. In fact many boaters pay three times with the third time being the access charger the marinas recover from boaters.

 

I no longer have a horse in this race because for a variety of reasons including the apparent decline in the system and the likelihood of swinging license fee increases the boat is sold but if you think most boaters can afford £2500 a year license fees plus a similar or larger amount for a mooring then I have no idea what planet you are on. Your idea will certainly gentrify the canals and remove a lot of cruising liveaboards. I suspect it may have a negative effect on income from boaters and associated businesses.

 

Taxation and pseudo taxation like the CaRT license fee should be fair and equitable so by that score walkers and cyclists shoudl pay. If the government feels it is in the national interest for them not to then the government needs to make up the difference rather than load it onto one or arguably two groups of users.

[Guest]

Nicely put Mr. Brooks.

 

[Midnight]

3 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

CaRT receive a grant from the government and this is (hopefully) pad by all tax payers. Then boaters individually pay a further "tax" ass their license fee so boaters and, to an extent I have not been able to work out, anglers pay twice while the cyclists and walkers only pay their tax. If we had an equitable funding system for CaRT ALL users of the system would pay twice, not just boaters and anglers. In fact many boaters pay three times with the third time being the access charger the marinas recover from boaters.

 

I no longer have a horse in this race because for a variety of reasons including the apparent decline in the system and the likelihood of swinging license fee increases the boat is sold but if you think most boaters can afford £2500 a year license fees plus a similar or larger amount for a mooring then I have no idea what planet you are on. Your idea will certainly gentrify the canals and remove a lot of cruising liveaboards. I suspect it may have a negative effect on income from boaters and associated businesses.

 

Taxation and pseudo taxation like the CaRT license fee should be fair and equitable so by that score walkers and cyclists shoudl pay. If the government feels it is in the national interest for them not to then the government needs to make up the difference rather than load it onto one or arguably two groups of users.

Can't see a viable way to charge walkers and cyclists. Maybe indirectly by leasing towpaths to local authorities but they are strapped for cash too.

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

CaRT receive a grant from the government and this is (hopefully) pad by all tax payers. Then boaters individually pay a further "tax" ass their license fee so boaters and, to an extent I have not been able to work out, anglers pay twice while the cyclists and walkers only pay their tax. If we had an equitable funding system for CaRT ALL users of the system would pay twice, not just boaters and anglers. In fact many boaters pay three times with the third time being the access charger the marinas recover from boaters.

 

I no longer have a horse in this race because for a variety of reasons including the apparent decline in the system and the likelihood of swinging license fee increases the boat is sold but if you think most boaters can afford £2500 a year license fees plus a similar or larger amount for a mooring then I have no idea what planet you are on. Your idea will certainly gentrify the canals and remove a lot of cruising liveaboards. I suspect it may have a negative effect on income from boaters and associated businesses.

 

Taxation and pseudo taxation like the CaRT license fee should be fair and equitable so by that score walkers and cyclists shoudl pay. If the government feels it is in the national interest for them not to then the government needs to make up the difference rather than load it onto one or arguably two groups of users.

I didn't say there wouldn't be any negative impact in liveaboards; my point is that the historically low license fees do not pay for the cost of providing the canals and utilities to such boaters, they've been getting a "free ride" by underpaying for what they get. Yes this means a lot of people have adopted this lifestyle because it's dirt cheap, a lot cheaper than living on land -- but it shouldn't have been. If the raised license fee moves the cost higher towards landside costs and they can't afford it, the solution is exactly the same as people who can't afford rent -- they have to justify it to the welfare system who then pay it because it's cheaper than making them homeless. But this only applies to the people who genuinely can't afford it, those who can (but would whinge about the higher cost) pay the higher fee to cover the cost of providing the canals they use.

 

This is exactly the same position as for people who live onshore. The genuinely poor will still have a place (boat) to live and won't be forced off the system, but the freeloaders who can afford it will have to pay (a little bit) more. Why should the canals be any different?

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

47 minutes ago, IanD said:

And if things like the residential schemes make more profit for CaRT to invest back into the canals, what's the problem?

 

It's not an either/or, CaRT can raise money to invest in things like property which bring in a return from sources which wouldn't directly fund maintenance.

 

So long as they do this sensibly it provides more revenue for the canals, not less. It's only if they do what some councils have done and borrow vast amounts to fund speculative developments and office space that it could all go wrong, but I don't see any evidence of them doing this.

CRT has always borrowed money. Indeed, it inherited some of BW's debts (others were paid off by Defra). Current debt is £150m which was used to pay off old debts and invest in non-operational assets.

Bearing in mind the current volatile nature of money markets, it remains to be seen if that was wise

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

CRT has always borrowed money. Indeed, it inherited some of BW's debts (others were paid off by Defra). Current debt is £150m which was used to pay off old debts and invest in non-operational assets.

Bearing in mind the current volatile nature of money markets, it remains to be seen if that was wise

 

 

My point is that CaRT investing less in non-operational assets -- which seemed to be what you were suggesting they should do -- would probably mean they would have less cash to spend on the network (operational assets), not more.

[Tony Brooks]

2 minutes ago, Midnight said:

Can't see a viable way to charge walkers and cyclists. Maybe indirectly by leasing towpaths to local authorities but they are strapped for cash too.

I agree but that is a result of people taking the easy way out over very many years. Remember there used to be  cycle license scheme on some canals and some notices to that effect still exist. The problem is with enforcement but that is like everything now. If it can't be realistically enforced and f the government feels the canals are worth preserving then the answer is clear. it is also clear if they don't think canals are worth preserving.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Why should the canals be any different?

Why shouldn’t the canals be different?

 

 

[IanD]

9 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Why shouldn’t the canals be different?

 

 

Because being different the way they are now doesn't work, there isn't enough money to maintain the system.

 

Where do you suggest this ought to come from?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Where do you suggest this ought to come from?

I we work on the principle of "user to pay" then there are two main possibilities for getting more money by boaters :

 

1) Increase the existing fees (which seems to be unpopular), or

2) Reduce the fees by (say) 25% and encourage 50% more boaters onto the waterways.

 

There are all sorts of schemes to encourage new boaters by offering 1st year 'special discounts', or for long term boaters 'loyalty discounts'.

 

The obvious income stream would be for those currently not paying, or paying very little (walkers, cyclists, canoeists, etc etc) but that is not practical as there is no way to stop access, or to enforce the requirements.

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

I agree but that is a result of people taking the easy way out over very many years. Remember there used to be  cycle license scheme on some canals and some notices to that effect still exist. The problem is with enforcement but that is like everything now. If it can't be realistically enforced and f the government feels the canals are worth preserving then the answer is clear. it is also clear if they don't think canals are worth preserving.

Extracting money needs a way of identifying those who should pay and a means of charging them and punishing those who fail to pay. This usually means having an easily identified and tracked asset -- house, boat, car -- which belongs to somebody responsible for paying the costs associated with it, or controlled access to the thing that needs paying for.

 

Doesn't work for pedestrians, fisherman and bicycles on the canals unless you install toll gates at every entrance or CCTV everywhere (which doesn't identify people reliably) or employ thousands of toll collectors -- which would cost more than the fees collected.

 

Boaters (like motorists and householders) are an easy and cheaply enforceable target for extracting money from -- and if this is used to pay for things they use like canals, roads, and utilities, most people would say this is a fair "tax" to pay.

 

The alternative is to fund it out of general taxation (local or national) which everyone pays for regardless of whether they make use of it or not. This is easy to justify for things like the NHS, emergency services, councils and council services, which benefit pretty much everybody. It's more difficult to justify for the canals, no matter how much you like them, where the main benefit of a relatively costly asset is to a small number of people -- me included, but just because I love the canals and want to use them doesn't mean that the cost of this should be borne by everybody else who doesn't.

 

There is justification for some of the maintenance cost being borne this way as a "national asset", especially for tourist areas and attractive things like big aqueducts. But this is a small fraction of the total cost; tourists aren't going to pay for dredging the Curley Wyrley or fixing the locks on the HNC, and it's mundane stuff like this that eats most of the money.

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I we work on the principle of "user to pay" then there are two main possibilities for getting more money by boaters :

 

1) Increase the existing fees (which seems to be unpopular), or

2) Reduce the fees by (say) 25% and encourage 50% more boaters onto the waterways.

 

There are all sorts of schemes to encourage new boaters by offering 1st year 'special discounts', or for long term boaters 'loyalty discounts'.

 

The obvious income stream would be for those currently not paying, or paying very little (walkers, cyclists, canoeists, etc etc) but that is not practical as there is no way to stop access, or to enforce the requirements.

"Reduce the fees and more people will come" is very often proposed when people don't want to pay more, and very rarely works. If the demand was there people would come anyway, it's very hard to suddenly find 50% more people to do something like living on the canals, those who want to can do it already -- and where would they moor? ?

 

Discounts to some sections of the user base simply mean all the non-discounted ones have to pay more, it;s like mobile phone contracts or insurance.

 

I agree 100% with you about the problems of extracting money from walkers/cyclists/canoists -- firstly the logistics of doing it, secondly that much of the demand is elastic -- charge people to walk or cycle on the towpath and they'll go elsewhere because there are alternatives.

 

Canal boaters are a fixed and visible target because they're easy to find and charge and there isn't an alternative they can boat on...

 

In the end there are really only two ways for CaRT to get a lot more money to fix the system -- charge boaters more (many boaters obviously don't like this idea), or get more money from government funds (many non-boaters won't like paying more tax). Basically, should 30 thousand boaters be subsidised by the other 30 million UK taxpayers, or pay more towards the canals they use?

 

This is the unpleasant truth that many boaters simply don't want to face up to... ?

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Canal boaters are a fixed and visible target because they're easy to find and charge and there isn't an alternative they can boat on...

There are options, and the costs are potentially much lower than having a boat on C&RT waters.

We decided at the back-end of last year to do just that - increasing costs and 'cruising difficulties' (never knowing if you'd get back or be stuck for weeks) was the straw that 'broke the camels back'.

 

The problem would be that the NB owners would have to sell up and buy 'boats' and, not having a 'home mooring' would become more challenging.

You pay for convenience.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

"Reduce the fees and more people will come" is very often proposed when people don't want to pay more, and very rarely works. If the demand was there people would come anyway, it's very hard to suddenly find 50% more people to do something like living on the canals, those who want to can do it already -- and where would they moor? ?

 

Discounts to some sections of the user base simply mean all the non-discounted ones have to pay more, it;s like mobile phone contracts or insurance.

 

I agree 100% with you about the problems of extracting money from walkers/cyclists/canoists -- firstly the logistics of doing it, secondly that much of the demand is elastic -- charge people to walk or cycle on the towpath and they'll go elsewhere because there are alternatives.

 

Canal boaters are a fixed and visible target because they're easy to find and charge and there isn't an alternative they can boat on...

 

In the end there are really only two ways for CaRT to get a lot more money to fix the system -- charge boaters more (many boaters obviously don't like this idea), or get more money from government funds (many non-boaters won't like paying more tax). Basically, should 30 thousand people be subsidised by the other 30 million, or pay more towards the canals they use?

 

This is the truth that many boaters simply don't want to face up to... ?

Extracting money from walkers/cyclists is not an option. A condition of grant funding is that CRT provide free access.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

There are options, and the costs are potentially much lower than having a boat on C&RT waters.

We decided at the back-end of last year to do just that - increasing costs and 'cruising difficulties' (never knowing if you'd get back or be stuck for weeks) was the straw that 'broke the camels back'.

 

The problem would be that the NB owners would have to sell up and buy 'boats' and, not having a 'home mooring' would become more challenging.

You pay for convenience.

All fine if you don't mind moving onto maritime waters or non-CaRT rivers, but this won't work for the vast majority of boaters (who don't have a catamaran) even if it does for you ?

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, IanD said:

All fine if you don't mind moving onto maritime waters or non-CaRT rivers, but this won't work for the vast majority of boaters (who don't have a catamaran) even if it does for you ?

Yes, I have a Cat and that's for blue water cruising, but I also have a Cruiser for 'coastal cruising'.

It may not work for the 'vast majority' of boaters on this Forum, but it certainly works for 250,000+ other boaters.

 

There are 80,000+ boats on UK 'inland waterways' and only 30,000 are on C&RT waters, so again, a majority of inland waterway users of not stuck with C&RT.

There are 21 Inland Waterways navigation authorities, yes C&RT have some 45% of the waterways, but they are by no means the only 'game in town'.

 

I'm simply pointing out that rather than moaning, it is not difficult to find alternatives if you want to.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Yes, I have a Cat and that's for blue water cruising, but I also have a Cruiser for 'coastal cruising'.

It may not work for the 'vast majority' of boaters on this Forum, but it certainly works for 250,000+ other boaters.

 

There are 80,000+ boats on UK 'inland waterways' and only 30,000 are on C&RT waters, so again, a majority of inland waterway users of not stuck with C&RT.

There are 21 Inland Waterways navigation authorities, yes C&RT have some 45% of the waterways, but they are by no means the only 'game in town'.

 

I'm simply pointing out that rather than moaning, it is not difficult to find alternatives if you want to.

Of course if you *want* to stay on the canals rather than rivers -- which many *canal* boaters do, either because they love them or for location -- this doesn't work either...

[Midnight]

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

In the end there are really only two ways for CaRT to get a lot more money to fix the system -- charge boaters more (many boaters obviously don't like this idea), ...........................

 

This is the unpleasant truth that many boaters simply don't want to face up to... ?

I wonder if boaters generally would be prepared to pay more (say 50%) if it was guaranteed the additional VAT (vear and tear) charge was spent on maintaining the system. Having said that the main issue with maintenance is the length of time it now takes to get something fixed.  As someone already posted that would require CaRT to rethink the contracting-out policy and bring the jobs in-house again; and that would mean re-developing skills and employing more bank staff. It would also require a rethink of the 'don't fix it until it's completely broken' policy.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, Midnight said:

Who with any teeth represent us?
Apart from the NBTA I don't hear any loud voices, and the NBTA don't represent the majority of boaters.

Well done Allan(nb Albert) you certainly seem ask the questions that aren't being asked by our so called 'representatives'

I can send you some dentures ...

[Midnight]

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I can send you some dentures ...

Probably a better option than what we already don't have

 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Midnight said:

I wonder if boaters generally would be prepared to pay more (say 50%) if it was guaranteed the additional VAT (vear and tear) charge was spent on maintaining the system. Having said that the main issue with maintenance is the length of time it now takes to get something fixed.  As someone already posted that would require CaRT to rethink the contracting-out policy and bring the jobs in-house again; and that would mean re-developing skills and employing more bank staff. It would also require a rethink of the 'don't fix it until it's completely broken' policy.

The length of time to fix things and "don't fix it until it's completely broken" are both probably consequences of underfunding, not helped by outsourcing and lack of skills.

 

50% more on the license fee is no way enough to make a difference, however much people would like this to be true; to really sort out the canals something closer to 150% is needed, for the reasons I explained (or the same amount of money from taxes). Just look at the numbers, the system needs more than a drop in the bucket...

 

The other way of looking at it is that boater license fees have only being paying about 40% of the real cost of the benefit they've been getting -- that's how big the gap is ?

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[magpie patrick]

49 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I we work on the principle of "user to pay" ...

Defining user as"boater" doesn't work though

 

Towpath walker? Resident with canal view? Pub with canalside patio? 

 

The fact they can't be made to pay doesn't mean they're not getting a benefit from a navigable waterway. Why should the boater pay all the cost of others also benefit? 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

1 minute ago, magpie patrick said:

Defining user as"boater" doesn't work though

 

Towpath walker? Resident with canal view? Pub with canalside patio? 

 

The fact they can't be made to pay doesn't mean they're not getting a benefit from a navigable waterway. Why should the boater pay all the cost of others also benefit? 

Greenie