The future of our canals?

[jetzi]

I'll admit that I am someone who can't afford to live in a house and that's partly why I live on a boat. At the end of the day the license fee is ludicrously cheap when compared to things like basic services to a house (water, refuse, sewerage).

 

36 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I don't know why all of a sudden you all seem to want a social cleansing of the system? Because that's what you will achieve 

I in no way want to drive people off the waterways, and I resent that this is the argument against boaters paying their way.
 

What I want is for the canals to still exist and be navigable in 50 years time. That requires a LOT more money. So who should pay for it? Why not the people who directly benefit? Why should what is still primarily a hobby for the middle class be paid for out of tax money instead of the NHS, emergency services, social welfare?

 

18 minutes ago, IanD said:

many replies are basically saying "we want this (better maintenance) but we want somebody else to pay for it" -- because of history, heritage, people being made destitute, lifestyles being disrupted, pick a reason. There's no shame in admitting that, everybody would like somebody else to pay for what they want, but people should be honest enough to own up to this not just throw words like "heritage" into the argument.

This, exactly this.

 

 

11 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

You are clearly advocating driving the very people needed by CRT off the waterways.

As far as I can tell, CaRT doesn't need us at all? CaRT is subsidising us and would be better off if there were no boaters. That's the essential point that seems to be lost...

[IanD]

Just now, magpie patrick said:

But a significant slice of the benefit is to non boaters

 

30% increase in spend in the local economy by bankside visitors just because the canal is navigable - clearly those visitors are enjoying themselves more and businesses are benefiting

 

Between 60% and 80% of the economic value of a leisure waterway is from bankside visitors who wouldn't be there if it wasn't navigable

 

20% uplift in residential property values just because the canal is navigable

 

Non-navigable ditches don't have the same effect.

 

 

 

All this might be true for maybe 10% of the canal network. Unfortunately boaters (and nobody else) need the other 90% or it's not a network any more. Beeching again...

[peterboat]

6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Putting words nowhere.

 

Its obvious what will be the outcome, regardless of whether you can see that or not.

Yes I understand what you are saying.

 

You dont have to keep repeating it. I just dont agree with you.

 

My initial comments BTW did not just apply to liveaboards, it was a broader comment applied to all aspects of boating.

Very few of the boaters I know are livaboard and they are the ones I believe will walk like you I think Ian's and Alan's ideas will lose revenue not gain it

[jetzi]

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

But a significant slice of the benefit is to non boaters

 

30% increase in spend in the local economy by bankside visitors just because the canal is navigable - clearly those visitors are enjoying themselves more and businesses are benefiting

 

Between 60% and 80% of the economic value of a leisure waterway is from bankside visitors who wouldn't be there if it wasn't navigable

 

20% uplift in residential property values just because the canal is navigable

 

Non-navigable ditches don't have the same effect.

If this is all accurate, then I stand corrected. Can a fair payment model take this into account?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

So I'll ask again -- what is your solution?

 

One that actually works in the real world, not in cloud-cuckoo land where you can sit under a money tree? One which gives CaRT a big enough increase in income (say 25%) to actually address the maintenance backlog and keep the canal system in a decent state, not a perfectly glossy one where the col is whitewashed?

 

You're doing the usual thing of poo-pooing any proposed fix to a difficult problem -- because no fix is perfect, and pooing is easy -- without coming up with anything better, which is difficult.

 

Over to you... ?

Are you being a bit dim? Thats a question not an accusation BTW

 

I've offered my proposed solution.

 

You dont agree or accept it.

 

I can live with your rejection of my proposed soltion.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

You dont have to keep repeating it. I just dont agree with you.

You are the one that keeps putting unsubstantiated 'one liners' into your posts, 

You have a habit of asking for people to justify their posts, so :

 

I'll ask you : "Why do you believe that C&RT NEED people who cannot afford to pay more for their licence ?"

 

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

I'll admit that I am someone who can't afford to live in a house and that's partly why I live on a boat. At the end of the day the license fee is ludicrously cheap when compared to things like basic services to a house (water, refuse, sewerage).

 

I in no way want to drive people off the waterways, and I resent that this is the argument against boaters paying their way.
 

What I want is for the canals to still exist and be navigable in 50 years time. That requires a LOT more money. So who should pay for it? Why not the people who directly benefit? Why should what is still primarily a hobby for the middle class be paid for out of tax money instead of the NHS, emergency services, social welfare?

 

This, exactly this.

 

 

As far as I can tell, CaRT doesn't need us at all? CaRT is subsidising us and would be better off if there were no boaters. That's the essential point that seems to be lost...

Nobody will benefit because boater numbers will fall along with marinas 

[magnetman]

Its pretty obvious there will be a cash crunch at some point so who should pay for this?

 

Very odd to suggest that people who have no interest in the infrastructure should pay. 

 

I could perhaps refer to my regents canal advert as an example.

 

2015 was a while ago but the writing has been on the wall for ages

 

 

http://vi.raptor.ebaydesc.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemDescV4&item=321792657401&category=69834&pm=1&ds=0&t=1435762124000&ver=0&cspheader=1

 

I'm quite pleased to see they retained this

[IanD]

Just now, peterboat said:

Very few of the boaters I know are livaboard and they are the ones I believe will walk like you I think Ian's and Alan's ideas will lose revenue not gain it

I disagree, it would take more than 60% of boaters to leave the canals to make this happen, and I don't think this will be triggered by 30 quid a week higher license fee -- as Ivan&Alice said, it's still dirt cheap compared to living on land, so where are they going to go? And if they really can't afford it they wouldn't have to pay -- I keep repeating this again and again and it keeps getting ignored, I'm starting to get really annoyed by people who seem unable to read... ?

 

Do you have a better idea? I don't like all the implications of what I've suggested either, but I'm buggered if I can find a better solution -- can you?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

I'll admit that I am someone who can't afford to live in a house and that's partly why I live on a boat. At the end of the day the license fee is ludicrously cheap when compared to things like basic services to a house (water, refuse, sewerage).

 

I in no way want to drive people off the waterways, and I resent that this is the argument against boaters paying their way.
 

What I want is for the canals to still exist and be navigable in 50 years time. That requires a LOT more money. So who should pay for it? Why not the people who directly benefit? Why should what is still primarily a hobby for the middle class be paid for out of tax money instead of the NHS, emergency services, social welfare?

 

This, exactly this.

 

 

As far as I can tell, CaRT doesn't need us at all? CaRT is subsidising us and would be better off if there were no boaters. That's the essential point that seems to be lost...

Boats are what the people come to see. Gongoozlers dont come to stand and stare at an empty lock.

 

There is an argument that boaters should charge an appearance fee! (That was a joke for anybody who might have a SOHF)

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Nobody will benefit because boater numbers will fall along with marinas 

And your solution is... ?

Just now, The Happy Nomad said:

Boats are what the people come to see. Gongoozlers dont come to stand and stare at an empty lock.

 

There is an argument that boaters should charge an appearance fee! (That was a joke for anybody who might have a SOHF)

People come to see boaters in 10% of the network, The other 90% can go, because only boaters use it. Beeching...

[magpie patrick]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

All this might be true for maybe 10% of the canal network. Unfortunately boaters (and nobody else) need the other 90% or it's not a network any more. Beeching again...

Actually it's true for large sections of canal - the figures aren't based on honey pot locations but on whole canals or sections of the network

 

Arguably some sections are being carried - there was no obvious loss of benefit when the last half mile of the Wednesbury Old Canal disappeared under the Black Country Relief Road, but there's not much where that's true.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are the one that keeps putting unsubstantiated 'one liners' into your posts, 

You have a habit of asking for people to justify their posts, so :

 

I'll ask you : "Why do you believe that C&RT NEED people who cannot afford to pay more for their licence ?"

 

Where do I say that?

 

You are distorting my words to try and suit your narrative.

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Nobody will benefit because boater numbers will fall along with marinas 

Where will they go? Especially if the ones who really can't afford it don't have to pay, just like it should work on land...

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

People come to see boaters in 10% of the network, The other 90% can go, because only boaters use it. Beeching...

Really. Can you evidence that?

[IanD]

Just now, magpie patrick said:

Actually it's true for large sections of canal - the figures aren't based on honey pot locations but on whole canals or sections of the network

 

Arguably some sections are being carried - there was no obvious loss of benefit when the last half mile of the Wednesbury Old Canal disappeared under the Black Country Relief Road, but there's not much where that's true.

You've travelled on the canals widely, haven't you? Then you'd be well aware that honey pot locations account for almost all the tourist/public interest/footfall in canals. Just because CaRT lump the whole of the Llangollen Canal into one income bucket doesn't change the fact that most interest and footfall is in half a dozen spots, on the rest you're lucky to see the occasional walker.

[magnetman]

It would be quite funny to see the second hand boat market implode if license fees were hiked up. 

 

On the subject of license fees. Are CRT actually allowed to raise the fees "unreasonably". 

 

I seem to think that it is not something they are legally authorised to do. Could be wrong on that it would be worth knowing..

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Really. Can you evidence that?

Have you actually travelled on much of the canal network, or do you just sit in one spot or popular small area?

 

I've travelled over more than 80% of the English canal network and I'd put money on the 10%/90% split overall, based on the evidence of the Mk.1 eyeball. Some popular stretches are much higher, but some unpopular waterways wouldn't get close to 10%. This is exactly what you'd expect for exactly the same reason as the railways before Beeching...

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Where do I say that?

 

You are distorting my words to try and suit your narrative.

 

 

 

 

Not at all - maybe you could explain then who "C&RT need" who would be "driven off the waterways" if the licence fee increased ?

[magpie patrick]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

You've travelled on the canals widely, haven't you? Then you'd be well aware that honey pot locations account for almost all the tourist/public interest/footfall in canals. Just because CaRT lump the whole of the Llangollen Canal into one income bucket doesn't change the fact that most interest and footfall is in half a dozen spots, on the rest you're lucky to see the occasional walker.

I've cruised most of the system - I'm also running a business that advises on tourism and visitor economics and is regularly commissioned to evaluate the benefits (or otherwise) or canals, rivers, steam railways etc

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Have you actually travelled on much of the canal network, or do you just sit in one spot or popular small area?

 

I've travelled over more than 80% of the English canal network and I'd put money on the 10%/90% split overall, based on the evidence of the Mk.1 eyeball. Some popular stretches are much higher, but some unpopular waterways wouldn't get close to 10%. This is exactly what you'd expect for exactly the same reason as the railways before Beeching...

To your first question.

 

Yes.

 

To your second point. Thanks for confirming your figure was merely a speculative one.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

It would be quite funny to see the second hand boat market implode if license fees were hiked up. 

 

On the subject of license fees. Are CRT actually allowed to raise the fees "unreasonably". 

 

I seem to think that it is not something they are legally authorised to do. Could be wrong on that it would be worth knowing..

What is "unreasonable"? If lots of boaters say "We want maintenance to be done properly" and CaRT say "We need 50M a year to do that, here;s the bill", how is that unreasonable?

 

Or if people don't want to pay more, stop whining about how badly maintained the network is and it's all going to pot and it wasn't like this in the old days and it's all CaRT's fault. No it isn't, it's your fault for having short arms and deep pockets...

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Not at all - maybe you could explain then who "C&RT need" who would be "driven off the waterways" if the licence fee increased ?

Yes you are distorting my words, you appear to have a bit of a track record for it I'm informed.

[IanD]

Just now, The Happy Nomad said:

To your first question.

 

Yes.

 

To your second point. Thanks for confirming your figure was merely a speculative one.

Yes it's speculative. It's based on looking at where people are on the canals. If you looked, I expect you'd see the same thing.. ?

 

[does anyone else think that all the activity is equally spread over the network?]

[magnetman]

Just now, IanD said:

What is "unreasonable"? If lots of boaters say "We want maintenance to be done properly" and CaRT say "We need 50M a year to do that, here;s the bill", how is that unreasonable?

 

Or if people don't want to pay more, stop whining about how badly maintained the network is and it's all going to pot and it wasn't like this in the old days and it's all CaRT's fault. No it isn't, it's your fault for having short arms and deep pockets...

I agree that license fees need to increase in a big way but for some reason, subject to confirmation from someone more knowledgeable, I don't think CRT are in a position to do this.