Jump to content

The future of our canals?


Featured Posts

1 minute ago, IanD said:

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?]

Somebody else who distorts what is said to suit a narrative.

 

At no point did I suggest anything was spread equally anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

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

And those same numbers look at each waterway as a whole. Anyone cruising the network can see that even ignoring differences between waterways (which are huge), the activity is very unevenly spread even on one waterway. Nobody's denying the overall benefit, but to say that it's evenly spread goes against any cursory observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 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)

I bet the average gongoozler would be just as happy with a residential boat going through a lock as they would with a £100k restored hysteric shiny boat with a Bollinger engine in it ;)

 

Maybe the hysteric with the hit n miss thing and brass bits would be even more popular. If they didn't get moaned at for travelling past boats moored to a pair of knitting needles at 3mph there might be more of them !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Somebody else who distorts what is said to suit a narrative.

 

At no point did I suggest anything was spread equally anywhere.

So what's your estimate, having cast doubt on mine? As I said that 10%/90% figure is an informed guesstimate, but it wouldn't matter if it was 20%/80%, all that means is that we'd risk losing the majority of the network instead of the vast majority. It's obvious that most of the network is basically there for the benefit of boaters, most of the public only ever see a tiny part of it. Denying this is denying reality...

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like since we are all boaters we could probably find some common ground in this discussion, and I feel like it is getting a little on the personal side which doesn't seem necessary. And I feel like we're saying the same things over and over again.

 

Can we all at least agree that CaRT needs multi millions more in order to keep the waterways alive for another generation or two? And that we'd all like to see that happen?

It might well need to come from multiple sources - maybe a bit from a modest boat license increase, maybe a bit from local authorities whose economies benefit from big spending gongoozlers, maybe a bit from the average taxpayer.

But I think we can all agree that we'd like CaRT to have a lot more funding and for a lot more of their budget to go on maintaining navigation?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be worthwhile throwing in a conversation I had with BW/CRT marketing director, Simon Salem back in 2013. I asked him why CRT  was not targeting boaters to sign up as Friends. He told me it was because we paid more than enough already.

 

I should add that if anyone wants to pay more for a licence then they can become a Friend.

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been studies that have looked at licence fees and other ways of extracting money from boaters and others - obvious ones are mooring fees and marina connection charges for example. Demand is to some extent inelastic because a boat is a fixed asset that isn't easy to offload in a hurry, so in the short term you can get away with whopping great increases, but in the long term it doesn't work, because numbers do go down albeit gradually, and CRT (and others) already have a bit of a problem with boats that not only aren't licensed but won't be because of cost and BSS requirements - whack the charges up and 3 or 4 years down the line that problem will multiply. 

 

Given this cut-off (the curve of indifference) the benefit of big licence fee rises is questionable - if you whack up licence fees by 100%, and ten years later the number of boaters has reduced by half (I'm using these figures to make the maths easier) then you end up where you started in revenue terms but with fewer boaters - who has benefitted? Also fewer boaters means less spend by boaters means a contraction in canal related businesses with consequent job losses. 

 

What is needed is a funding model that recognises the economic benefit of the canals that the navigation authority can't capture. Charging boaters ever increasing amounts doesn't achieve this. 

11 minutes ago, IanD said:

And those same numbers look at each waterway as a whole. Anyone cruising the network can see that even ignoring differences between waterways (which are huge), the activity is very unevenly spread even on one waterway. Nobody's denying the overall benefit, but to say that it's evenly spread goes against any cursory observation.

Yes, but you don't the honeypot benefit without the network

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

So what's your estimate, having cast doubt on mine? As I said that 10%/90% figure is an informed guesstimate, but it wouldn't matter if it was 20%/80%, all that means is that we'd risk losing the majority of the network instead of the vast majority. It's obvious that most of the network is basically there for the benefit of boaters, most of the public only ever see a tiny part of it. Denying this is denying reality...

I dont have an estimate, but niether have I seriously conducted a survey that could provide one. 

 

I simply asked you what was your evidence, and you couldnt provide anything other than supposition. Fair enough.

 

But then niether did I suggest activity was equally spread either, which you went on to suggest I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 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.

 

 

 

Greenie 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

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

I would suggest you don't start bringing 'track record' into the discussion - you'd have a lot to answer for (under your previous forum name)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

There have been studies that have looked at licence fees and other ways of extracting money from boaters and others - obvious ones are mooring fees and marina connection charges for example. Demand is to some extent inelastic because a boat is a fixed asset that isn't easy to offload in a hurry, so in the short term you can get away with whopping great increases, but in the long term it doesn't work, because numbers do go down albeit gradually, and CRT (and others) already have a bit of a problem with boats that not only aren't licensed but won't be because of cost and BSS requirements - whack the charges up and 3 or 4 years down the line that problem will multiply. 

 

Given this cut-off (the curve of indifference) the benefit of big licence fee rises is questionable - if you whack up licence fees by 100%, and ten years later the number of boaters has reduced by half (I'm using these figures to make the maths easier) then you end up where you started in revenue terms but with fewer boaters - who has benefitted? Also fewer boaters means less spend by boaters means a contraction in canal related businesses with consequent job losses. 

 

What is needed is a funding model that recognises the economic benefit of the canals that the navigation authority can't capture. Charging boaters ever increasing amounts doesn't achieve this. 

Yes, but you don't the honeypot benefit without the network

 

And I'm done - you clearly don't want to listen

As I keep saying -- you don't like my solution, what's yours? One that might actually work? Where do CaRT get an extra 50M a year from? Come on, you've excluded everybody else's suggestions... ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I would suggest you don't start bringing 'track record' into the discussion - you'd have a lot to answer for (under your previous forum name)

Previous forum name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IanD said:

As I keep saying -- you don't like my solution, what's yours? One that might actually work? Where do CaRT get an extra 50M a year from? Come on, you've excluded everybody else's suggestions... ?

 

I'm saying you don't understand the issue -  it's not that I don't like your solution, it's that it won't work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are certainly some parts on my patch (River Trent) that are all the better for boats , both passing through and moored . If the locks were filled in and there were no boats it just wouldn't be the same.

We do sometimes feel part of the tourist attraction , often photographed and certainly often observed .

So I do agree with the thought noted earlier that the watercourse being navigable attracts visitors.  Most of the length of the river is free of observers but I don't see that as an issue.

 

Being on or near the water is good for wellbeing - I think we  would all agree to that (if not why go boating). 

The navigable waterways are one way or another  a benefit to the wellbeing of all. Those that don't take advantage of free access to experience the wellbeing are missing out .

 

Marinas also bring visitors (and boat owners) in and those people use local services which is good for the economy.

 

Therefore as boat owners we are contributing to the general wellbeing of the nation and the economy. So while  we, as boat owners, should pay a fee for using the watercourses we should only pay a contribution as we do now  - not the full cost of operating and maintaining the waterways. Discharge into and abstraction from watercourses is not free (as already mentioned). The balance should come out of the public purse in the same way that other public open spaces are funded.

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering where all these comfortable wide and narrow canal boats would go if license fees were increased. 

Perhaps they would evaporate. 

 

It seems unlikely. I reckon people would pay up even if you doubled the license fee overnight. 

 

After all if you are talking about the cost of living then normally residential accomodation costs money. Most people understand this and pay. Mortgage, rent or if you are lucky you have cash and buy it. 

 

Why would living on boats on ditches end up staying so cheap? I don't get it. 

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magpie patrick said:

I'm saying you don't understand the issue -  it's not that I don't like your solution, it's that it won't work

I do understand the issue. We disagree about how many people would leave the canals because those who can afford it (and not those who don't) are asked to pay an extra license fee of maybe 5% of the cost of renting a flat, which is what they'd have to do if they left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, magnetman said:

I'm wondering where all these comfortable wide and narrow canal boats would go if license fees were increased. 

Perhaps they would evaporate. 

 

It seems unlikely. I reckon people would pay up even if you doubled the license fee overnight. 

I have no doubt some will do, but some simply will give up. The double whammy will be plummeting boat values meaning they lose on the sale price too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

I'm wondering where all these comfortable wide and narrow canal boats would go if license fees were increased. 

Perhaps they would evaporate. 

 

It seems unlikely. I reckon people would pay up even if you doubled the license fee overnight. 

I think there would be a lot of defaulting - most boat owners (especially leisure boaters) can afford a boat but are not loaded - if they were they'd find another hobby 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

There have been studies that have looked at licence fees and other ways of extracting money from boaters and others - obvious ones are mooring fees and marina connection charges for example. Demand is to some extent inelastic because a boat is a fixed asset that isn't easy to offload in a hurry, so in the short term you can get away with whopping great increases, but in the long term it doesn't work, because numbers do go down albeit gradually, and CRT (and others) already have a bit of a problem with boats that not only aren't licensed but won't be because of cost and BSS requirements - whack the charges up and 3 or 4 years down the line that problem will multiply. 

 

Given this cut-off (the curve of indifference) the benefit of big licence fee rises is questionable - if you whack up licence fees by 100%, and ten years later the number of boaters has reduced by half (I'm using these figures to make the maths easier) then you end up where you started in revenue terms but with fewer boaters - who has benefitted? Also fewer boaters means less spend by boaters means a contraction in canal related businesses with consequent job losses. 

 

What is needed is a funding model that recognises the economic benefit of the canals that the navigation authority can't capture. Charging boaters ever increasing amounts doesn't achieve this. 

I recall a parliamentary committee suggesting licence fees were capped under CRT. BW argued against the need suggesting large increases would be self defeating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MartynG said:

There are certainly some parts on my patch (River Trent) that are all the better for boats , both passing through and moored . If the locks were filled in and there were no boats it just wouldn't be the same.

We do sometimes feel part of the tourist attraction , often photographed and certainly often observed .

So I do agree with the thought noted earlier that the watercourse being navigable attracts visitors.  Most of the length of the river is free of observers but I don't see that as an issue.

 

Being on or near the water is good for wellbeing - I think we  would all agree to that (if not why go boating). 

The navigable waterways are one way or another  a benefit to the wellbeing of all. Those that don't take advantage of free access to experience the wellbeing are missing out .

 

Marinas also bring visitors (and boat owners) in and those people use local services which is good for the economy.

 

Therefore as boat owners we are contributing to the general wellbeing of the nation and the economy. So while  we, as boat owners, should pay a fee for using the watercourses we should only pay a contribution as we do now  - not the full cost of operating and maintaining the waterways. Discharge into and abstraction from watercourses is not free (as already mentioned). The balance should come out of the public purse in the same way that other public open spaces are funded.

 

 

 

"Somebody else should pay for what I want to do"

 

You're not being asked to pay the entire cost, you're being asked to pay about a quarter. This seems reasonable to me, somebody else is paying for the other three quarters, and you get to live and travel on the result. Why is this such a bad deal, it's *far* better (and much cheaper) than the one anybody living on land gets?

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

I do understand the issue. We disagree about how many people would leave the canals because those who can afford it (and not those who don't) are asked to pay an extra license fee of maybe 5% of the cost of renting a flat, which is what they'd have to do if they left.

Someone once told me that the more boats you can get on the network the more money you get. 

 

This makes sense on a basic level in that taking license fee money is an easy option and the low cost of living on a boat on the cut will cause an increase in numbers. 

 

I think it's probably a flawed argument though. 

2 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I think there would be a lot of defaulting - most boat owners (especially leisure boaters) can afford a boat but are not loaded - if they were they'd find another hobby 

I'm sure that wealthy Russians would be quite happy to lose the "I have a Gardner and I like it" type boaters ;)

Edited by magnetman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'm wondering where all these comfortable wide and narrow canal boats would go if license fees were increased. 

Perhaps they would evaporate. 

 

It seems unlikely. I reckon people would pay up even if you doubled the license fee overnight. 

 

After all if you are talking about the cost of living then normally residential accomodation costs money. Most people understand this and pay. Mortgage, rent or if you are lucky you have cash and buy it. 

 

Why would living on boats on ditches end up staying so cheap? I don't get it. 

Might be in London Andrew but in other areas its not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

"Somebody else should pay for what I want to do"

 

You're not being asked to pay the entire cost, you're being asked to pay about a quarter. This seems reasonable to me, somebody else is paying for the other three quarters, and you get to live and travel on the result. Why is this such a bad deal, it's *far* better (and much cheaper) than the one anybody living on land gets?

But what happens when your theory goes wrong? When all we have is empty muddy ditches that cant be used because you got it wrong.  You live in London and think it's cheap somebody in Yorkshire on the bread line might disagree with you! I have a better plan all those that want to pay more do so via friends me I want a return on CRTs investments first

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, peterboat said:

But what happens when your theory goes wrong? When all we have is empty muddy ditches that cant be used because you got it wrong.  You live in London and think it's cheap somebody in Yorkshire on the bread line might disagree with you! I have a better plan all those that want to pay more do so via friends me I want a return on CRTs investments first

If you choose to basically ignore everything I've said and raise your usual rich Londoner/poor Yorkshireman flag yet again, there's no point discussing this with you any more. I want a sustainable canal system for the foreseeable future, you obviously don't -- or at least, want everyone else to pay for it. We're never going to agree on this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanD said:

If you choose to basically ignore everything I've said and raise your usual rich Londoner/poor Yorkshireman flag yet again, there's no point discussing this with you any more. I want a sustainable canal system for the foreseeable future, you obviously don't -- or at least, want everyone else to pay for it. We're never going to agree on this...

But you arnt on the bread line like people I know, your proposed rise would end their boating lives. So no we are never going to agree, because what we have is better than the nowt we could have with your plan. I can afford to pay but can see the flaw in your idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.