The future of our canals?

[jetzi]

Just now, magpie patrick said:

Why should the boater pay all the cost of others also benefit? 

Because the majority of the cost is in making the waterway navigable. 

 

As I understand it the taxpayer currently IS paying for the canals via the Defra grant?

 

What about a model where non-navigation-related maintenance (such as maintaining towpaths and bridges) is paid for by the taxpayer, while navigation-related maintenance (fixing locks) is paid for by the boater?

Is it possible to estimate how much more CaRT has to spend to keep the waterways navigable, as opposed to just walkable and cyclable?

[Midnight]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

The length of time to fix things and are both probably consequences of underfunding.

 

 

"The length of time to fix things " is in part a consequence of ""don't fix it until it's completely broken" Fixing something in-house before it's completely broken would not only help CaRT meet their KPIs but would also save costs in the long run.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Midnight

[IanD]

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? 

So if they can't be made to pay, how do you suggest they are made to pay?

 

There's also the fact that with a lot of the costs of maintaining the system (dredging, locks in remote places, out of town canals) boaters are the main beneficiaries.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Midnight said:

"The length of time to fix things " is in part a consequence of ""don't fix it until it's completely broken" Fixing something in-house before it's completely broken would not only help CaRT meet their KPIs but would also save costs in the long run.

Agreed. But if you don't have enough money (or manpower) to keep up with maintenance you're always fire-fighting and only the most urgent things get fixed -- saying this is bad for the long run is true but doesn't help, even if you know you're doing the wrong thing you don't have any choice ?

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

Because the majority of the cost is in making the waterway navigable. 

 

As I understand it the taxpayer currently IS paying for the canals via the Defra grant?

 

What about a model where non-navigation-related maintenance (such as maintaining towpaths and bridges) is paid for by the taxpayer, while navigation-related maintenance (fixing locks) is paid for by the boater?

Is it possible to estimate how much more CaRT has to spend to keep the waterways navigable, as opposed to just walkable and cyclable?

Things like dredging and new lock gates and lock repairs cost far more than grass-mowing and tree-cutting -- IIRC a new set of oak lock gates costs getting on for 100k...

 

Again you have to ask, why should the taxpayer pay for maintaining canals and gates where there are almost no walkers or cyclists and the only real beneficiaries are boaters?

 

I'm afraid that this still all comes over as "somebody else should pay for what I want to use, I don't want to pay for it, it's too expensive"...

 

The brutal truth is that canal boaters have historically paid too little for the benefits they get, have got used to this, and simply don't want to be told that they should be paying considerably more ?

 

(even though this would still be a bargain compared to living landside, plus you get the amenity of lovely canals to cruise on)

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

14 minutes ago, ivan&alice said:

What about a model where non-navigation-related maintenance (such as maintaining towpaths and bridges) is paid for by the taxpayer, while navigation-related maintenance (fixing locks) is paid for by the boater?

 

Generally speaking, Towpaths and bridges are an integral part of the navigation. 

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Defects only form part of CaRT's maintenance backlog which was estimated by British Waterways to be around £200m in 2008 and believed to be between £300 and £400m today...]

 

Allan Richards posted this in 2010 :

 

Perhaps BW would rather the public believe its press releases than the figures it provides to its Board :

 

To represent an accurate picture regarding the maintenance of our waterways, BW's press release should have read 'This year we intend to spend £89.2m on the waterways which we are charged by government to maintain in satisfactory condition. This is a 12% reduction on the amount we spent last year and the year before. To maintain our waterways in satisfactory condition we need to replace 200 lock gates a year. This year we will only replace 100'.

 

Hiding the decaying state of our decaying canals hardly encourages the public to get involved in saving them!

The funding gap

However, even a reworded press release would be misleading as it does not take into account the funding gap. In its 2008 status options report, consultants KPMG confirmed that BW's waterways were deteriorating due to the gap between what BW were spending (about £100m pa) and what they needed to spend.

The report stated 'We estimate there is a funding gap [in England & Wales] of at least £29m per annum between the cost of maintaining the waterways and the funds available to BW'.

In very round terms, BW needs to spend about £130m a year to prevent the canals deteriorating. But in the last two year BW has spent £30m less than that. This year they will spend over £40m less.

 

 

The situation has worsened considerably in the intervening 10 years.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Things like dredging and new lock gates and lock repairs cost far more than grass-mowing and tree-cutting -- IIRC a new set of oak lock gates costs getting on for 100k...

 

Again you have to ask, why should the taxpayer pay for maintaining canals and gates where there are almost no walkers or cyclists and the only real beneficiaries are boaters?

 

I'm afraid that this still all comes over as "somebody else should pay for what I want to use, I don't want to pay for it, it's too expensive"...

 

The brutal truth is that canal boaters have historically paid too little for the benefits they get, have got used to this, and simply don't want to be told that they should be paying considerably more ?

 

(even though this would still be a bargain compared to living landside, plus you get the amenity of lovely canals to cruise on)

I think we (me and you) live in different worlds. 
Historically: the canals were the making of our industrial revolution. 

We have have a unique system here that should be funded from all quarters and not just ‘freeloading’ boaters

[magnetman]

2 hours 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.

Transferring towpath management to local authorities is a "no brainer".

 

To include management of popular mooring spots with charges for staying more than 24 hours. That sort of thing. 

 

Make use of and gain benefit from the amenity

 

Canals are a nice place to live cheaply if that is what you want to do but in the bigger picture they are a public amenity like a park. 

 

It's not great having other people play with the trainset but you have to remember that without them playing unless you are fabulously wealthy you will not have a trainset..

 

The elephant in the room is obviously the cc thing and people living on boats simply because it is so cheap. It's not at all complicated at the end of the day.

 

Residential accomodation tends to attract costs which arrr much higher than the CRT yearly license/free mooring charge.  

Edited July 8, 2020 by magnetman

[peterboat]

57 minutes ago, IanD said:

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 ?

The gap will be even bigger if they go ahead with your plans, I would predict a 50% loss plus of boaters, honestly Ian people will walk  and iin some cases just abandone the boat! Leaving CRT with even bigger bills 

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

Because the majority of the cost is in making the waterway navigable. 

 

As I understand it the taxpayer currently IS paying for the canals via the Defra grant?

 

What about a model where non-navigation-related maintenance (such as maintaining towpaths and bridges) is paid for by the taxpayer, while navigation-related maintenance (fixing locks) is paid for by the boater?

Is it possible to estimate how much more CaRT has to spend to keep the waterways navigable, as opposed to just walkable and cyclable?

Water is moved and sold by CRT so it's not as simple as you think, that would count as navigation. 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 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The gap will be even bigger if they go ahead with your plans, I would predict a 50% loss plus of boaters, honestly Ian people will walk  and iin some cases just abandone the boat! Leaving CRT with even bigger bills 

Some people just cannot understand the inevitable consequences and will only be happy when people are bobbing along in uber shiny boats which dont get scratched by a bit of overgrown offside vegetation.

 

Something akin to the 'its a small world' ride in Disney.....but without the god awful music.

[peterboat]

49 minutes ago, IanD said:

Things like dredging and new lock gates and lock repairs cost far more than grass-mowing and tree-cutting -- IIRC a new set of oak lock gates costs getting on for 100k...

 

Again you have to ask, why should the taxpayer pay for maintaining canals and gates where there are almost no walkers or cyclists and the only real beneficiaries are boaters?

 

I'm afraid that this still all comes over as "somebody else should pay for what I want to use, I don't want to pay for it, it's too expensive"...

 

The brutal truth is that canal boaters have historically paid too little for the benefits they get, have got used to this, and simply don't want to be told that they should be paying considerably more ?

 

(even though this would still be a bargain compared to living landside, plus you get the amenity of lovely canals to cruise on)

What about the flood management benefit of the rivers and canals? That has to be paid for or should we block all drains that run into navigable rivers and canals! The navigation is a national asset I think we pay a big enough share ta very much 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, peterboat said:

That has to be paid for or should we block all drains that run into navigable rivers and canals!

C&RT are already paid to allow both water extraction and drainage licences - their income from this is almost 50% higher than the income from boat licences.

Locks are not needed and a review was undertaken many years ago that decided that 'low maintenance' weirs could do the job more efficiently.

 

Income from drainage and extraction licences = £30m per annum

Income from boat licences = £21m per annum

[IanD]

59 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I think we (me and you) live in different worlds. 
Historically: the canals were the making of our industrial revolution. 

We have have a unique system here that should be funded from all quarters and not just ‘freeloading’ boaters

Indeed they were -- and after they became obsolete they were allowed to become derelict or closed. The system as we have it today is partly a historical artefact, partly a tourist/leisure attraction, and partly somewhere for boaters to live on and cruise on and be able to travel from one part of the country to another on. It was revived by volunteers and government backing from Barbara Castle.

 

If you want to preserve the legacy/tourist part (funded from all quarters) you'd do a Beeching -- look at which bits of the system generate almost all the footfalls and revenue (in towns, pretty villages, big aqueducts etc) and close the rest (only used by boaters, sometimes not many of those). Just like the railways you'd find that 10% of the canals generate 90% of the revenue *and historical attention from tourists* -- heritage is pointless if nobody ever goes to see it.

 

Say goodbye to all the less-used bits of the system (most of the BCN, HCN, Rochdale, Mon & Brec, Lancaster, many others) and keep the pretty/touristy/city/town bits that people flock to, because they're paying for it. You want to get from A to B -- sorry, that's been closed, no demand guv.

 

Saying "we should keep them all open because of history" is like saying "we should have kept all the branch lines and country stations, even ones with one passenger a day" -- great if you've got an unlimited budget which someone else is picking up the tab for, which is clearly not the case for the canals.

 

So be careful what you wish for -- if you want a canal system "funded from all quarters and not just freeloading boaters" that's exactly what you might get. Unfortunately the result might also be pretty much useless for many boaters because the bits they want to use aren't there any more and the system is fragmented into bits.

 

I'll say it again, 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.

 

The numbers say pretty clearly that "freeloading" is reality, not just an unfair label -- the license fee has not covered the cost of services provided *for boaters* (not tourists). If you disagree, please provide reasons that can be backed up with facts not just emotional appeals ?

 

I love canals and boating and boaters, but sometimes I despair that some people have their heads in the sand over this issue... ?

33 minutes ago, peterboat said:

The gap will be even bigger if they go ahead with your plans, I would predict a 50% loss plus of boaters, honestly Ian people will walk  and iin some cases just abandone the boat! Leaving CRT with even bigger bills 

So what's your solution to the problem?

22 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

Some people just cannot understand the inevitable consequences and will only be happy when people are bobbing along in uber shiny boats which dont get scratched by a bit of overgrown offside vegetation.

 

Something akin to the 'its a small world' ride in Disney.....but without the god awful music.

So what's your solution to the problem?

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT are already paid to allow both water extraction and drainage licences - their income from this is almost 50% higher than the income from boat licences.

Locks are not needed and a review was undertaken many years ago that decided that 'low maintenance' weirs could do the job more efficiently.

 

Income from drainage and extraction licences = £30m per annum

Income from boat licences = £21m per annum

I know that Alan but some of the more well off boaters on here seem to want a clear out of the canal system and marinas! An increase even gradually to cover the cost would be just go the other way,  I can maybe afford it I know many who can't and it's where their boat goes that would worry me

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

Indeed they were -- and after they became obsolete they were allowed to become derelict or closed. The system as we have it today is partly a historical artefact, partly a tourist/leisure attraction, and partly somewhere for boaters to live on and cruise on and be able to travel from one part of the country to another on. It was revived by volunteers and government backing from Barbara Castle.

 

If you want to preserve the legacy/tourist part (funded from all quarters) you'd do a Beeching -- look at which bits of the system generate almost all the footfalls and revenue (in towns, pretty villages, big aqueducts etc) and close the rest (only used by boaters, sometimes not many of those). Just like the railways you'd find that 10% of the canals generate 90% of the revenue *and historical attention from tourists* -- heritage is pointless if nobody ever goes to see it.

 

Say goodbye to all the less-used bits of the system (most of the BCN, HCN, Rochdale, Mon & Brec, Lancaster, many others) and keep the pretty/touristy/city/town bits that people flock to, because they're paying for it. You want to get from A to B -- sorry, that's been closed, no demand guv.

 

Saying "we should keep them all open because of history" is like saying "we should have kept all the branch lines and country stations, even ones with one passenger a day" -- great if you've got an unlimited budget which someone else is picking up the tab for, which is clearly not the case for the canals.

 

So be careful what you wish for -- if you want a canal system "funded from all quarters and not just freeloading boaters" that's exactly what you might get. Unfortunately the result might also be pretty much useless for many boaters because the bits they want to use aren't there any more.

 

I'll say it again, 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.

 

The numbers say pretty clearly that "freeloading" is reality, not just an unfair label. If you disagree, please provide reasons that can be backed up with facts not just emotional appeals ?

 

I love canals and boating and boaters, but sometimes I despair that some people have their heads in the sand over this issue... ?

So what's your solution to the problem?

So what's your solution to the problem?

Make sure that some of the revenue from CRts commercial ventures is reinvested in the waterways rather than more commercial ventures?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

So what's your solution to the problem?

A moderate and affordable increase in licence fee coupled with an acceptance the system will have a degree of faults and outstanding maintenance issues.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, peterboat said:

I know that Alan but some of the more well off boaters on here seem to want a clear out of the canal system and marinas! An increase even gradually to cover the cost would be just go the other way,  I can maybe afford it I know many who can't and it's where their boat goes that would worry me

Like I've said several times, the affordability problem is exactly the same as for housing on land and should be dealt with the same way, those who genuinely *can't* afford a higher license fee should have the extra cost covered by welfare. Those who *can* afford to pay more (to maintain the system) should do so, and stop whinging. Yes this needs some kind of means testing, just like on land. There is no need or intent to "clear out" the canal system or marinas.

5 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

A moderate and affordable increase in licence fee coupled with an acceptance the system will have a degree of faults and outstanding maintenance issues.

A moderate increase won't fix the problem, please stop pretending that it will -- CaRT need a significant increase in income, not an insignificant one. Look at the numbers...

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

Like I've said several times, the affordability problem is exactly the same as for housing on land and should be dealt with the same way, those who genuinely *can't* afford a higher license fee should have the extra cost covered by welfare. Those who *can* afford to pay more (to maintain the system) should do so, and stop whinging. Yes this needs some king of means testing, just like on land. There is no need or intent to "clear out" the canal system or marinas.

A moderate increase won't fix the problem, please stop pretending that it will -- CaRT need a significant increase in income, not an insignificant one. Look at the numbers...

No worries, I didnt expect you to agree. You are clearly advocating driving the very people needed by CRT off the waterways.

 

Good luck with that strategy.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

No worries, I didnt expect you to agree. You are clearly advocating driving the very people needed by CRT off the waterways.

 

Good luck with that strategy.

 

 

No I'm not, please don't put words into my mouth. I don't want to drive *anyone* off the waterways (hence my repeated comments about welfare which you seem to studiously ignore), I want the people who can afford to pay more to do so to cover the maintenance costs of the canal system that they use and live on.

Edited July 8, 2020 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

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

You are saying that C&RT need people who cannot pay a fair price for the services they use ?

C&RT need more people who can 'pay their way' not those that view the system as 'cheap living' and a longitudinal housing estate.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

No I'm not, please don't put words into my mouth. I don't want to drive *anyone* off the waterways (hence my repeated comments about welfare which you seem to studiously ignore), I want the people who can afford to pay more to do so to cover maintenance of the canal system that they use and live on.

Putting words nowhere.

 

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

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are saying that C&RT need people who cannot pay a fair price for the services they use ?

C&RT need more people who can 'pay their way' not those that view the system as 'cheap living' and a longitudinal housing estate.

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.

Edited July 8, 2020 by The Happy Nomad

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, ivan&alice said:

Because the majority of the cost is in making the waterway navigable. 

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.

 

 

 

[IanD]

Just now, The Happy Nomad said:

Putting words nowhere.

 

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

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... ?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Defects only form part of CaRT's maintenance backlog which was estimated by British Waterways to be around £200m in 2008 and believed to be between £300 and £400m today...]

 

Allan Richards posted this in 2010 :

 

Perhaps BW would rather the public believe its press releases than the figures it provides to its Board :

 

To represent an accurate picture regarding the maintenance of our waterways, BW's press release should have read 'This year we intend to spend £89.2m on the waterways which we are charged by government to maintain in satisfactory condition. This is a 12% reduction on the amount we spent last year and the year before. To maintain our waterways in satisfactory condition we need to replace 200 lock gates a year. This year we will only replace 100'.

 

Hiding the decaying state of our decaying canals hardly encourages the public to get involved in saving them!

The funding gap

However, even a reworded press release would be misleading as it does not take into account the funding gap. In its 2008 status options report, consultants KPMG confirmed that BW's waterways were deteriorating due to the gap between what BW were spending (about £100m pa) and what they needed to spend.

The report stated 'We estimate there is a funding gap [in England & Wales] of at least £29m per annum between the cost of maintaining the waterways and the funds available to BW'.

In very round terms, BW needs to spend about £130m a year to prevent the canals deteriorating. But in the last two year BW has spent £30m less than that. This year they will spend over £40m less.

 

 

The situation has worsened considerably in the intervening 10 years.

In 2011, the IWA gave the funding gap as £40m.

 

CRT abandoned the use of its 'steady state' model which calculated the cost of keeping its waterways in  a condition where they were neither deteriorating nor improving.

 

Edited to add - Just checked and BW/CRT chief exec Robin Evans gave a parliamentary committee a similar figure in 2011. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by Allan(nb Albert)