Should the total number of boats on the system be capped?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

That depends on the property you're on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Higgs]

He, he. It's very big. Too big. Overblown. Lacks confidence. 

 

 

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, Bee said:

I think there could be a case for removing dead boats for scrap before licencing a brand new boat but I wouldn't like to argue that in a pub full of boaters. 

There were 3 boats lifted out at Acton, London last week to a scrap yard.....(Whilton disnt get there in time)...so boat numbers arent just increasing ad infinitum.

[Hudds Lad]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Or better still maintain and repair the ones we already have to such a state that they are usable ?

 

These are 21 of the 'closures or major problems' waterways taken from CaRT's own Boaters Update of 26/03/21, the latest one I could find:

South Oxford Canal
Lee
Grand Union Canal
Hertford Union Canal
Aire & Calder Navigation
Selby Canal
Leeds & Liverpool Canal
South Sheffield & Yorkshire Navigations
Standedge Tunnel
Walsall Canal
Old Main Line
Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal
Worcester & Birmingham Canal
Bridgwater & Taunton Canal
Severn
Sharpness Port
Lancaster Canal
Leeds & Liverpool Canal
Liverpool Link
Shropshire Union Canal
Trent & Mersey Canal

One waterway missing from this list is the Weaver, making it at least 22 waterways!

 

theres nowt wrong wi’Standedge Tunnel, just have to book a slot for passage which is reduced due to staff and covid measures so a bit unfair to include on a list of “closures or major problems” i think  

[cuthound]

8 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Be careful what you wish for. If CaRT had a cap on the total number of boats, then the situation would be the same as their moorings, where the total number is basically fixed. CaRT could then introduce an auction scheme for any boat licenses that came up.

 

Alternatively, CaRT could introduce a bounty scheme. If you want to place a new boat on their waters, you have to prove you have "taken out" an existing boat. Boarding a boat with an unwary crew, stealing their license and scuttling the wreck would be the path to new boat ownership. ?

 

Unless CRT improve their dredging programme, it could prove impossible to scuttle the wreck! ???

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by cuthound
To remove a duplicate post.

[zenataomm]

Should the total number of boats on the system be capped?

Of course not, that's the only income stream.

All other activities either generate no direct income, don't cover their costs or are more of a nuisance value than any form of benefit to the others.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

36 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

Should the total number of boats on the system be capped?

Of course not, that's the only income stream.

All other activities either generate no direct income, don't cover their costs or are more of a nuisance value than any form of benefit to the others.

 

 

 

Have you looked at the income streams in the annual accounts ?

 

C&RT receive £33.3m for letting farmers and industry extract water, and industry and LA's being allowed to discharge water into the canals. Not much 'work needed there' . Money for nothing in fact !

 

C&RT receive an annual income of £51.7m from their investments (primarily in Bricks and mortar)

 

C&RT receive an annual income of £51.9m from DEFRA, the only 'work' there is providing DEFRA with the numbers relating to their KPIs

 

C&RT receive £41.6m from boaters and boating activities, but it costs more than this to keep the navigation open - cancelling boating completely would give them more money to spend on Investments.

 

C&RT receive  £37.6m in 'charitable giving and donations' but it cost them £38.7m to raise it. cancel all fund raising and they would have another £1m to spend on investments.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Alan de Enfield

[blackrose]

They've never suggested capping the number of cars on the roads, so why would they start with boats?

 

Things generally don't get capped in free-market economies. What happens instead is that economic instruments such as increased taxes and charges are implemented as a means of controlling supply & demand. However that generally doesn't happen until things have already got out of control!

[zenataomm]

13 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Have you looked at the income streams in the annual accounts ?

 

C&RT receive £33.3m for letting farmers and industry extract water, and industry and LA's being allowed to discharge water into the canals. Not much 'work needed there' . Money for nothing in fact !

 

C&RT receive an annual income of £51.7m from their investments (primarily in Bricks and mortar)

 

C&RT receive an annual income of £51.9m from DEFRA, the only 'work' there is providing DEFRA with the numbers relating to their KPIs

 

C&RT receive £41.6m from boaters and boating activities, but it costs more than this to keep the navigation open - cancelling boating completely would give them more money to spend on Investments.

 

C&RT receive  £37.6m in 'charitable giving and donations' but it cost them £38.7m to raise it. cancel all fund raising and they would have another £1m to spend on investments.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for that detail Alan.

My mistake, using the expression "All other activities".

In my mind I was referring to what the man on the Clapham omnibus would recognise as core activities for Waterways.

- Boats.

  - Moorings

  - Access leases

  - Property Rent

- Fishing versus the costs associated with this activity.

- Cycling as above.

 

Monies contributed by the likes of DEFRA are an entitlement (and a cheap one at that) As the inland waterways were constructed by acts of parliament it became the government's responsibility to arrange their long term future.  Unlike similar structures, railways/roads/airfields/docks you can't just abandon canals and forget about them.  Especially as so many of them used existing rivers and water courses which would quickly breach or fail endangering untold properties and life.  That is why the authorities delegate the authority for this to the likes of Waterways and make people like DEFRA responsible for what the government is prepared to cough up.  It would cost a lot more than £52m yearly to fill them all in and create alternative safe drainage and all that implies.

 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, zenataomm said:

As the inland waterways were constructed by acts of parliament it became the government's responsibility to arrange their long term future.

Absolutely not!

Canals (and railways, harbours and other infrastructure projects) were authorised under Private Acts of Parliament, and were not promoted by government. Under the Private Bill process the promoters of a Bill apply to Parliament for powers which they would not otherwise have, such as compulsory purchase of land and property, the power the charge tolls and impose legally binding bylaws etc. Parliament will only grant these powers if it is satisfied that the public good arising from the project justifies the restrictions on the rights of others which are implicit in the powers sought. But neither Parliament nor the Government takes any responsibility for the outcome of the project. Indeed Acts usually contain provisions as to what should happen if the enterprise fails - such as an obligation to remove infrastructure, return land to those from whom it was acquired etc.

Edited April 10, 2021 by David Mack

[Mike Todd]

On 09/04/2021 at 09:52, doratheexplorer said:

What with the covid-driven rush to buy narrowboats, combined with the endless stream of newspaper articles about idylic boat life, the overall numbers of boats on the system seems to be set to continue to rise for some time to come.  Surely, eventually some kind of breaking point will come where the canals are just overloaded in too many areas.

 

I can imagine a future where in order to be granted a new licence, you'll need a home mooring, thus placing an upper limit on boats.  Those with an existing continuous cruising declaration will be allowed to continue, but no more new ones will be allowed.

 

Thoughts?  Or is there a better way?  Or is it not an issue?

And if it works perhaps we can then have a cap on cars and trucks on the roads. Just had a long trip to get our second jab - great to have the roads so quiet, almost like when I first learn to drive except that the M5 did not exists back then!

[cuthound]

Perhaps we need to address the root cause of the problem and have a cap on the number of people on the planet?

 

Might take a while to trickle down and reduce the number of boats and cars though, unless a cull was also I reduced.

[Ex Brummie]

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Perhaps we need to address the root cause of the problem and have a cap on the number of people on the planet?

 

 

I almost posted what a lot of people might be thinking. Nature has a way of maintaining balance.

(Tin hat ready)

[Steilsteven]

Of course everything is always the fault of those without a home mooring, strange that considering they are a minority on the waterways.

 

 

Keith

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Ex Brummie said:

I almost posted what a lot of people might be thinking. Nature has a way of maintaining balance.

(Tin hat ready)

If that was the case there wouldn't have been problems such as the rats on Ailsa Craig or Rabbits in Australia.

[zenataomm]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

If that was the case there wouldn't have been problems such as the rats on Ailsa Craig or Rabbits in Australia.

However, of course rabbits were deliberately introduced into Australia.  Likewise rats hopped off ships to live on Ailsa Craig.

So they were both introduced and ultimately eradicated by Nature, via Man of course.  Yet Humans are part of Nature. 

 

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, Ex Brummie said:

I almost posted what a lot of people might be thinking. Nature has a way of maintaining balance.

(Tin hat ready)

We nearly did but some clever people developed a vaccine in double quick time

[zenataomm]

6 hours ago, David Mack said:

Absolutely not!

Canals (and railways, harbours and other infrastructure projects) were authorised under Private Acts of Parliament, and were not promoted by government. Under the Private Bill process the promoters of a Bill apply to Parliament for powers which they would not otherwise have, such as compulsory purchase of land and property, the power the charge tolls and impose legally binding bylaws etc. Parliament will only grant these powers if it is satisfied that the public good arising from the project justifies the restrictions on the rights of others which are implicit in the powers sought. But neither Parliament nor the Government takes any responsibility for the outcome of the project. Indeed Acts usually contain provisions as to what should happen if the enterprise fails - such as an obligation to remove infrastructure, return land to those from whom it was acquired etc.

 

Excellent news.

So in the event of a financial disaster dictating not a single penny more for any funding whatsoever towards underpinning Waterways.

In your opinion, who would do what and from what direction would the money arrive?

[Jerra]

10 hours ago, zenataomm said:

However, of course rabbits were deliberately introduced into Australia.  Likewise rats hopped off ships to live on Ailsa Craig.

So they were both introduced and ultimately eradicated by Nature, via Man of course.  Yet Humans are part of Nature. 

 

And man introduced himself to the rest of the world from his origins in Africa.   So just like the rats and rabbits we are living in an ecological niche which we did not evolve for.

 

However that isn't the point if nature controlled balance it would require nature to be sentient.   Yes an ecosystem normally remains in balance but what you are suggesting requires thought.   Nature doesn't suddenly after millennia think "Oh heck those pesky humans I created are getting out of hand what can I do.   Ah I will magic up a new virus that will sort them out".   If nature did that the pandemic would have happened a few centuries ago and it would have been more fatal to really thin out the population.

 

HUmans have been out of balance with their ecosystem for at least two to two and a half centuries.   Nature does not with a normal reaction to an imbalanced ecosystem take anywhere near that long to react.