Interview with Richard Parry (submit your questions) - Cruising the Cut

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, agg221 said:

CRT does appear to have the authority to restrict moorings, creating, for example, 24 and 48hr moorings. It also appears to have the authority to create chargeable moorings?

 

 

As far as I am aware, only the late Nigel Moore and myself have taken the time to study parliamentary records relating to what became the British Waterway Act 1995. These records are too early to be included in "online Hansard".

The fact is that British Waterways, in its private bill, asked for powers to restrict mooring but these never made it into the 1995 Act.

Here is an early version of the bill which is in the public domain - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/161874/response/400777/attach/3/2671 001.pdf

... and here are two screenshots  of Section 18 of the above document -
 

Quote

... and here is the 1995 Act so that anyone interested can examine it against the bill - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted

Quite simply, British Waterways was unable to convince parliament in the 1990's that it needed powers to restrict or control moorings. Furthermore, CRT did not ask for similar powers in 2012 on its creation despite some years of supposed  'problems' on the Lee and K&A.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Allan(nb Albert)

[MtB]

2 hours ago, agg221 said:

If you have a breakdown and contact CRT you can arrange an overstay

 

 

Loophole big enough to steer a loaded pair through. 

 

Every other boat in London will suddenly break down and be waiting for parts for months on end. 

[ditchcrawler]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Every other boat in London will suddenly break down and be waiting for parts for months on end. 

Take out London as some already do

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As far as I am aware, only the late Nigel Moore and myself have taken the time to study parliamentary records relating to what became the British Waterway Act 1995. These records are too early to be included in "online Hansard".

The fact is that British Waterways, in its private bill, asked for powers to restrict mooring but these never made it into the 1995 Act.

Here is an early version of the bill which is in the public domain - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/161874/response/400777/attach/3/2671 001.pdf

... and here are two screenshots  of Section 18 of the above document -
 

... and here is the 1995 Act so that anyone interested can examine it against the bill - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1995/1/contents/enacted

Quite simply, British Waterways was unable to convince parliament in the 1990's that it needed powers to restrict or control moorings. Furthermore, CRT did not ask for similar powers in 2012 on its creation despite some years of supposed  'problems' on the Lee and K&A.

When on the K&A a couple of years ago I noticed long lengths of bank around the Bathampton to Bath area which were marked as 48 hour moorings. This included areas with no towpath piling and with substantial vegetation in the shallow water, suggesting it wouldn't make a very good mooring anyway. I surmised that the purpose of the 48 hour limit was to discourage the continuous moorers from pitching up there for a fortnight at a time.

The same approach could be tried in London, to discourage the continuous moorers, but to provide more overnight moorings for the genuine visiting boats.

 

[IanD]

9 hours ago, David Mack said:

When on the K&A a couple of years ago I noticed long lengths of bank around the Bathampton to Bath area which were marked as 48 hour moorings. This included areas with no towpath piling and with substantial vegetation in the shallow water, suggesting it wouldn't make a very good mooring anyway. I surmised that the purpose of the 48 hour limit was to discourage the continuous moorers from pitching up there for a fortnight at a time.

The same approach could be tried in London, to discourage the continuous moorers, but to provide more overnight moorings for the genuine visiting boats.

 

It could be tried, but no amount of signage works without enforcement. On the stretch from me going into Londone there are boats that are moored for weeks or months on 48h moorings, and even on stretches that have "No Mooring" signs.

 

The same applies to the "parking fee" model in the post above -- to enforce and collect this would need an army of people who don't exist.

 

The problem in both cases is that continuous checking and enforcement is needed, where the license fee is just an annual charge which needs far less effort.

[Thomas C King]

10 hours ago, David Mack said:

When on the K&A a couple of years ago I noticed long lengths of bank around the Bathampton to Bath area which were marked as 48 hour moorings. This included areas with no towpath piling and with substantial vegetation in the shallow water, suggesting it wouldn't make a very good mooring anyway. I surmised that the purpose of the 48 hour limit was to discourage the continuous moorers from pitching up there for a fortnight at a time.

The same approach could be tried in London, to discourage the continuous moorers, but to provide more overnight moorings for the genuine visiting boats.

 

 

Not all visitors will want to stay just two days. I wouldn't mind going through London for a while moving on frequently, but not as frequently as two days due to work commitments etc.

[Mike Todd]

14 hours ago, agg221 said:

CRT does appear to have the authority to restrict moorings, creating, for example, 24 and 48hr moorings. It also appears to have the authority to create chargeable moorings?

 

Given the above, on the point of supply and demand, it does occur to me that something equivalent to local authority parking controls could be effective. Keep the general rule of 'free parking' (mooring) for up to 14 days in rural areas, with reduced times in popular areas, but then in very popular areas, add a charge.

 

For example, London could have 14 day chargeable zones, 48hr chargeable moorings and 24hr chargeable moorings. Make the shorter duration moorings more expensive per day. As a visitor, a 24hr mooring might be all you need so it's cheapest overall to stop there, or find a 48hr mooring if you are staying longer. Similar to a long-stay car park. As a liveaboard, 14day moorings would be cheaper per day. Get the charging structure right and it should make London less difficult for visitors. Charging for moorings in this way would also enable raising of revenue to increase services in the areas where needed.

 

How about a corresponding system of fines, just like with parking? Pay on arrival (by app, no need for parking meters). If you want to chance it, you may not get caught. If you have a breakdown and contact CRT you can arrange an overstay. If however you get caught overstaying, or simply don't pay, implement a fine which is added to the next licence fee. I believe the local authority parking fine is in the region of £50, with a discount for prompt payment? Failure to pay in full means no licence and the current process then comes into play.

 

May not raise £100M but could address some of the current pressure points and address the cost/service discrepancy they create?

Alec

Since the aim is (perhaps) to keep boats moving and thus allow more visitors and passers-through, would it not be better to increase the charge per day for longer periods rather than the other way around?

 

I think it would be useful to distinguish between moorings for visitors and those on a longer term basis. Since it sems all but impossible in London and similar to control the bridge hoppers, perhaps the moorings regime should recognise their existence and charge them accordingly.

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

It could be tried, but no amount of signage works without enforcement. On the stretch from me going into Londone there are boats that are moored for weeks or months on 48h moorings, and even on stretches that have "No Mooring" signs.

 

The same applies to the "parking fee" model in the post above -- to enforce and collect this would need an army of people who don't exist.

 

The problem in both cases is that continuous checking and enforcement is needed, where the license fee is just an annual charge which needs far less effort.

In the short term you are undoubtedly correct. However, I wonder what the longer term impact might be? Particularly if the model includes more pre-booking of spaces, a smallish team of 'enforcers' could be made available to assist on a flying basis those who find their pre-booked space occupied. In the short term it would be expensive but there is a case to argue that it could change long term behaviour, especially if a boat found mooring where it should not be is transported to a nearby 'pound' like cars used to be!

 

In general, consideration of behaviour-changing charging schemes need to consider both short, medium and long term. At the same time, it is important to consider the pressures that lead to the issue arising in the first place. If people moor where they clearly should not on a regular basis then, in their perception, perhaps they cannot see an alternative. If 'levelling up' makes the northern canals more attractive for employment, schooling etc, then maybe, as RP said in his interview, the comparatively underused canals will carry more of the strain. (Mind you, I will be upset as I consider the emptiness of northern canals to be their best feature!)

[agg221]

38 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Since the aim is (perhaps) to keep boats moving and thus allow more visitors and passers-through, would it not be better to increase the charge per day for longer periods rather than the other way around?

 

I think it would be useful to distinguish between moorings for visitors and those on a longer term basis. Since it sems all but impossible in London and similar to control the bridge hoppers, perhaps the moorings regime should recognise their existence and charge them accordingly.

My thought was to discourage long-term moorers from using the shorter term visitor moorings.

 

Take two examples to explain what I mean (numbers are arbitrary).

 

1. Moorings are charged at £5/day in 14 day zones, £10/day in 48hr zones and £15/day in 24hr zones.

You turn up and pay for the period in advance when you arrive, so £70 if it's a 14 day zone, £20 if it's a 48hr zone, £15 if it's a 24hr mooring.

 

2. Moorings are charged at £15/day in 14 day zones, £10/day in 48hr zones and £5/day in 24hr zones.

You turn up and pay for the period in advance when you arrive, so it's £210 if it's a 14 day zone, £20 if it's a 48hr zone, £5 if it's a 24hr mooring.

 

In both cases, you can then stay up to the allowed time limit and must then move on.

 

Example 1 encourages long-term moorers to stay on long-term moorings. For a 14 day period the cheapest option is to find a 14 day mooring - if they stay on a 24hr mooring it is 3x as expensive per day. That would tend to leave those moorings free for visitors, who would have a lower absolute cost for staying there (£15 vs. £70) but there is nothing to stop a visitor who wants to stay longer from finding a 14 day mooring. Example 2 encourages long-term moorers (bridge hoppers) to use as many 24hr moorings as possible, making it more difficult and expensive for short-term visitors, ie. bona fide continuous cruisers.

 

The principle of the above would appear to encourage bona fide continuous cruising, since outside of very crowded sites, mooring remains exactly as it currently is, ie free, but discourage what are in effect static houseboats from solidly occupying city centres to the detriment of the navigation as a whole. It tacitly acknowledges the existence of bridge hoppers and raises a revenue from them which enables services to be put in place to meet their needs.

 

Enforcement requires some thought. You could have a physical 'traffic warden' who walks/cycles the towpath, who could cover 20 miles a day I would think, so three people could probably cover the key parts of London, but there are emerging alternatives. For example, the flying range of drones is getting quite substantial. Imagine you have a requirement to place a QR code on your roof. CRT could then use a pre-programmed drone to map boat locations. Science Fiction? Well - there was a successful project 8yrs ago looking at drones to map the ripening of apples in an orchard by flying up and down the rows. The data processing required for that was considerably more complex and the technology has come on a long way. Big Brother? Sort of, but no more so in practice than a CRT employee walking the towpath with a notebook or an iPhone.

 

12 hours ago, MtB said:

 

 

Loophole big enough to steer a loaded pair through. 

 

Every other boat in London will suddenly break down and be waiting for parts for months on end. 

Yes - but I can't think of a practical alternative. If you're running around with a vintage engine then getting parts may genuinely not be quick (no idea how long it would take me to find a replacement cylinder for example - I might even have to get a new one cast).

 

I did contemplate whether CRT could operate a secure yard storage facility (charged) for broken down boats. Say you get a month to fix it after notifying them, following which you get towed (by CRT) to their nearest facility, which comes with a storage charge. This is, in essence, a marina (in fact, CRT could subcontract it out to marinas to fill spare berths), so you are in effect now paying for a home mooring, but then if you have broken down you aren't continuously cruising anyway.

 

Alec

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by agg221

[IanD]

16 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

The problem with 'age' is that I would end up paying less (sans inflation) each year. I hardly see that as fair. It would also act as a brake on investment in new boats to the detriment of boatbuilders who have a hard enough time as it is!

 

No system can be 100% "fair" to everyone. A common solution used in many countries for property (houses) is an annual percentage fee based on the value of the house -- which might be estimated market value (best solution but needs admin/checking), or based on size and location (less accurate but easier). The reasoning behind this is that if somebody has enough money (e.g. £200k) to invest it in a house, they can afford to pay a small fraction of this each year (e.g. £2k) to pay for services. In the case of houses this also acts as a tax on capital, which otherwise is too attractive as an investment -- which is one of the big problems in the UK. This system has the massive advantage that it's simple to administer and difficult to evade.

 

A similar system with boats (license fee partly depends on boat "value") has the same advantages of being relatively "fair" and much simpler to administer (yearly fee) than any kind of parking/mooring fee where regular checking is needed. It's not perfect because -- as you say -- the amount payable falls as a boat gets older -- but then you could say that this is fine since it's effectively a tax on the money tied up in the boat, so should fall as the boar becomes worth less.

 

Acting as a brake on new boatbuilders is unlikely, because anyone who can afford to buy and run a new boat can certainly afford to pay a higher license fee than somebody living on an old cheap boat -- nobody considering spending a six-figure sum on a new boat plus maybe £5k/year running costs (including marina/mooring fees) is going to be put off by a few thousand quid for a license fee.

 

And the simple fact is that if the license fee is much more graduated (bigger range from lowest to highest) some people will have to pay more -- possibly a lot more -- than they do today.

 

If this tax on value together with the higher size weighting factor discourages the building of massive new widebeam boats which end up moored in inappropriate places as cheap housing, then a lot of people would say that this is a plus point, not a drawback... 😉

Edited February 2, 2022 by IanD

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

In the short term you are undoubtedly correct. However, I wonder what the longer term impact might be? Particularly if the model includes more pre-booking of spaces, a smallish team of 'enforcers' could be made available to assist on a flying basis those who find their pre-booked space occupied. In the short term it would be expensive but there is a case to argue that it could change long term behaviour, especially if a boat found mooring where it should not be is transported to a nearby 'pound' like cars used to be!

 

In general, consideration of behaviour-changing charging schemes need to consider both short, medium and long term. At the same time, it is important to consider the pressures that lead to the issue arising in the first place. If people moor where they clearly should not on a regular basis then, in their perception, perhaps they cannot see an alternative. If 'levelling up' makes the northern canals more attractive for employment, schooling etc, then maybe, as RP said in his interview, the comparatively underused canals will carry more of the strain. (Mind you, I will be upset as I consider the emptiness of northern canals to be their best feature!)

 

Probably a combination of various measures is needed to get the canals working properly; pre-booking spaces (or even enforcing existing rules on 48h and visitor moorings) would undoubtedly be a good thing, but the problem is the lack of people to do it and the cost -- it's no use putting a nice-sounding scheme in place which sounds good but costs more to run than the revenue it brings in, as CART have found with their fundraising attempts.

 

I don't think the "levelling-up" will encourage many people in areas like London to move their boat "oop North"; they're moored in London because that's where they live/work and a boat is much cheaper than living on the land. What is more likely is that it will drive some of them off the canals and back onto land -- and yes this means they could have a problem finding somewhere to live, but this is a symptom of the dysfunctionality of the UK housing market.

 

The canals can't fix this -- a couple of thousand cheap boats moored in London doesn't even make a tiny dent in the shortfall of affordable housing (several hundred thousand at least), but does screw up the canals for boaters who want to use them as canals -- including moving about sometimes -- rather than a cheap linear boat park... 😞

Edited February 2, 2022 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

It could be tried, but no amount of signage works without enforcement. On the stretch from me going into Londone there are boats that are moored for weeks or months on 48h moorings, and even on stretches that have "No Mooring" signs.

 

The same applies to the "parking fee" model in the post above -- to enforce and collect this would need an army of people who don't exist.

 

The problem in both cases is that continuous checking and enforcement is needed, where the license fee is just an annual charge which needs far less effort.

In there consultation about London moorings they said the payed for booked moorings would finance mor4 mooring enforcement

[IanD]

36 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

In there consultation about London moorings they said the payed for booked moorings would finance mor4 mooring enforcement

I know -- and they also thought that the Friends/charity scheme would bring in more money than it would cost to run, and it didn't.

 

Bringing in more money -- yes, certainly. Bringing in more than it costs to run and enforce -- I'm not convinced... 😉

 

Anything which needs lots of boots on the ground on a daily basis is by definition not going to be cheap to run -- that's why mooring and CCing enforcement is almost useless... 😞

Edited February 2, 2022 by IanD

[ditchcrawler]

May be of interest London Bookable Moorings usage - a Freedom of Information request to Canal & River Trust - WhatDoTheyKnow

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

May be of interest London Bookable Moorings usage - a Freedom of Information request to Canal & River Trust - WhatDoTheyKnow

The location of the bookable moorings and the charges were already in the public domain, so including them in the FOI request seems to be deliberately intended to piss off the person dealing with the request!

[ditchcrawler]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The location of the bookable moorings and the charges were already in the public domain, so including them in the FOI request seems to be deliberately intended to piss off the person dealing with the request!

I think he was trying to find out if they were finically sustainable

[David Mack]

6 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think he was trying to find out if they were finically sustainable

Indeed. Well now he has the numbers, and although CRT wouldn't give the total income, you can work it out roughly from the number of bookings and refunds.

 

Although the point of these moorings is not for them to be financially sustainable - it is for them to be available to visiting boaters.

Edited February 2, 2022 by David Mack

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think he was trying to find out if they were finically sustainable

I expect that's going to be difficult to find out, especially if CART don't want to reveal that it loses money 😞

 

This can easily be hidden by showing the revenue -- fees collected -- as a positive line item, but not showing the extra wage costs needed to enforce payment by just hiding these in the general wage bill. Or saying "no extra employees were taken on to do this" or "the cost was covered by savings from increased efficiency" thus implying that there's no cost -- ignoring the fact that if they're doing this they're not doing something else useful, like fixing broken stuff. This type of cost-hiding accounting is probably familiar to those who've tried to dig into what something really costs (or saves), as opposed to what the company/government wants you to think it costs (or saves).

 

A perfect example is the government "saving taxpayers money" by getting rid of schemes like Sure Start or prisoner education for essentially political reasons, when all the genuine cost-benefit analyses shows that every pound spent on these saves several pounds later on from things like better education/lower crime levels.

Edited February 2, 2022 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think he was trying to find out if they were finically sustainable

Perhaps the prime reason was to find out why CRT had not published usage figures from its trial as part of its consultation ...