Not looking good for us

[Lady M]

Thank you, sigsegv.  Lady C (not Lady G)

[Alan de Enfield]

7 minutes ago, sigsegv said:

I disagree with this.

 

As you are entitled to - but I don't understand why you'd expect C&RT in a discusion about increases in licencing fees not to use the licencing income figure.

 

If they were talking about putting up licence fees, mooring fees, business boating fees, Marina access fees etc etc then they could say that the total income from boaters is £Xm

 

If a pub is putting up the price of a 'pint' would you expect it to include all of their income from beer, food, and gaming machines into the discussion ?

 

 

[magnetman]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

The key being ''using the system'' . 

The present arrangements require the boater to pay regardless of whether the boater is using the system.

Not all boats are on C&RT water all of the time so would a  system requiring a toll per day on C&RT water  be considered fair ? 

Collecting that Toll might be a challenge .

I'd definitely go for the toll system. Makes sense and was how the canals were originally operated. Charge related to how much time you spend on that stretch of water.

 

It makes so much sense More popular areas would be more expensive. Basic economics.

 

Result may be some underused areas being underfunded but this has got to be better than the whole lot rotting away.

 

IF people are really enthusiastic then get more more residential moorings on canals and get the funding in.

 

People who don't like seeing boats (moving or not moving) should not be on canals. There should be a filter of some sort where if you don't like seeing boats you can't be allowed to use waterways.

 

 Boats are what it is all about and in the modern age of expensive housing boats can be a slightly cheaper alternative in some cases.

 

 

More moorings needed all we're all screwed.

 

The policy is the precise opposite of this but presumably this is driven by fuddy duddies and profit driven marina operators with influence.

 

times change.

 

 

[Momac]

7 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I'd definitely go for the toll system.

It would suit me also but there is no solution that suits everyone.

It seems to me boating , which was never a cheap hobby, is becoming less good value as time passes and costs increase. Not just license fees  increasing but everything .  As an example my insurance renewal arrived yesterday and its almost 15% increase over last year . So far the alternatives are more expensive 

 

[magnetman]

I didn't mean I would prefer the toll system personally. If it came in then my boating would get more expensive. I was just saying that I would go for it in terms of managing the system. Not a personal preference but as with everything else the individual impact on people is irrelevant. It is the overall impact and potential positive or negative outcomes for the group which matter.

[Orwellian]

40 minutes ago, magnetman said:

People who don't like seeing boats (moving or not moving) should not be on canals. There should be a filter of some sort where if you don't like seeing boats you can't be allowed to use waterways.

Are you being serious or have I missed something?

[magnetman]

I was being serious. One of the problems is that people actually don't like seeing boats on canals.

 

Either this is moving boats or it is moored boats. The presence of other boats causes a lot of conflict.

 

Obviously there are people who don't mind either of these but those who do seem to have a major impact.

 

 

Did you know that when marinas are constructed the CRT respond by gradually closing off on line moorings? I don't understand this from a business point of view. Surely you want to maximise your income and on line moorings are a very good way of doing that.

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

35 minutes ago, MartynG said:

It would suit me also but there is no solution that suits everyone.

It seems to me boating , which was never a cheap hobby, is becoming less good value as time passes and costs increase. Not just license fees  increasing but everything .  As an example my insurance renewal arrived yesterday and its almost 15% increase over last year . So far the alternatives are more expensive 

 

True, I think. Compare ye good old days, diesel dirt cheap, no CRT mooring permit... I could do a six week trip on twenty quid plus food.

Now there's not just the vast increase in costs but the curse of the noise of endless gennies and engines charging huge battery banks.

The solution is to rethink what to use the canals for, expand the residential moorings in towns and cities and collect the rent. If housing associations can do it, so can CRT. If they do whack the cost of CCing up, there will simply have to be more moorings as most of the real pseudo-CCers (those who hardly move at all and don't want to) might as will go legit. The canals might even make a profit again and last a bit longer.

The country bits will still be fine for leisure boaters.

[magnetman]

People who complain about lines and lines of boats and 'the canals are becoming housing estates' need to get with the modern times and notice that this has already happened. It would make a whole lot more sense to get money out of it rather than just moan about it.

 

People who live on boats are customers. They live there. In virtually all walks of life if you live somewhere you have to pay things like mortgage, rent, council tax &c.

 

CRT are in a position to get a lot more money of boat owners and I really think they ought to do this asap otherwise this obvious funding problem is going to get serious.

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

 

Did you know that when marinas are constructed the CRT respond by gradually closing off on line moorings? I don't understand this from a business point of view. Surely you want to maximise your income and on line moorings are a very good way of doing that.

 

 

I believe this policy was dumped some years ago. It was originally designed to encourage offline mooring.

[Orwellian]

3 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I was being serious. One of the problems is that people actually don't like seeing boats on canals.

 

Either this is moving boats or it is moored boats. The presence of other boats causes a lot of conflict.

 

Obviously there are people who don't mind either of these but those who do seem to have a major impact.

 

 

Did you know that when marinas are constructed the CRT respond by gradually closing off on line moorings? I don't understand this from a business point of view. Surely you want to maximise your income and on line moorings are a very good way of doing that.

 

 

So would you care to explain how your 'filter' would work? The online mooring point is a completely different matter.

[magnetman]

10 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

True, I think. Compare ye good old days, diesel dirt cheap, no CRT mooring permit... I could do a six week trip on twenty quid plus food.

Now there's not just the vast increase in costs but the curse of the noise of endless gennies and engines charging huge battery banks.

The solution is to rethink what to use the canals for, expand the residential moorings in towns and cities and collect the rent. If housing associations can do it, so can CRT.

 

 

I've been watching this one. I have a residential mooring on Limehouse cut for one of the boats. Proper residential job all services and council tax. Been here ten years

 

Recently one of the local housing associations has indeed installed another mooring almost exactly the same as the one I am on except it is narrow boats only. It is around 3/4 of the price of my mooring. All services and full residential status.

 

Guess what? Nobody there, after a year. No demand.

 

I wonder if they will reduce the price or if the moorings will gradually get cheaper and cheaper (oops !)

 

 

I would live on a boat regardless of the costs as that is my bag but I do wonder if the huge majority of people living on boats are only doing it for one reason and it is not because it is a boat.

 

It is an interesting situation.

 

7 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

So would you care to explain how your 'filter' would work? The online mooring point is a completely different matter.

 

I see what you mean now. I was not being all that literal about the filter.

 

Maybe one could have a section in the license application which says "do you moan when boats are going past at a speed you deem too fast/do you moan about having to slow down past moored boats" and if people ticked it then application refused

 

 

Sorry I was joking indeed but the theme behind the suggestion is valid I believe.

9 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I believe this policy was dumped some years ago. It was originally designed to encourage offline mooring.

 

That is interesting. Certainly good news if it was dumped. I wasn't sure about this. It seemed to just be a way of putting money into marina owners' hands rather than funding for canals. I don't care how big the marina operator's car is or if they get nice holidays but working canals seems quite a nice thing to have.

Edited February 9, 2023 by magnetman
typos

[David Mack]

22 minutes ago, magnetman said:

That is interesting. Certainly good news if it was dumped. I wasn't sure about this. It seemed to just be a way of putting money into marina owners' hands rather than funding for canals. I don't care how big the marina operator's car is or if they get nice holidays but working canals seems quite a nice thing to have.

BW was getting complaints from the trade about inconsistencies in the way marina applications were being handled, and how it was difficult to make a case for marina investment. At the same time boaters were complaining about long lines of online moorings (at a time when there weren't long lines of CCers tied to the towpath). BW's response was to encourage new marinas by standardising their approach, as embodied in the now standard Network Access Agreement, with marina operators paying a standard connection fee which partly offset BW's loss of online mooring income. As part of that they agreed to reduce online moorings in the vicinity of new marinas. 

That latter part of the policy didn't work very well as some online moorers didn't want to move, so in practice they could only remove online moorings as they became vacant. And offside landowners objected to the loss of mooring income.

 

I think the policy was dropped partly because of objections and partly because most of the new marinas were able to largely fill their space anyway, and BW/CRT wanted the money online moorings provide.

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I think the policy was dropped partly because of objections and partly because most of the new marinas were able to largely fill their space anyway, and BW/CRT wanted the money online moorings provide.

And perhaps because all the new marinas put online moorings on the edge of their marinas as well as the pontoons, so it didn't change the online situation apart from the money going to the marina instead of CRT.

[magnetman]

Maybe the CRT need to be more proactive and put piling across the entrances to marinas until they pay real money for Network Access.

 

There is something wrong with private land owners making profit from something which is publicly funded. I don't like this principle.

 

Get out some larssen piles and bang 'em in!

 

Yardley Gobion was the only one I know of.

[David Mack]

49 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Maybe the CRT need to be more proactive and put piling across the entrances to marinas until they pay real money for Network Access.

 

There is something wrong with private land owners making profit from something which is publicly funded. I don't like this principle.

 

Get out some larssen piles and bang 'em in!

 

Yardley Gobion was the only one I know of.

The marinas pay in accordance with the Network Access Agreement, so CRT have no basis for closing the entrance. 

Some years ago there was a standoff when Pillings Lock Marina failed to pay theur dues (amongst other alleged irregular behaviour). It generated one of the longest ever threads on here. CRT (or may have been BW) did indeed threaten to close the marina entrance, but in the end a deal was done and peace was resumed, although CRT were believed to be out of pocket to the tune of around £0.25 million over the whole business.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, magnetman said:

I'd definitely go for the toll system. Makes sense and was how the canals were originally operated. Charge related to how much time you spend on that stretch of water.

 

 

That sounds an ideal system for the 1000's of wanabe non-movers and the baton twirlers.

 

Moor up, never move, never pass a toll booth, never pay a penny.

[Creaking Gate]

How is this a surprise to anyone?   Can you not see the world around you?   Laughable really. 

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

That sounds an ideal system for the 1000's of wanabe non-movers and the baton twirlers.

 

Moor up, never move, never pass a toll booth, never pay a penny.

I don't think you read what I wrote ! 

 

The clue was in the bit where I said "Charge related to how much time you spend on that stretch of water."

Tolls could vary according to demand / market forces. Some stretches of water would be more expensive than others. 

 

I do think when you read my posts you perhaps have a pre-arranged view of my position on all of this and answer accordingly. 

 

Be careful doing this as assumption is the -insert generic reference here-

[Orwellian]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I don't think you read what I wrote ! 

 

The clue was in the bit where I said "Charge related to how much time you spend on that stretch of water."

You really should think these things through before posting. If a boat stays on CRT waters it will incur a full charge under your system. What section or sections it uses is about distribution not total take

The truth is without taxpayer support the CRT Waterways are doomed

[magnetman]

5 minutes ago, Orwellian said:

You really should think these things through before posting. If a boat stays on CRT waters it will incur a full charge under your system. What section or sections it uses is about distribution not total take

The truth is without taxpayer support the CRT Waterways are doomed

I do know how things work currently. 

 

I am also aware that taxpayer support is needed.

 

What I was advocating was a toll system whereby use of canals is charged according to the demand. 

 

I don't really understand why you think I should "think these things through before posting". 

 

If you remove your own personal circumstances from the subject can you suggest a particular reason why this is not a good way to fund a canal system which is in need of funding? 

 

If you can't remove your own personal circumstances then you have a biased view. 

 

Someone paying less than a thousand pounds a year being able to access over a thousand miles of waterways is a ridiculous situation.

 

Bargain of the century. No. The millennium. 

 

 

 

ETA maybe what you are saying is that there is no demand from boat owners for a working canal system. 

This is an interesting theory and one I tend to agree with to an extent but I don't think it has been tested. 

[Orwellian]

I'll leave it there thanks.

[magnetman]

Just now, Orwellian said:

I'll leave it there thanks.

 

Maybe you need to think it through before posting that. 

[Orwellian]

I did.

[Momac]

A couple of thoughts

1. C&RT should perhaps become part of the National Trust. Bigger organisation  duplicated job roles would go. National trust good at looking after property. 

2. How much do the fishest pay for dangling their tackle in C&RT water ? If none then why is that ?