Changes to moorings in Birmingham being considered by CRT

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

You will find it even harder to find a 14 day mooring now if its only half full

[Jonkx]

This is a ridiculous proposal. There isn't a problem with moorings in Central Birmingham. I've been through on several occasions in the last few years and never found it overcrowded. Being able to reliably find secure visitor moorings in the city centre makes it possible to visit Birmingham. This change, so that you have to moor beyond Vincent Road, makes it less feasible, I wouldn't moor there. Knowing there are only more limited moorings in quieter areas out of sight makes me less confident about visiting. Its a bad move and unnecessary in my opinion. 

[ditchcrawler]

3 minutes ago, Jonkx said:

This is a ridiculous proposal. There isn't a problem with moorings in Central Birmingham. I've been through on several occasions in the last few years and never found it overcrowded. Being able to reliably find secure visitor moorings in the city centre makes it possible to visit Birmingham. This change, so that you have to moor beyond Vincent Road, makes it less feasible, I wouldn't moor there. Knowing there are only more limited moorings in quieter areas out of sight makes me less confident about visiting. Its a bad move and unnecessary in my opinion. 

I had an email saying there is a VERY slight rethink and thats after about 4 days of comments, so if you don't like it, tell them,

[peterboat]

2 minutes ago, Jonkx said:

This is a ridiculous proposal. There isn't a problem with moorings in Central Birmingham. I've been through on several occasions in the last few years and never found it overcrowded. Being able to reliably find secure visitor moorings in the city centre makes it possible to visit Birmingham. This change, so that you have to moor beyond Vincent Road, makes it less feasible, I wouldn't moor there. Knowing there are only more limited moorings in quieter areas out of sight makes me less confident about visiting. Its a bad move and unnecessary in my opinion. 

The issue is CRT have no money to do maintenance yet waste more money on fixing something that isn't broken to something that is! Totally normal for them. 

[Jonkx]

8 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I had an email saying there is a VERY slight rethink and thats after about 4 days of comments, so if you don't like it, tell them,

Yes. I have also responded to the consultation. 

[doratheexplorer]

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

The issue is CRT have no money to do maintenance yet waste more money on fixing something that isn't broken to something that is! Totally normal for them. 

I wouldn't agree that it isn't broken.  The signage around the city centre is poor, but that's par for the course for CRT.  If only some effort had gone into making the signage clearer around the network over the last few years, rather than replacing old confusing signs, with new confusing signs, with a different logo on.

 

But in general, I'd agree that mooring in Birmingham as a visiting boat is ok, and certainly better than many other places.  There's a good choice of spots to choose from. 

 

I still think moving the Sherborne services mooring to the towpath was a huge mistake.  It's resulted in fewer visitor moorings, been problematic for Sherborne Wharf itself and has caused conflict with the neighbouring pub.

 

It only made any sense while Earle and Toni owned the pub, but that particular foray was a bit of a disaster...

[Stroudwater1]

10 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I had an email saying there is a VERY slight rethink and thats after about 4 days of comments, so if you don't like it, tell them,

 

I received a thank you for your email response, so obviously you are more influential or better at writing appropriate emails 😄

 

Appreciate its a different region but surely CRT with the authorities should be bothering to get Manchester to be a more attractive area to moor than pushing people who are disabled yet not bad enough to have a blue badge away from the city centre after 2 days (And you have to be really bad to get a blue badge now) 

[ditchcrawler]

7 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

I received a thank you for your email response, so obviously you are more influential or better at writing appropriate emails 😄

 

Appreciate its a different region but surely CRT with the authorities should be bothering to get Manchester to be a more attractive area to moor than pushing people who are disabled yet not bad enough to have a blue badge away from the city centre after 2 days (And you have to be really bad to get a blue badge now) 

I sent an email to Mathew Simmons copied to Richard Parry

[IanD]

8 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

 

I received a thank you for your email response, so obviously you are more influential or better at writing appropriate emails 😄

 

Appreciate its a different region but surely CRT with the authorities should be bothering to get Manchester to be a more attractive area to moor than pushing people who are disabled yet not bad enough to have a blue badge away from the city centre after 2 days (And you have to be really bad to get a blue badge now) 

 

Manchester had the potential to have some nice visitor moorings when places like Castlefield were rebuilt, but not only had this not happened they've gone downhill in recent years, especially since Peel took over -- and elsewhere in the city is little better, the mooring situation is pretty dire, especially for visitors. As somewhere that put considerable emphasis on the canals from the landlubbers point of view -- though not as much as Brum -- it's shame that they seem to be making zero effort to make it attractive to boaters... 😞

Edited February 14, 2023 by IanD

[casper ghost]

I see they're also "consulting" about the Llangollen basin moorings, with a view to double the overnight mooring charge, and something about locals moaning about engines, so no doubt that'll be more signage..

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by casper ghost

[Francis Herne]

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/24351-towpath-closure-st-vincent-street-bridge-to-main-line-turnover-bridge-smethwick-junction-new-main-line

 

So - for almost the whole "trial period" the 14 day moorings beyond St Vincent Street will also be closed, leaving no mooring over two days anywhere near the centre, at least going by the notice.

 

Coincidence? Total sham? Who knows. 🙄

 

(It's twin towpaths on the Main Line for the whole stretch, so surely they won't actually have both towpaths closed at the same time. Right...?)

Edited February 27, 2023 by Francis Herne

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

29 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/24351-towpath-closure-st-vincent-street-bridge-to-main-line-turnover-bridge-smethwick-junction-new-main-line

 

So - for almost the whole "trial period" the 14 day moorings beyond St Vincent Street will also be closed, leaving no mooring over two days anywhere near the centre, at least going by the notice.

 

Coincidence? Total sham? Who knows. 🙄

 

(It's twin towpaths on the Main Line for the whole stretch, so surely they won't actually have both towpaths closed at the same time. Right...?)

You couldn’t make half this stuff up could you 🙄😃

 

I thought the towpath was pretty decent all along there ?

Maybe the cyclist need it for better racing. 😃
 
I noticed this winter they were improving the towpath up on the old line towards Tividale too

 

and the Gower Branch. 

this bit in Brum on the main line is going to go on til August. 

[Midnight]

1 hour ago, Francis Herne said:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/24351-towpath-closure-st-vincent-street-bridge-to-main-line-turnover-bridge-smethwick-junction-new-main-line

 

So - for almost the whole "trial period" the 14 day moorings beyond St Vincent Street will also be closed, leaving no mooring over two days anywhere near the centre, at least going by the notice.

 

Coincidence? Total sham? Who knows. 🙄

 

(It's twin towpaths on the Main Line for the whole stretch, so surely they won't actually have both towpaths closed at the same time. Right...?)

That is just silly!

[Dave_P]

On 27/02/2023 at 15:47, Francis Herne said:

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notices/24351-towpath-closure-st-vincent-street-bridge-to-main-line-turnover-bridge-smethwick-junction-new-main-line

 

So - for almost the whole "trial period" the 14 day moorings beyond St Vincent Street will also be closed, leaving no mooring over two days anywhere near the centre, at least going by the notice.

 

Coincidence? Total sham? Who knows. 🙄

 

(It's twin towpaths on the Main Line for the whole stretch, so surely they won't actually have both towpaths closed at the same time. Right...?)

I have to say this is really disappointing and short sighted.  Not just because it makes a mockery of the current morring reduction trial period but because of the further impact on the towapth.

 

Back in 2016, the north side towpath was resurfaced from the city centre,, out towards Wolverhampton.  At that time I was doing my post-grad thesis on 'towpath conflict' and how changes to the built environment could either increase or decrease it.  I spoke at length with A*** M******* who was the project lead for Birmingham City Council and J*** H***** who was the project lead for CRT.  As part of these meetings we discussed the towpath 'improvements' on the north side and I was told that the same would be done on the south side at some point.  I expressed my concerns about this, my comments being along the lines of "now that one side is done, it has pushed many towpath users to the other, muddier side so they can get away from the cyclists.  if you do the other side the dog walkers etc will have nowhere to go".  Having 2 towpaths means that 2 different surfaces and approaches can be adopted and everyone can be catered for.

 

It was like talking to a brick wall.  Both of them simply couldn't conceive of a reason why a towpath shouldn't be tarmacked if there's money to do it.  I was met with blank stares from both of them when I tried to explain the problem.  In 2016, the money came from the DfT via a thing called the Cycle City Ambition Grant.  I presume another pot of grant money has now been awarded and again CRT and BCC can't think of anything to do with it but to tarmac more towpath.  I was told in 2016 that the towpaths were chosen because they were "quick wins".

 

In case you were wondering, yes I found various postive correlations between 'improving' towpaths and various negative outcomes, including more accidents and injuries and towpath users being driven away.  It's also worth mentioning that the works done on the towpaths are often in direct contravention of the Trust's own guidelines for towpath design, introduced in 2013 https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/6873.pdf?v=cafb81

[Francis Herne]

Update from CRT by email (no change to the stoppage notice for clarity, yet).

Quote

As you rightly say, there are towpaths on both sides of the canal at this location. Only the southern side is closed, enabling boats to moor up on the other side and to use the towpath.

 

It won’t affect the mooring trial, as its only the north/east towpath which is included beyond Vincent Street.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Francis Herne

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, Dave_P said:

I have to say this is really disappointing and short sighted.  Not just because it makes a mockery of the current morring reduction trial period but because of the further impact on the towapth.

 

Back in 2016, the north side towpath was resurfaced from the city centre,, out towards Wolverhampton.  At that time I was doing my post-grad thesis on 'towpath conflict' and how changes to the built environment could either increase or decrease it.  I spoke at length with A*** M******* who was the project lead for Birmingham City Council and J*** H***** who was the project lead for CRT.  As part of these meetings we discussed the towpath 'improvements' on the north side and I was told that the same would be done on the south side at some point.  I expressed my concerns about this, my comments being along the lines of "now that one side is done, it has pushed many towpath users to the other, muddier side so they can get away from the cyclists.  if you do the other side the dog walkers etc will have nowhere to go".  Having 2 towpaths means that 2 different surfaces and approaches can be adopted and everyone can be catered for.

 

It was like talking to a brick wall.  Both of them simply couldn't conceive of a reason why a towpath shouldn't be tarmacked if there's money to do it.  I was met with blank stares from both of them when I tried to explain the problem.  In 2016, the money came from the DfT via a thing called the Cycle City Ambition Grant.  I presume another pot of grant money has now been awarded and again CRT and BCC can't think of anything to do with it but to tarmac more towpath.  I was told in 2016 that the towpaths were chosen because they were "quick wins".

 

In case you were wondering, yes I found various postive correlations between 'improving' towpaths and various negative outcomes, including more accidents and injuries and towpath users being driven away.  It's also worth mentioning that the works done on the towpaths are often in direct contravention of the Trust's own guidelines for towpath design, introduced in 2013 https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/original/6873.pdf?v=cafb81

Well done to you for trying.

[DaveP]

Just to add to the general uselessness that is CRT.  I just had a look at the availability of booked moorings in London for a trip down there this summer.  On the same form - Vincent Street in Birmingham is bookable ( for possibly a fee), but it's all either fully booked or not available to book.  I suspect this was added to the page just for the Commonwealth Games, but has never been removed.

 

[Francis Herne]

The proposal has been updated with significant changes from the first draft in response to feedback, and also a detailed analysis of the responses.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/where-we-work/west-midlands/birmingham-city-centre-moorings-trial

 

In short it's now uniform 4-day moorings from Granville St to Sheepcote St, reverting to 14 in winter and 14 days beyond those points.

The "welcome boat" is gone and exchanged for a second disabled-priority mooring. Cambrian Wharf, Roundhouse and Gas St service/long-term moorings as in the first version.

 

This version is a big improvement in my opinion. I'd assumed the consultation to be a box-ticking exercise before continuing with the predetermined plan, but this proves me entirely wrong. I've apologised to Mr Freeland at CRT for some earlier comments I made to that effect.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Francis Herne

[doratheexplorer]

12 minutes ago, Francis Herne said:

The proposal has been updated with significant changes from the first draft in response to feedback, and also a detailed analysis of the responses.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/where-we-work/west-midlands/birmingham-city-centre-moorings-trial

 

In short it's now uniform 4-day moorings from Granville St to Sheepcote St, reverting to 14 in winter and 14 days beyond those points.

The "welcome boat" is gone and exchanged for a second disabled-priority mooring. Cambrian Wharf, Roundhouse and Gas St service/long-term moorings as in the first version.

 

This version is a big improvement in my opinion. I'd assumed the consultation to be a box-ticking exercise before continuing with the predetermined plan, but this proves me entirely wrong. I've apologised to Mr Freeland at CRT for some earlier comments I made to that effect.

 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Francis Herne said:

This version is a big improvement in my opinion. I'd assumed the consultation to be a box-ticking exercise before continuing with the predetermined plan, but this proves me entirely wrong. I've apologised to Mr Freeland at CRT for some earlier comments I made to that effect.

I didn't fill in a questionnaire but emailed them my thoughts

[Francis Herne]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

I didn't fill in a questionnaire but emailed them my thoughts

I'm not aware of there ever being a questionnaire - when first published there wasn't even a suggested email address to contact!

 

EDIT: like you I emailed my comments.

 

By "box-ticking exercise" I meant that the consultation initially (with no contact details, no communication with BCNS etc. and three weeks' notice) looked to me more like a pro-forma excuse to say "the boaters were consulted ☑, we have followed The Process" than a serious attempt to collect and act on feedback. Happily that's not been the case.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Francis Herne

[Ronaldo47]

Your initial cynicism was perhaps justified by experience.

 

As with a consultation on implementing a 20mph speed limit on some local roads. My local councillor sent me a link to the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made, which took place before the expiry date of the public consultation! 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

I don’t think there ever was a questionnaire?
The latest comment from CRT is a response resulting from those who emailed their concerns (I think I’m correct)

 

So 👍 to anyone who did email them. 
We may have had some effect. 🤷‍♀️

my main objection was limiting moorings to 2 days through the winter, and of course the idea of license fees going up while reducing mooring. 
 

 

 

[Mike Todd]

52 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I don’t think there ever was a questionnaire?
The latest comment from CRT is a response resulting from those who emailed their concerns (I think I’m correct)

 

So 👍 to anyone who did email them. 
We may have had some effect. 🤷‍♀️

my main objection was limiting moorings to 2 days through the winter, and of course the idea of license fees going up while reducing mooring. 
 

 

 

My recollection is that it was a narrative on the proposals interspersed with questions. Not a bad style for a consultation, if I recall it correctly. I don't know how many people normally respond to these canal consultations but I was a tad disappointed to see that only 80 responses were received. OTOH, insofar as I can recall how I responded I thinks that most of my comments were the same as most people and pleased that we were heeded. I thought that licence fees was an entirely different matter. In any case, I don't think that the number of moorings is to be reduced, rather redistributed amongst competing users.

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

My recollection is that it was a narrative on the proposals interspersed with questions. Not a bad style for a consultation, if I recall it correctly. I don't know how many people normally respond to these canal consultations but I was a tad disappointed to see that only 80 responses were received. OTOH, insofar as I can recall how I responded I thinks that most of my comments were the same as most people and pleased that we were heeded. I thought that licence fees was an entirely different matter. In any case, I don't think that the number of moorings is to be reduced, rather redistributed amongst competing users.

I guess what I meant was, when a mooring is reduced to 2 or 4 or whatever days, rather than 14 , then it’s a reduction in mooring. 
 

Yes the license fee is another issue but I couldn’t help but comment

in my email to CRT that they will readily increase the license fee while reduce our opportunities for mooring. 

and of course they were proposing using visitor moorings for a permanent ‘show boat’ which they may now rethink.