Jump to content

The Why Bother Brigade


Heartland

Featured Posts

22 minutes ago, Heartland said:

There seems to be a growing number of people who contribute to this site who express the view that certain canals should be closed, and maybe are a waterways equivalent of Doctor Richard Beeching.

 

All those people who campaigned for waterways restoration schemes are having their combined voices drowned out by those who say "why bother?" as well as "close down the expensive waterways and return them to the decaying world of the disused navigation." The latter option may suit ecologists whose primary concern is the preservation of the habitats of endangered creatures.

 

The modern reality of keeping open navigations, where repair of the infrastructure is part of the problem. Costs for staff, materials, and maintenance have been part of these equations since the time of the navigations being built. however. It is now part of the challenge to find sufficient funds to keep. the network in order.

 

The growing interest in getting more miles of waterway back into use has been a goal of many enthusiasts. Those that gave their time to restore waterways such as the Ashton and the Caldon were part of a generation that cared and there is now another generation of those that care giving their time to help restore the Lichfield and the Montgomery. So there a battalion of those that DO bother and hopefully will continue to do so! 

 

Several of the loudest "why bother?" voices come from people who either don't have a boat at all any more but are nostalgic for the "good old days" when they did, or have a boat but moved off CART waters for greener (bluer?) pastures elsewhere, or are planning to do so Real Soon Now, or barely move around the canals so don't care if large chunks close.

 

In other words they don't seem to have any real interest in keeping the canals open, and enjoy complaining endlessly about them (and CART), or objecting to/avoiding any measures to try and keep them open such as license fee increases -- leastways, ones that they'd have to pay -- or make them more environmentally friendly as far as pollution is concerned. Pretty much diametrically opposite to the attitudes of those who campaigned for restoration, and even perhaps some people in CART... 😉

 

It makes you wonder why they bother posting on CWDF at all, why not just write to the Daily Wail like all the other moaners to complain about Britain in general and more specifically how the canals are going to the dogs and it's all CARTs fault and *definitely* not the fault of the government... 😞

Edited by IanD
  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother about all those narrow winding country lanes which lead only to some village that no one's ever heard of. There must be thousands of them, they're little used and their maintenance must be a drain on the finances of many councils. Shut 'em down, I say, after all, roads are there to connect big towns and cities.

Aren't they>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

Why bother about all those narrow winding country lanes which lead only to some village that no one's ever heard of. There must be thousands of them, they're little used and their maintenance must be a drain on the finances of many councils. Shut 'em down, I say, after all, roads are there to connect big towns and cities.

Aren't they>

 

You should come and sit outside my house for an hour if you think the narrow winding country lane I live on is 'little used', lol! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

You should come and sit outside my house for an hour if you think the narrow winding country lane I live on is 'little used', lol! 

It was, as I'm sure you realised, written tongue-in-cheek: some shortish dead-end canals, such as the Ashby, are pretty heavily used too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't think it's a "why bother" approach, more a thinking about the reality of the situation. Some of us have been saying for years that both the funding and the management have been inadequate, some have been active in trying to improve both.

There is little point, in truth, of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds restoring a waterway that in five years time will be unmaintained and heading back to uselessness. It may be a nice hobby, but there are many examples of very worthwhile projects funded in several ways, often with a fanfare by the lottery or suchlike, which close in a few years as there is simply no money for continuing support.

It doesn't mean we don't care, but in the face of a country with other priorities, we do have to face facts, unpalatable though some may find them. The system is creaking at the seams, and we have to find a way to cope with it.

Some just find a non-CRT way of staying on the water - surely an indication of dedication to the lifestyle rather than the opposite. Some of us (me, for example) expect soon to have to get rid of a much loved boat and switch to sometimg smaller and therefore cheaper.

ETA As to why we post (both those leaving and left as well as those hanging on) it's because we and they do care about it, so it's worth discussing.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear -- of course I've got no problem with anyone posting whether they own a boat or not (or ever have done) or whether they're on the canals (or not).

 

What I have a problem with is those who seem to have become anti-canal (or anti-CART) campaigners and take great delight in anything negative they can find to post, as if they actually *want* the whole system to fall to pieces -- maybe those who have left (or plan to) want this to happen to justify that what they did (or are going to do) was right?

 

As part of this they repeatedly predict a canal apocalypse, that it's all going to go to hell in a handbasket and nothing can be done -- and usually that it's all CARTs fault, and that blue signs and executive pay are largely to blame. Not a good way to encourage people who are canal enthusiasts to live on and use the canals, or to encourage new people in to keep the age profile down a bit -- and generally negative and aggressive posts on CWDF don't help with this either.

 

I know some people just seem to enjoy nothing better than having a good old moan, but I sometimes wish they wouldn't do it so loudly and so often -- and with so little point... 😞

 

I agree with you that the problem is that the system is creaking at the seams, and the basic problem is underfunding. Like many items of infrastructure in the UK that the government (wrongly) thinks ought to be hived off to the private sector instead of being publicly owned and/or run or subsidised, I think it's clear where the real problem lies -- and it's not with CART.

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Athy said:

Why bother about all those narrow winding country lanes which lead only to some village that no one's ever heard of. There must be thousands of them, they're little used and their maintenance must be a drain on the finances of many councils. Shut 'em down, I say, after all, roads are there to connect big towns and cities.

Aren't they>

 

So if I understand correctly you don't wish to keep these examples of  Norfolk in use?

 

 

 

 

(Now read it aloud 😁)

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Why bother about all those narrow winding country lanes which lead only to some village that no one's ever heard of. There must be thousands of them, they're little used and their maintenance must be a drain on the finances of many councils. Shut 'em down, I say, after all, roads are there to connect big towns and cities.

Aren't they>

That was exactly the logic used by Dr Beeching. Was Ernest Marples the Minister at the time? I think Mrs Marples had shares in one of the big construction companies.

Clearly the concept of a conflict of interests was just the same all those years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Athy said:

Why bother about all those narrow winding country lanes which lead only to some village that no one's ever heard of. There must be thousands of them, they're little used and their maintenance must be a drain on the finances of many councils. Shut 'em down, I say, after all, roads are there to connect big towns and cities.

Aren't they>

 

tbh I think there are quite a few road whose potholed state suggests the council has taken that approach

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, enigmatic said:

 

tbh I think there are quite a few road whose potholed state suggests the council has taken that approach

Which is exactly the same as us grumbling a bout CRT's lack of maintenance - potholes are the  local council's problem, but their central government funding has been cut, just like CRT's. The country (and it seems a majority on here) consistently votes for low government spending - we can't complain when we get it.

Whether we like it or not, it's a political problem in that you can have a system that prioritises individual profit, or one that prioritises society as a whole, including it's infrastructure, but you can't have one that does both. There was a comment in one paper this week that in the US, in the richest country in the world, people can't get clean water to drink. But, similar to ours, it's not a rich country, just a country with the richest people in it.

The council has no option with the roads, CRT has no option but to raise fees and cut maintenance.
And I'm not looking for a political debate, while there may be slightly different views on public spending between our parties, and so a slightly higher chance with one rather than the other, all have to work with the fact that it's a two or three hundred year old system which not many people are interested in apart from somewhere to dump their old bikes and supermarket trolleys. If its only other function is as a rich man's play area, there's not much future in it.

Edited by Arthur Marshall
  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dav and Pen said:

Unfortunately CRt have not generally endeared themselves to many of the users (their customers) but it needs a concerted lobbying effort of all the MPs who have any waterways in their area to put pressure on the government for more funds as they seem to find money when pressure is put on them.

 

 

You're welcome to try and lobby my MP. Lives in the constituency, which is something I suppose, but apart from slavishly doing what the whips tell him, he doesn't appear to have done anything apart from breathe for the past ten years. Safe seat, you see. He's not going to rock the (narrow) boat by pressurising anyone.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting politics aside (and somewhat simplifying it), politicians won't just take on a cause they feel like, they'll only go after "vote winner" themes. So, the focus of any campaign to save or get govt funding into canals again should start with the public, not just lobbying MPs. And some boaters really don't help themselves.....

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Athy said:

Why bother about all those narrow winding country lanes which lead only to some village that no one's ever heard of. There must be thousands of them, they're little used and their maintenance must be a drain on the finances of many councils. Shut 'em down, I say, after all, roads are there to connect big towns and cities.

Aren't they>

A number of the more remote country lanes that I remember driving along in the 1970's, now have  "unsuitable for motor vehicles" signs where they join other roads. Presumably Essex's method of avoiding the cost of maintenance and a way of avoiding being sued for damage to your car due to potholes. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul C said:

Putting politics aside (and somewhat simplifying it), politicians won't just take on a cause they feel like, they'll only go after "vote winner" themes. So, the focus of any campaign to save or get govt funding into canals again should start with the public, not just lobbying MPs. And some boaters really don't help themselves.....

 

It's got very little to do with boaters, or ex boaters. It's all about how much the general public want to save the canal network.

 

Why not spend less time here, join the IWA or do some litter picking. Manual work can be very rewarding. Maybe even more rewarding than chucking money at the problem.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dav and Pen said:

As someone who is no longer on the water due I’m afraid to poor health I do still take an interest and look over every bridge and have short walks along the towpaths. There’s really nothing new about the backlog of maintenance on the canal network, when I was on the IWA council in the mid 70s it was then estimated at £60 million and it was obvious that boat licenses and the freight traffic etc could not raise this amount. The then management sold as much of the family silver as they could but there was never enough. We tried to evaluate the impact of the system on its value to the areas they pass through, direct jobs and the ancillary jobs in the like of boat building and repair and supply. I can’t remember the figures we arrived at but it was a considerable amount which made no direct contribution but which paid taxes. 
Over the intervening years the system has got much busier and the recent growth in liveaboards has changed the picture entirely and I would guess that the majority of boats are basically non movers and this trend seems to be increasing . These users present a different problem with regard to maintenance and services but they have a cost. 
With regard to closing parts of the system my dear friend Graham Palmer and other founders of WRG will come back and haunt them. Against opposition from Bwb, the unions, local authorities and even the local people lots of people came together to get stuck in and nice and muddy as well as campaigners and fund raisers forming specific  canal restoration societies and their foresight and hard work resulted in the network we have now. These people were in the main not boat owners but could see the benefit of reopening and to shut down parts of it would presumably mean some ongoing expense as these are not natural watercourses but have become part of the drainage system over time. 
When the Stratford canal was re opened the National Trust ran it for a while but really had no interest or expertise and gave it to Bwb but the upper Avon is still an independent waterway. Maybe that’s how any new restored waterways should proceed in the future and the restorers should become navigation authorities and no doubt their canals would soon be full of houseboats for which they could charge a decent rent.

Unfortunately CRt have not generally endeared themselves to many of the users (their customers) but it needs a concerted lobbying effort of all the MPs who have any waterways in their area to put pressure on the government for more funds as they seem to find money when pressure is put on them.

 

 

It may be independent as a navigation authority but it does have significant public funding to keep the river navigable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Heartland said:

All those people who campaigned for waterways restoration schemes are having their combined voices drowned out by those who say "why bother?" as well as "close down the expensive waterways and return them to the decaying world of the disused navigation." 

 

Is that really true? Do you have any evidence in terms of statistics to support what you're saying here? I somehow doubt it... Isn't it more likely that a couple of people have expressed that view and you're exaggerating the rest?

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, George and Dragon said:

That was exactly the logic used by Dr Beeching. Was Ernest Marples the Minister at the time? I think Mrs Marples had shares in one of the big construction companies.

Ernest Marples was managing director of contractor Marples Ridgeway and owned 80% of the shares in the company. On becoming Minister of Transport he sold those shares to his wife.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Marples

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

Is that really true? Do you have any evidence in terms of statistics to support what you're saying here? I somehow doubt it... Isn't it more likely that a couple of people have expressed that view and you're exaggerating the rest?

 

There are certainly plenty of "canal doom-monger" posts on CWDF at the moment, and these do outnumber posts from "canal enthusiasts" as any inspection of discussions on the future of the canals makes obvious. This is certainly the impression that anyone new to the forum would get, so I'd say that does mean the "why bother"-ers *are* drowning out the voices of those less pessimistic.

 

Rather like on the politics forum, a lot of these posts (most of them?) do come from a few pessimists who post a lot -- obviously there's no way to know what the views are of all the people who *don't* post... 😉

Edited by IanD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Dav and Pen said:

As someone who is no longer on the water due I’m afraid to poor health I do still take an interest and look over every bridge and have short walks along the towpaths. There’s really nothing new about the backlog of maintenance on the canal network, when I was on the IWA council in the mid 70s it was then estimated at £60 million and it was obvious that boat licenses and the freight traffic etc could not raise this amount. The then management sold as much of the family silver as they could but there was never enough. We tried to evaluate the impact of the system on its value to the areas they pass through, direct jobs and the ancillary jobs in the like of boat building and repair and supply. I can’t remember the figures we arrived at but it was a considerable amount which made no direct contribution but which paid taxes. 
Over the intervening years the system has got much busier and the recent growth in liveaboards has changed the picture entirely and I would guess that the majority of boats are basically non movers and this trend seems to be increasing . These users present a different problem with regard to maintenance and services but they have a cost. 
With regard to closing parts of the system my dear friend Graham Palmer and other founders of WRG will come back and haunt them. Against opposition from Bwb, the unions, local authorities and even the local people lots of people came together to get stuck in and nice and muddy as well as campaigners and fund raisers forming specific  canal restoration societies and their foresight and hard work resulted in the network we have now. These people were in the main not boat owners but could see the benefit of reopening and to shut down parts of it would presumably mean some ongoing expense as these are not natural watercourses but have become part of the drainage system over time. 
When the Stratford canal was re opened the National Trust ran it for a while but really had no interest or expertise and gave it to Bwb but the upper Avon is still an independent waterway. Maybe that’s how any new restored waterways should proceed in the future and the restorers should become navigation authorities and no doubt their canals would soon be full of houseboats for which they could charge a decent rent.

Unfortunately CRt have not generally endeared themselves to many of the users (their customers) but it needs a concerted lobbying effort of all the MPs who have any waterways in their area to put pressure on the government for more funds as they seem to find money when pressure is put on them.

 

 

Maintenance backlog in 70's - £60m.

Maintenance backlog in 2008 - £200m

Maintenance backlog in 2023 - £400m?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Maintenance backlog in 70's - £60m.

Maintenance backlog in 2008 - £200m

Maintenance backlog in 2023 - £400m?

 

Which is why -- like much infrastructure -- trying to privatise the canals simply isn't going to work, this level of long-term investment only comes from governments.

 

Unless you sell the whole caboodle off to venture capitalists who would load it up with massive debt and then asset-strip it or break it up and close down the expensive/bad bits, like they have with many companies... 😞

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

There are certainly plenty of "canal doom-monger" posts on CWDF at the moment, and these do outnumber posts from "canal enthusiasts" as any inspection of discussions on the future of the canals makes obvious. This is certainly the impression that anyone new to the forum would get, so I'd say that does mean the "why bother"-ers *are* drowning out the voices of those less pessimistic.

 

Rather like on the politics forum, a lot of these posts (most of them?) do come from a few pessimists who post a lot -- obviously there's no way to know what the views are of all the people who *don't* post... 😉

If you'd been consistently boating on the canal for the last thirty years, as a fair few of us have, you'd have seen a considerable improvement in the first ten years and a steady decline after that. I can remember when all the paired locks on the T&M were in use...

It can't be helped, as a navigable system it can't go on for ever and priorities for investment change. But there's a difference between realism and pessimism - you are, I think, coming on to it in the autumn of its years, but its still a cracking place to be and will probably see you out.

No-one is saying why bother. We all do, tightening up bolts on the locks as we go and fixing what we can. But we can't fix the leaking locks and broken paddles, the towpaths about to breach and the collapsing bridges, the sluice gear rusted solid or the unmaintained reservoirs and blocked culverts. And unfortunately, nobody else is going to, either.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.