Countryfile

[ditchcrawler]

9 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Hardly. Nobody other than boaters cares about that. Provided the unused canals still have 6" of water in them and a towpath, the saving in money from closing them to boats will have been worth it. 

 

Just playing Devil's Advocaat....

Trouble is you are right

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

Trouble is you are right

 

I'm often right! 

 

Sadly.

[Momac]

20 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

Hardly. Nobody other than boaters cares about that. Provided the unused canals still have 6" of water in them and a towpath, the saving in money from closing them to boats will have been worth it. 

 

Just playing Devil's Advocaat....

I dare say  nature will fairly quickly take over  canals that are not used by boats . But that doesn't necessarily prevent the canal from being restored in the future.

 

Giving the Grantham canal as an example  there  have been very low bridges built over it and at the R.Trent end the canal was built  over. completely , cutting off the connection to the river . This sort of thing shouldn't  be allowed  but most of the general public don't understand that and don't care .

 

Unfortunately the  end of some canals as navigable waterways may well be in sight.

 

 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Momac said:

I dare say  nature will fairly quickly take over  canals that are not used by boats . But that doesn't necessarily prevent the canal from being restored in the future.

 

Giving the Grantham canal as an example  there  have been very low bridges built over it and at the R.Trent end the canal was built  over. completely , cutting off the connection to the river . This sort of thing shouldn't  be allowed  but most of the general public don't understand that and don't care .

 

Unfortunately the  end of some canals as navigable waterways may well be in sight.

 

 

 

If boaters stopped being such tightwads and paid for their licences what it actually costs to keep the canals running (i.e £15k a year each - the same as rent on a three bed house), most of the canals could stay open. 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, Sir Percy said:

Quoted an average of £1300 a year

I think. That was actually the figure for a licence, as they seemed to be talking to a continuous cruiser.

[Momac]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

If boaters stopped being such tightwads and paid for their licences what it actually costs to keep the canals running (i.e £15k a year each - the same as rent on a three bed house), most of the canals could stay open. 

There is no way that would work as other options/activities  would become much more financially attractive . 

 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, Momac said:

There is no way that would work as other options/activities  would become much more financially attractive . 

 

 

Go on then, list a few! 

 

 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Go on then, list a few! 

 

 

Fishing...

If CRT charge 15 grand for a licence moorings will go up to about 12... I don't think there would be many boats left. Certainly no hire boats.

You forget most boaters are already paying their 15 grand in rent. Paying that for a few weeks holiday a year, which is what the bulk of boats are for, is simply daft. Or do you mean only the continuous cruisers licence should be that much?

[Mad Harold]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

If boaters stopped being such tightwads and paid for their licences what it actually costs to keep the canals running (i.e £15k a year each - the same as rent on a three bed house), most of the canals could stay open. 

 

 

That may be acceptable to some of the people that live on their boats, but not to hobby boaters (except wealthy ones) Housing is expensive and if you live on land (renting or buying) a £15K licence fee will push most hobby boaters off the canals and I would guess a great many live aboards too, unless they moor in expensive areas of the country.

I would be interested to see if a straw poll of CWF members would be prepared to pay a £15K licence fee to keep the canals maintained.

Such an increase would I think would result in the canals being used by the better off, and people on benefits who get their licence fee paid as housing benefit.

Edited March 3 by Mad Harold

[Momac]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

Go on then, list a few! 

Conventional holidaying in hotels/ b&b'sh/package holidays abroad

Cruises 

Camping/caravan/motorhome holidays

Inland waterways boat hire holidays abroad 

Owning and keeping a boat  in the EU (eg Netherlands /Belgium /France)

Coastal boating in the UK

Owning a holiday home abroad eg France /Spain

 

 

 

 

 

[Mad Harold]

11 hours ago, Momac said:

Conventional holidaying in hotels/ b&b'sh/package holidays abroad

Cruises 

Camping/caravan/motorhome holidays

Inland waterways boat hire holidays abroad 

Owning and keeping a boat  in the EU (eg Netherlands /Belgium /France)

Coastal boating in the UK

Owning a holiday home abroad eg France /Spain

 

 

 

 

 

Also you could get your boating "fix" rather cheaper with a small,trailerable sailing boat or dingy on inland lakes and reservoirs.

Don't know what club membership fees are, but Probably a lot less than £15K.

 

[magpie patrick]

15 hours ago, MtB said:

 

If boaters stopped being such tightwads and paid for their licences what it actually costs to keep the canals running (i.e £15k a year each - the same as rent on a three bed house), most of the canals could stay open. 

 

 

 

At the risk of becoming a pariah I concur

 

I recently surveyed the Neath Canal at Resolven - 34 year old gates that have fallen apart. You simply cannot keep stretching resources indefinitely, things cannot be continually patched. 34 years old is only 9 years beyond design life and 5 years beyond what can be eked out with care, if available maintenance funds are halved then lock gates will fail and no replacements will be available.

 

And that's before we have structural failures! 

 

I fear that we either pay up or canals will close

 

Neath Canal falling apart 

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

At the risk of becoming a pariah I concur

 

 

I think "Pariah" has been chosen as the name for the latest model of Ford ICE car.

 

 

 

[Bobbybass]

It worries me.....if they start to close some canals, can you imagine the pressure on the rest of the system with all those displaced boaters ?

 

A future life of tick over past continuous  moored boats. 

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Bobbybass said:

It worries me.....if they start to close some canals, can you imagine the pressure on the rest of the system with all those displaced boaters ?

 

A future life of tick over past continuous  moored boats. 

 

 

Explain this to the lock gates falling apart that Magpie writes about two posts beck....

 

Maybe they will take notice and stop falling apart. 

 

 

[Cheshire cat]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

I think "Pariah" has been chosen as the name for the latest model of Ford ICE car.

 

 

 

I thought Ford had announced they wouldn't be doing any more ICE models

 

On topic, as a leisure boater if licences treble I would probably give up boating.

 

I would favour withdrawing maintenance from the lesser used parts of the system. Of course the arguments will start with regards to defining them.

[MtB]

2 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

I would favour withdrawing maintenance from the lesser used parts of the system. Of course the arguments will start with regards to defining them.

 

I think that happened years ago. The problem now is lack of funds to maintain even the busy bits. 

 

 

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Cheshire cat said:

I thought Ford had announced they wouldn't be doing any more ICE models

 

On topic, as a leisure boater if licences treble I would probably give up boating.

 

I would favour withdrawing maintenance from the lesser used parts of the system. Of course the arguments will start with regards to defining them.

 

I don't think there's a problem defining them, CART know what the traffic levels on all the canals are. The problems are that some of the least popular and expensive-to-run ones (e.g. Rochdale and HNC) are also the ones that were reopened with great fanfare around 25 years ago, and are some of the most beautiful canals on the system because they cross the Pennines, and were largely paid for by councils and funds who may (or may not, thank you Alan...) want some money back if they close again.

 

There's no doubt that license fees will carry on increasing, and if surcharges for CCers and wideboats also increase further some boaters could well end up paying 3x what they do today. And many boaters might well think this is what *should* happen... 😉 

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

I thought Ford had announced they wouldn't be doing any more ICE models

 

On topic, as a leisure boater if licences treble I would probably give up boating.

 

I would favour withdrawing maintenance from the lesser used parts of the system. Of course the arguments will start with regards to defining them.

You won't need to, they'll just become unusable, like the north end of the T&M did two years ago. That had to be fixed because it's busy, but the ones that are almost unusable already just won't get done.

[Momac]

1 hour ago, Mad Harold said:

Also you could get your boating "fix" rather cheaper with a small,trailerable sailing boat or dingy on inland lakes and reservoirs.

Don't know what club membership fees are, but Probably a lot less than £15K.

 

Yes there are multiple options whether boaty or otherwise .

17 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

 

I fear that we either pay up or canals will close

If paying up means £15k a year as suggested  it is  obvious that folks will look elsewhere .

It is already possible to make a donation of £15k a year if individuals  wish to do so but I doubt most boaters feel obliged to donate when they are already paying fees. It does seem a historical under charging of licence fees is being blamed on the present situation while the real problem is that government doesn't appreciate that the canals are a national asset that deserves to be  maintained.

4 minutes ago, Bobbybass said:

It worries me.....if they start to close some canals, can you imagine the pressure on the rest of the system with all those displaced boaters ?

That could be an issue but not a reason to avoid closing canals to navigation as an option. Let say its done initially on a phased/trial basis so the impacts  can be monitored. 

 

 

 

[IanD]

If the canals that close are the little-used ones surely there wouldn't be many displaced boaters?

[Alan de Enfield]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

If the canals that close are the little-used ones surely there wouldn't be many displaced boaters?

 

Isn't a canals usage measured by lock cycles ?

 

Displaced boats on 'little used' canals could be dozens/hundreds of NBTA members, mind you, they'd probably be glad if a canal was 'closed' by C&RT as C&RTs rules would no longer apply, and, being sat on the bottom stops it wobbling about.

[David Mack]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

If the canals that close are the little-used ones surely there wouldn't be many displaced boaters?

I can think of a few sections of canal which have little through traffic (especially if you exclude those CCers moving only as little as they have to), but which have significant numbers of moored boats.

[Arthur Marshall]

I don't think licences have been undercharged. Certainly a lot of people who have enjoyed years of boating wouldn't have done so if they had been more expensive - me, for one. The problem, as the introduction of surcharges indicates, has been the proliferation of pseudo-continuous cruisers, dumped boats, unlicensed liveaboards and boats used as luxury housing.

Whacking licences for bog standard leisure boats up to astronomical levels would not only reduce overall income but hugely cut the number of boats on the system, giving every excuse for further support and maintenace cuts.

Either the system is a national park and resource or it isn't. If it is and is for the benefit largely of the non-licenced users, then it should be supported by taxation. It won't be, of course, because nobody wants to pay for something that looks free, but isn't. You can tell by the state of the roads, schools, hospitals, flytipping and litter that nobody really gives a toss about anything except their apparent income tax rate and can always find someone to blame that isn't themselves and the choices they make when occasionally given the chance.

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

Why close them? Sell them off.

selling the Regents Canal to the developers would raise a few quid