An open letter from CaRT’s CEO Campbell Robb.

[Bristolfashion]

16 hours ago, IanM said:

 

We certainly don't.  He'll have all the canals closed to protect the wildlife from those nasty boats!

I think that the poster means a passionate, media savvy "face" for the canals, able to promote all their benefits and tie together all of the users and supporters.

[Steve Bassplayer]

😌

 

Can I just ask those here whether they believe the general public would lobby our government if our canals were shut down permanently for navigation, or not?

 

Does anyone believe the GU water transfer scheme will help us keep that navigation open?

[Bristolfashion]

From my observations this season, there is an enormous use of the towpath by walkers, dog walkers, ramblers and cyclists which dwarfs any use of the system by boaters - how to extract any support for maintenance of the network from these groups is the issue.

 

The other area I've been thinking about is the absolutely enormous wildlife reserve provided by the canals together with their unique "wildlife corridor" feature. This "nature reserve" is probably in the order of the same size as all the land owned by the wildlife trusts in England - and they raise substantial funds.

[IanM]

15 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

I think that the poster means a passionate, media savvy "face" for the canals, able to promote all their benefits and tie together all of the users and supporters.

 

Thank you for pointing that out 🙄

[Arthur Marshall]

12 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

From my observations this season, there is an enormous use of the towpath by walkers, dog walkers, ramblers and cyclists which dwarfs any use of the system by boaters - how to extract any support for maintenance of the network from these groups is the issue

All they are interested in is getting the towpaths sorted and a handy fence to hang their bag of dog excrement on. Navigation is not their interest. I walked by the Chichester canal every day when I was a kid, and never knew they actually could still have boats on, nor had any idea that boating was a possibility for ordinary people until I got bullied onto a friend's boat in my 30s.

 

[BoatingLifeUpNorth2]

38 minutes ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

😌

 

Can I just ask those here whether they believe the general public would lobby our government if our canals were shut down permanently for navigation, or not?

No, the majority have little interest in navigating them, narrowboats or the history of the canals. It’s just a nice walk, cycle for them. That’s the main thing, as long as they can walk the towpath they’re not bothered if the canal is full of water or empty, took over by grass and wild meadow flowers.

 The general public don’t even lobby for money when their local social services, libraries, bus routes close. So why would they get up in arms if canals used by middle class, retired boaters started closing? They see canals differently than boaters.

[IanD]

11 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

This used to be a point frequently mentioned by IanD but once he realised that there really is precious little length that you can close without affecting the rest of the network / water supply/ ecosystem he toned  down to a few strips of the BCN which would make little difference anyway.
 

Closing a canal does not mean nice little watercourses but rapidly silted up land eventually ready for building over- See most derelict canals for examples. 
 

Both the HNC and Rochdale are not possible to close anyway so what part would you close? (Clue- there isn’t any) 

I said right from the start that though closing canals sounds like a good idea it's not only difficult and expensive but in some cases (like the HNC and Rochdale) would mean CRT paying large sums back to the sponsors which would far exceed the savings.

 

The bits which are easy to close are small and wouldn't save much money; the bits which are expensive to maintain are probably impossible to close.

 

Which means that more money is the only answer, but neither the government or most boaters want to cough up, as Campbell Robb effectively said...

[Alway Swilby]

11 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

Not going to comment on the amount of hirings but when we were stuck at the top of bosley two weeks ago there were three heritage hire boats wh o had to abandon ship. What do you think they said to their friends and neighbours? Any chance of a refund as provided by network rail?

 

The train operating companies are obliged by the government to give refunds in the event of delays. The boat hire companies aren't. 

[Mike Todd]

17 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I am talking about the difference between what CRT needs to spend to stop the waterways deteriorating further and what it actually spends. That is the funding gap. CRT has not provided this figure since 2014 and says it is no longer calculated. However, it is key to understanding the underfunding problem.

 

Part of the problem with your question (ie what is the funding gap?) is that the level of works is not an entirely objective measure. Also, CaRT have made some good progress in developing less expensive methods and also viable short term repairs (eg balance beams). It also depends on what is considered an acceptable level of maintenance taking into account availability (ie how many days a year out of service), usability (eg how easy should paddles be to operate), standards (eg frequency of water and elsan points - with availability factored in - eg how many days per year is there more than the standard max distance to next point exceeded through non availability) Most of such measures are statistical and less easily understood by many users.

 

The one measure that I would not advocate is that encapsulated in "The canals are not in the same good state that they were back in xxxx". 

[Alway Swilby]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

You are correct - but are you aware how even that astronomical figure was derived ?

If one person takes their dog for a walk by the canal twice a day that works out as 730 visits per year. You would only need 122,000 people doing that every day to achieve the 888 million visits in a year. 

[SLC]

We walk our dog along the canal path every day when we are at home which is 10 months, water permitting. Should we pay in addition to our fees and donation? Indeed should we charge people for exploring our countryside? No imho, and likewise I dislike tourist tax.

Today C&RT are having to clear up dead pigeons which was quite possibly anti-social behaviour. Society should pay for the maintenance network of the network or putting right the consequences of anti-social behaviour. IIRC it works out at a few pence per month for each UK tax payer to support the businesses on the network, the wild life, environment, people's welfare and well being etc. All this brings financial benefits to the economy.

That the money cannot be found from general taxation suggests to me it is political prejudice rather than a financial argument.

End of grumble.

 

[Bristolfashion]

1 hour ago, IanM said:

 

Thank you for pointing that out 🙄

Yes, I did think that you'd rather missed to point of the other poster's comment. Glad to help. 😉

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

All they are interested in is getting the towpaths sorted and a handy fence to hang their bag of dog excrement on. Navigation is not their interest. I walked by the Chichester canal every day when I was a kid, and never knew they actually could still have boats on, nor had any idea that boating was a possibility for ordinary people until I got bullied onto a friend's boat in my 30s.

 

Not necessarily navigation, but the use of the infrastructure for leisure. 

[Ewan123]

12 hours ago, Steve Bassplayer said:

So many people follow boater YouTube channels. I think.there would be an outcry if the dream of 'escaping' to a boaty lifestyle was obliterated, even though the vast majority would probably never try it for various reasons.

I think there have already been enough headlines and efforts to publicise the likely demise of canals without more funding, to be satisfied that the outcry just isn't coming. Even after that, it's a big leap from a public outcry and said public putting their hands in their pockets to supply the millions of pounds needed to fill the ga, on a regular basis (either by donation or taxation).

[cuthound]

11 hours ago, Stroudwater1 said:

This used to be a point frequently mentioned by IanD but once he realised that there really is precious little length that you can close without affecting the rest of the network / water supply/ ecosystem he toned  down to a few strips of the BCN which would make little difference anyway.
 

Closing a canal does not mean nice little watercourses but rapidly silted up land eventually ready for building over- See most derelict canals for examples. 
 

Both the HNC and Rochdale are not possible to close anyway so what part would you close? (Clue- there isn’t any) 

 

Several stand alone canals can be closed without impacting too much on the network, the K&,A, HNC, HBC, extremities of the BCN etc.

 

What is your solution to not enough money to maintain all of the network?

[Bristolfashion]

3 minutes ago, SLC said:

We walk our dog along the canal path every day when we are at home which is 10 months, water permitting. Should we pay in addition to our fees and donation? Indeed should we charge people for exploring our countryside? No imho, and likewise I dislike tourist tax.

Today C&RT are having to clear up dead pigeons which was quite possibly anti-social behaviour. Society should pay for the maintenance network of the network or putting right the consequences of anti-social behaviour. IIRC it works out at a few pence per month for each UK tax payer to support the businesses on the network, the wild life, environment, people's welfare and well being etc. All this brings financial benefits to the economy.

That the money cannot be found from general taxation suggests to me it is political prejudice rather than a financial argument.

End of grumble.

 

I guess that this is part of the endless and rather insoluble debate between public funding and "user pays" - theoretically, any increase in funding involves either an increase in government receipts (such as tax) or a decrease in expenditure elsewhere. Enough "few pence" a month burdens on government expenditure adds up to "several pounds"!

 

Personally, I'm happy to pay a bit more tax for such things, but that doesn't seem a common attitude.

 

My own view is that my licence pays for my boating & my donation for other access & a bit of general support - but only a tiny percentage of users are donors.

[Ewan123]

12 minutes ago, SLC said:

That the money cannot be found from general taxation suggests to me it is political prejudice rather than a financial argument.

The government is already failing to fund/support fundamental services (NHS, social care, policing, public transport, education...). I love the canals and they're important to me, but they're quite far back in the queue of priorities for additional public funding. (Before it's asked, I'm happy with my licence increases and would support some more - as a liveaboard it's still good value for money). 

Edited Tuesday at 10:03 by Ewan123

[cuthound]

53 minutes ago, Alway Swilby said:

 

The train operating companies are obliged by the government to give refunds in the event of delays. The boat hire companies aren't. 

 

Holiday insurance covers late cancellations but how many booking boating holidays take it out?

Edited Tuesday at 10:08 by cuthound
phat phingers

[Arthur Marshall]

2 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Several stand alone canals can be closed without impacting too much on the network, the K&,A, HNC, HBC, extremities of the BCN etc.

 

What is your solution to not enough money to maintain all of the network?

CRT don't need to close canals like the HNC or the other little used ones. They just stop maintaining them. Locks need to be in place, but they don't need to be operational in the boating sense. Closures "awaiting repair" for safety reasons wouldn't attract any penalties. Once maintenance is prioritised for the popular routes, the rest will gradually become unnavigable.

If there happened to be a public protest, the response would surely be "you restored it, you get your volunteers to maintain it".

[MtB]

6 minutes ago, Bristolfashion said:

My own view is that my licence pays for my boating

 

Well no it doesn't actually, and that's just the problem isn't it?

 

All our licences would probably have to be closer to £20k each for them to actually and genuinely "pay for our boating". (Without taking into account the Laffer effect.)

 

 

[Bristolfashion]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Well no it doesn't actually, and that's just the problem isn't it?

 

All our licences would probably have to be closer to £20k each for them to actually and genuinely "pay for our boating". (Without taking into account the Laffer effect.)

 

 

Oh, I see, well I'd be happy to pay a higher licence fee to more accurately pay for my boating, I was more thinking about my monthly donation as somewhat paying for my general enjoyment and use of CRT infrastructure in the same way I support the RSPB, wildlife trusts & National Trust.

One other thing I've been thinking about is the Trust building an "end of life" fund (for boats, not boaters). There are quite a lot of notifications about sunken / abandoned / "terminal" non licensed/ insured/BSS boats and they can be pretty expensive to deal with in difficult locations. 

 

I see that the total annual cost is estimated at substantial. My idea is a small first registration charge to reflect the theoretical end of life cost of a boat based on recovery / removal costs and % likelihood. Over time, a fund would build up to deal with these costs - and the additional cost for a new narrowboat would be inconsequential.

[Ronaldo47]

I seem to recall reading that the main reason that the Llangollen canal was kept navigable,  was that the guy in charge pointed out that, due to its many remote parts, access by boat was the only practical option for any repairs that might become necessary for it to continue to supply water to the Midlands. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:31 by Ronaldo47
Typos

[EventualBoater]

1 hour ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

No, the majority have little interest in navigating them, narrowboats or the history of the canals. 

I think a lot of people have a lot of interest in the canals. But it's a fleeting thought. 

They see it on tv "oh yeah that's interesting" They google for 20 minutes. Find some facts, then its forgotten. 

They walk the canals regularly, but never see a boat. Then when they see it they stop, watch, take picture but then go on with their day and it just becomes a comment. 

The odd person becomes a big fan and would support. 

 

I do think there would be more money coming into the CRT via donations if they were able to get word out more. But that can be very expensive, and not guaranteed.

[Tonka]

1 hour ago, BoatingLifeUpNorth2 said:

No, the majority have little interest in navigating them, narrowboats or the history of the canals. It’s just a nice walk, cycle for them. That’s the main thing, as long as they can walk the towpath they’re not bothered if the canal is full of water or empty, took over by grass and wild meadow flowers.

 The general public don’t even lobby for money when their local social services, libraries, bus routes close. So why would they get up in arms if canals used by middle class, retired boaters started closing? They see canals differently than boaters.

But they wouldn't ĺike to walk along a towpath where the parasitic scum of the NBTA are moored and deposited all of their waste on the towpath

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But they wouldn't ĺike to walk along a towpath where the parasitic scum of the NBTA are moored and deposited all of their waste on the towpath

 

I'm not normally one to defend the NBTA but I don't see their members depositing their waste on the towpath.

 

That would be the stealth boats if anyone, I'd suggest. 

 

 

[Tonka]

11 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

I'm not normally one to defend the NBTA but I don't see their members depositing their waste on the towpath.

 

That would be the stealth boats if anyone, I'd suggest. 

 

 

The old boy who was removed from the K & A after a load of years was advised by the NBTA and his waste was all over the towpath. Or am I mistaken