The other important bit of the Budget

[starman]

So are you going to be one of the volunteers to push forward with the idea that stakeholders are the future, are you going to be one who gets his hands dirty on a regular basis, are you going to be one who puts his hands in his pockets to help a local trust or are you just going to be one who moans about how crap the waterways are,, this time next year you wont be moaning at the deadwood at B/W you will be moaning at a trust that you hope will look after your canal interests,, unless you decide to get off your backside and get your hands dirty of course. Soon you wont be able to slag B/w off, it wont exist,, will you slag off your local trust,, if so why,, you have the chance to join your local trust/organisation and put your ideas forward that a B/W board wont listen to,,, it’s a fair saying now,, to all canal lovers. Boat owners and B/W haters,, PUT YOUR HANDS WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

 

That sort of thing is very easy to say and, to be honest, smacks of the sort of sergeant-major-ish approach to other boaters that would put off many from volunteering.

We all know that only a tiny proportion of people ever get actively involved in any area of life whether it's parish councils or fishing clubs. The rest are too busy, too lazy or simply don't want to compete with the sort of people who enjoy their positions of petty power.

But the crux of the matter is that however well meaning and hard working they might be volunteers can only play a small part in running the waterways - the major funding and strategic planning has to come from somewhere. The government is doing this so it can wash its hands of the problem and, being cynical, I would say that BW bosses see this as a chance to run their own show with even less interference.

[Machpoint005]

We all know that only a tiny proportion of people ever get actively involved in any area of life whether it's parish councils or fishing clubs. The rest are too busy, too lazy or actually don't give a flying feck or simply don't want to compete with the sort of people who enjoy their positions of petty power.

You missed one! But I do agree...

[Speedwheel]

Seems to me there is going to be more power given to the local communities around the canal. We are going to have 'no mooring' signs popping up everywhere. These boaters are such a nuisance and, after all, the canals are there to make a nice back drop for their houses - not to have boats on!

 

Edit - oh ye and boaters are going to have to foot more of the bill.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Speedwheel

[magpie patrick]

Government’s objectives will be to:

 

• ensure robust governance arrangements and purpose so waterways assets and

the public benefits they bring are protected now and in the future;

 

• develop a governance structure that allows all users, local communities and other

stakeholders to hold the new body to account; and

 

• put the waterways on a long-term sustainable footing while reducing the

ongoing cost to the taxpayer.

 

I think the last one will mean increasing the ongoing cost to the user.

 

It almost certainly will but there are other ways as well

 

a certain well know canal restoration scheme that BW pulled out of was due to have volunteer input under their stewardship, this would have been to the value of £76,500. Under the local authority that has now taken it on the value is £1 million, a fair percentage off a £25 million job, and this is canal restoration, where certain things like building highway bridges are expensive and off limits

[Chris Pink]

A sad day for the canals.

 

The end of a road to failure trod by British Waterways.

 

A national transport network run by parish councils? Don't make me laugh.

 

British Waterways was an authoritative body with powers set by legislation, enforced and administered by 'officers' backed up by expert engineers and managers, subverted and taken over by greedy property developers, career bureaucrats and self-serving pompous middle managers.

 

How is this authority going to by vested in another body? If BW don't have the intelligence or expertise to deal with the many issues on the waterway system how is another, more fragmented body going to cope?

 

As for cheaper access? Hah. Who is the nearest target for making a bit of dosh?

[magpie patrick]

A sad day for the canals.

 

The end of a road to failure trod by British Waterways.

 

A national transport network run by parish councils? Don't make me laugh.

 

British Waterways was an authoritative body with powers set by legislation, enforced and administered by 'officers' backed up by expert engineers and managers, subverted and taken over by greedy property developers, career bureaucrats and self-serving pompous middle managers.

 

How is this authority going to by vested in another body? If BW don't have the intelligence or expertise to deal with the many issues on the waterway system how is another, more fragmented body going to cope?

 

As for cheaper access? Hah. Who is the nearest target for making a bit of dosh?

 

good points well made, Sir Frank Price would not have stood for this, but then Robin Evans was given the job for a reason

 

BTW I once applied to be a member of the board, it was 30 days work a year for about ten grand, and my employers were in principle happy for me to take 30 days unpaid leave to allow me to do it, but during the process it quickly became apparent that they didn't want someone who knew something about canals.

[carlt]

Just as a matter of interest, how many of you noticed, when responsibility for the bulk of the trunk roads was decentralised from the national government's Highways Agency, to local government control?

 

I think that there has been so much whingeing, about BW's failure and incompetence, that it would be churlish to not give this new setup a chance, before it has even begun.

 

Local Authorities have a great deal of involvement with EH sites but overall control rests with the central organisation.

[soldthehouse]

Just as a matter of interest, how many of you noticed, when responsibility for the bulk of the trunk roads was decentralised from the national government's Highways Agency, to local government control?

 

I think that there has been so much whingeing, about BW's failure and incompetence, that it would be churlish to not give this new setup a chance, before it has even begun.

 

Local Authorities have a great deal of involvement with EH sites but overall control rests with the central organisation.

I refer to my post no 18 and am looking forward to this as any fragmentation will improve efficiency as big in my opinion is rarely a good thing on this scale.

[fuzzyduck]

I'm hereby volunteering to be Chief Exec

[grahoom]

A national transport network run by parish councils? Don't make me laugh.

 

Isn't the Basingstoke Canal sort of run along these lines? I don't know much about it ....

[luctor et emergo]

Just as a matter of interest, how many of you noticed, when responsibility for the bulk of the trunk roads was decentralised from the national government's Highways Agency, to local government control?

 

I think that there has been so much whingeing, about BW's failure and incompetence, that it would be churlish to not give this new setup a chance, before it has even begun.

 

Local Authorities have a great deal of involvement with EH sites but overall control rests with the central organisation.

 

 

You can not compare the road network with the canals. Roads are essential, and used everyday by everybody. Even so, road maintanence is abysmal. Roads are merely touched up, rather than properly repaired. If the local authority has to find additional funding for a leisure facility, that will not happen.

 

The funding of the canal will come from boaters. How else will funding be obtained? Turnstilles at the towpath? Membership (don't make me laugh)?

 

You can't charge people for using a facility, unless you can effectively seal it off. That is going to be impossible with the canals.

 

There are two possibilities if this goes forward.

 

1. Boaters will foot the bill to keep the canal open, and navigable. This will increase the current licence and mooring fees substantialy (devide current funding by registered no. of boats for an indication...) We will still have to share with other users, and local authorities will use their powers to impose more restrictions, and will charge additional fees for (visitor) moorings.

 

2. local authorities foot the bill. Maintenance will plumet. Only the pretty stretches alongside (housing) developments will be maintained. Boats will not be allowed to spoil these developments by mooring there. All other parts of the canal will be left to nature. plenty will be filled in to enable development. Local authorities will sell off stretches of canal to developers.

[soldthehouse]

I'm hereby volunteering to be Chief Exec

Can you start Monday next.

[fuzzyduck]

Done!

 

Done!

[magpie patrick]

2. local authorities foot the bill. Maintenance will plumet. Only the pretty stretches alongside (housing) developments will be maintained. Boats will not be allowed to spoil these developments by mooring there. All other parts of the canal will be left to nature. plenty will be filled in to enable development. Local authorities will sell off stretches of canal to developers.

 

No they won't because they won't own them, the charitable trust will own them

 

However there must be a risk that canals will end up in the same state as the Basingstoke Canal - unnavigable for much of the time

[carlt]

Done!

 

Done!

Excellent!

 

Could you please dredge a Coast to Coast route, to 5 feet, so I can get to Wales without going all the way round?

 

However there must be a risk that canals will end up in the same state as the Basingstoke Canal - unnavigable for much of the time

Isn't that because it is locally owned but with no central control?

[fuzzyduck]

Excellent!

 

Could you please dredge a Coast to Coast route, to 5 feet, so I can get to Wales without going all the way round?

 

Done, the whole system will be made ultra widebeam (20') and dreged to 9 feet deep.

 

watford and foxton flights will be replaced by catapaults.

[carlt]

You can not compare the road network with the canals. Roads are essential, and used everyday by everybody. Even so, road maintanence is abysmal. Roads are merely touched up, rather than properly repaired. If the local authority has to find additional funding for a leisure facility, that will not happen.

I can because, having been involved in Highway maintenance I know that the problems faced by the Highway Authorities are very similar to those charged with maintaining any transport network.

 

Highways are managed within the constraints of the Highways Act, in the same way that Waterways have the BW Acts to govern their management.

 

If the initiative is there then the LAs will most certainly get involved with improving the leisure resources, in their area.

 

Who, for example, is the driving force behind the Daventry Arn and Basin? Certainly not BW.

[soldthehouse]

Done, the whole system will be made ultra widebeam (20') and dreged to 9 feet deep.

 

watford and foxton flights will be replaced by catapaults.

All that dredging will help negate the rise in sea levels due to glabal warming.... uh oh forget I mentioned global warming and what we can do to stop it or not or the effect it has on the weather and godwins law

[luctor et emergo]

I can because, having been involved in Highway maintenance I know that the problems faced by the Highway Authorities are very similar to those charged with maintaining any transport network.

 

Highways are managed within the constraints of the Highways Act, in the same way that Waterways have the BW Acts to govern their management.

 

If the initiative is there then the LAs will most certainly get involved with improving the leisure resources, in their area.

 

Who are you kidding Carl? My local authority (wiltshire, recently unified to 'cut cost'....) is looking to close local swimming pools, because 'there are to many, and they are expensive'. They expect people to travel for miles to take their children swimming. I could start a whole separate rant on this one...)

 

Who, for example, is the driving force behind the Daventry Arn and Basin? Certainly not BW.

 

 

But most of the canals are not a transport network. They are a leisure facility, and may be in some places part of the drainage system. There is no economic reason to maintain the canal to a navigable state. Short lengths of canal that have virtually static caravans boats can be maintained at lowest cost for tourism, but the expense of something like the Caen Hill flight will soon be prohibitive. Or it's use so severly restricted, that it will cease to be realistic to travel past it regularly.

Same goes for the Crofton pumps, or any back pump system. Without them the K&A will be un-navigable within days (BW have to lock the gates in Devizes at night). Will repairs to them be a priority? Is the road surface in residential streets a priority?

 

This is either going to make boating much more expensive, or it will herald a decline of large parts of the canal.

 

It is not going to result in droves of volunteers fixing years of neglect and amintanence backlog over night, for free...

 

And volunteers still need to be insured, and somebody is going to be responsible for the work that needs to be undertaken. LA's will not want to take that on, just as they don't have volunteers now to do the upkeep of communal greenery.

Edited March 25, 2010 by luctor et emergo

[starman]

Just as a matter of interest, how many of you noticed, when responsibility for the bulk of the trunk roads was decentralised from the national government's Highways Agency, to local government control?

 

I think that there has been so much whingeing, about BW's failure and incompetence, that it would be churlish to not give this new setup a chance, before it has even begun.

 

Local Authorities have a great deal of involvement with EH sites but overall control rests with the central organisation.

 

I don't disagree with the 'let's give it a chance' sentiment but the roads are actually a great example of how expenditure and standards vary widely when left in the hands of local authorities. The wealthiest district council round my way has appalling levels of road maintenance presumably because they want to keep council tax low for their fellow Tory residents. And when I drove through London every day I could spot council boundaries by the change in road quality.

We have to face the fact that whoever is in charge a leisure resource like the waterways will come low on the priority list when hospitals, schools, roads, police etc etc are all facing tough budgets.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Narrowboatworld article here

 

Granny Buttons here

[carlt]

But most of the canals are not a transport network. They are a leisure facility, and may be in some places part of the drainage system. There is no economic reason to maintain the canal to a navigable state. Short lengths of canal that have virtually static caravans boats can be maintained at lowest cost for tourism, but the expense of something like the Caen Hill flight will soon be prohibitive. Or it's use so severly restricted, that it will cease to be realistic to travel past it regularly.

Same goes for the Crofton pumps, or any back pump system. Without them the K&A will be un-navigable within days (BW have to lock the gates in Devizes at night). Will repairs to them be a priority? Is the road surface in residential streets a priority?

 

This is either going to make boating much more expensive, or it will herald a decline of large parts of the canal.

 

It is not going to result in droves of volunteers fixing years of neglect and amintanence backlog over night, for free...

 

And volunteers still need to be insured, and somebody is going to be responsible for the work that needs to be undertaken. LA's will not want to take that on, just as they don't have volunteers now to do the upkeep of communal greenery.

Who are you kidding Carl? My local authority (wiltshire, recently unified to 'cut cost'....) is looking to close local swimming pools, because 'there are to many, and they are expensive'. They expect people to travel for miles to take their children swimming. I could start a whole separate rant on this one...)

Then you should look carefully at your voting options, in the next election.

 

As I said "If the initiative is there.". My LA has a well supprted, modern leisure centre and the adjacent authority is building its own arm, lock flight and town centre basin (and has its own modern leisure centre.

 

I'm kidding nobody, I'm basing my comments on what is happening, if the will is there.

 

Just because your LA is crap doesn't mean things aren't being done anywhere else.

 

Other volunteer groups manage to insure their workers. Stop putting up obstacles. It is that sort of attitude that probably led to the loss of your swimming pool.

 

We have to face the fact that whoever is in charge a leisure resource like the waterways will come low on the priority list when hospitals, schools, roads, police etc etc are all facing tough budgets.

Having been responsible for Highway maintenance on a limited budget I can tell you that it comes way down the list, behind leisure and tourism.

 

I recall having to shepherd a L&T department bod round my area, when he had a million pound budget to upgrade every brown sign in the county.

 

My budget for signage was a fraction of his and I could just afford to replace those that were destroyed by motorists.

[magpie patrick]

Isn't that because it is locally owned but with no central control?

 

It's for several reasons but the biggest factor is lack of money, it is run on a budget per mile about a fifth of BWs.

 

It doesn't help that it's not managed very well either, you have to book entry to the canal even if you've got a licence, and English Nature (as they were) put a ridiculous level of restriction on, given that before the canal was restored it was a stagnant ditch,

 

and because it's hardly used, local communities don't perceive any benefit in it being navigable

[luctor et emergo]

Then you should look carefully at your voting options, in the next election.

I usually do. I do however doubt that the LA has the K&A high on the agenda. I will see if I can find something.

 

As I said "If the initiative is there.". My LA has a well supprted, modern leisure centre and the adjacent authority is building its own arm, lock flight and town centre basin (and has its own modern leisure centre.

 

I'm kidding nobody, I'm basing my comments on what is happening, if the will is there.

 

Just because your LA is crap doesn't mean things aren't being done anywhere else.

that is exactly what I'm trying to point out. There will be a localised need, or will, to maintain a canal, does not mean that it will happen elsewhere. What if the LA where your canal flows through before it gets to your LA, decides that it is not neccessary to maintian it? You will end up with a small, perfectly maitained length, isolated from the rest. Possibly dry...

 

Other volunteer groups manage to insure their workers. Stop putting up obstacles. It is that sort of attitude that probably led to the loss of your swimming pool.

It's not yet closed. It is not run or staffed by volunteers. I do my bit to make it viable, by using it regularly. I'm not putting up obstacles, I'm just adding a bit of realism.

 

Having been responsible for Highway maintenance on a limited budget I can tell you that it comes way down the list, behind leisure and tourism.

 

I recall having to shepherd a L&T department bod round my area, when he had a million pound budget to upgrade every brown sign in the county.

 

My budget for signage was a fraction of his and I could just afford to replace those that were destroyed by motorists.

I take your word for that, but I think that that is not an example that goes for all LAs, nor how they will allocate funds in the future. I don't think that leisure should be higher on the list than road maintenance btw, there are economic, as well as safety considerations. Like it or not, roads are an essential part of life. Canals are not, and that will be borne out in the decision making IN MOST LA's

[mayalld]

I take your word for that, but I think that that is not an example that goes for all LAs, nor how they will allocate funds in the future. I don't think that leisure should be higher on the list than road maintenance btw, there are economic, as well as safety considerations. Like it or not, roads are an essential part of life. Canals are not, and that will be borne out in the decision making IN MOST LA's

 

I suspect that the key question when the new system is designed will be that of what statutory obligation falls on a local authority.