Continuous cruisers???????

[Jerra]

 

It isn't the cost that is taken into account, it is the leap from zero (for the first 1, 2 or 14 days) to £25

 

Many car parks are free for X hours then start charging so IMO no difference.

 

 

Why has that stretch of towpath suddenly become more valuable?

Just like car parking because a lot of people want to park there.

 

A car park's charges are comparable with a marina's whereas the towpath is more like parking on the street.

 

The vast majority of street parking is included in the road tax, just like the towpath charge is included in the licence.

 

This is true but the vast majority of mooring is free like on street parking (you can tie up almost anywhere for no charge) - however not all you must have seen parking meters.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Jerra

[carlt]

 

Many car parks are free for X hours then start charging so IMO no difference.

 

 

Not that many, in fact the only ones I can think of are Motorway service car parks which, for very good reasons, have their own unique statutory obligations.

 

 

 

Just like car parking because a lot of people want to park there.

 

 

You misunderstood what I said.

 

If a boat is on a 24 hour mooring with a £25 charge thereafter why does the value of that mooring suddenly increase from zero to £25, if it is not a penalty and, if that boat leaves after 25 hours why does that mooring's value suddenly revert to zero?

[carlt]

 

 

This is true but the vast majority of mooring is free like on street parking (you can tie up almost anywhere for no charge) - however not all you must have seen parking meters.

Indeed and where there are parking meters there are usually additional services like proximity to shops just like the current mooring position at, say Llangollen but CRT seems hell bent on introducing charges where there are no additional services.

 

To be honest I can't be bothered pursuing the road/canal analogy with you yet again but I do wonder if you really want to pay CRT more than your current licence fee why don't you just sign up to one of their attractive direct debit schemes next time you see a chugger?

 

I think the majority of boaters believe that they pay enough for cruising and mooring on the waterways without additional fees for a service they have already paid for.

[jenlyn]

Indeed and where there are parking meters there are usually additional services like proximity to shops just like the current mooring position at, say Llangollen but CRT seems hell bent on introducing charges where there are no additional services.

 

To be honest I can't be bothered pursuing the road/canal analogy with you yet again but I do wonder if you really want to pay CRT more than your current licence fee why don't you just sign up to one of their attractive direct debit schemes next time you see a chugger?

 

I think the majority of boaters believe that they pay enough for cruising and mooring on the waterways without additional fees for a service they have already paid for.

Hear hear!

Some barmy flippin folk around!

[Hawkmoth]

Hear hear!

Some barmy flippin folk around!

[Jerra]

Hear hear!

Some barmy flippin folk around!

An interesting comment. The thing I notice on the forum regularly from a lot of people is complaints about things not being done. This requires money and yet every time some thing comes up that would provide more money the complaints start about cost.

 

Those who use the canals (particularly boaters as they need dredging, repaired locks etc unlike cyclists or anglers) can't have it both ways. You can't raise the standard of the canals without more money. Where do you propose it comes from?

[cotswoldsman]

An interesting comment. The thing I notice on the forum regularly from a lot of people is complaints about things not being done. This requires money and yet every time some thing comes up that would provide more money the complaints start about cost.

 

Those who use the canals (particularly boaters as they need dredging, repaired locks etc unlike cyclists or anglers) can't have it both ways. You can't raise the standard of the canals without more money. Where do you propose it comes from?

Continuous Cruisers???

So I guess you think the money should come from finding new ways of fining boaters?

[Tuscan]

My license has gone up normally above inflation for every year I can remember. The numbers of licenses sold has gone up by 10,000 in recent years. The number of boats paying for moorings has increased. The number of users of the canal that do not contribute to the canal maintenance , tourists, walkers, cyclists, etc has also increased. .

 

Do we really just want the canals as a rich mans plaything with all VM's outsourced to NCP, I guess you would be happy as they could tow all overstayers to specified areas and demand large amounts of cash for their release.

 

Not everything a charity does should be about money

[Tony Brooks]

An interesting comment. The thing I notice on the forum regularly from a lot of people is complaints about things not being done. This requires money and yet every time some thing comes up that would provide more money the complaints start about cost.

 

Those who use the canals (particularly boaters as they need dredging, repaired locks etc unlike cyclists or anglers) can't have it both ways. You can't raise the standard of the canals without more money. Where do you propose it comes from?

 

Er - those users who currently pay nothing extra - cyclists and walkers. Now we know that would be difficult, but not totally impossible to enforce given the right legislation, so it will not happen. We have one large user base contributing twice (boaters and anglers) through fees and tax and another large base that is probably just as large only contributing once through tax. That leads me to conclude the government grant should be increased if the government is unwilling to put the required legislation in place.

 

If it is illegal for the proposed charges and no-return limits to be imposed and CaRT feel they need them then it is up to CaRT to lobby government for new legislation. I for one have had enough of apparent back door, half cocked, bodged attempts to solve the real problems that CM's (NOT true CC's) create. It should all have been dealt with in the "privatisation" legislation but it was not.

 

We already have a past member here who had his local authority declare that a boat was not fit housing so why are they not inspecting many of the hovels one sees people trying to live in - oh, I know, it would cost them money so they leave it to another body with insufficient legal backing to try to sort out their problems.

[carlt]

 

Those who use the canals (particularly boaters as they need dredging, repaired locks etc unlike cyclists or anglers) can't have it both ways. You can't raise the standard of the canals without more money. Where do you propose it comes from?

It is a fallacy to suggest that walkers, cyclists and anglers do not require the canal infrastructure to be maintained.

 

How many derelict canals can you name that are a continuous linear haven for rambling, leisure cycling or angling?

 

When the basic infrastructure goes the canal will soon stagnate into a series of lifeless ponds with collapsing, unsafe towpaths and a big sign over it saying "develop this eyesore"

 

The boater already pays more than his fair share of the canal's income and it may be time to look at novel ways of charging the other canal users.

 

Cycle proof barriers opened by keys that are free to the disabled perhaps?

 

Anglers occupy a space that is more or less equivalent to a full length moored boat yet pays a tiny fraction of what boaters pay for mooring up.

 

If it is possible to charge a boater for spending the day in one spot why is it so hard to charge another canal user in the same way?

[carlt]

 

 

We already have a past member here who had his local authority declare that a boat was not fit housing so why are they not inspecting many of the hovels one sees people trying to live in - oh, I know, it would cost them money so they leave it to another body with insufficient legal backing to try to sort out their problems.

Er - Local authorities' interference in people's lifestyles is not restricted just to boats and I fail to see how this is relevant to the thread.

 

If I want to live in a bender in the middle of a field then I don't see how that is any of the council's business or yours, to be honest.

[alan_fincher]

Those who use the canals (particularly boaters as they need dredging, repaired locks etc unlike cyclists or anglers) can't have it both ways. You can't raise the standard of the canals without more money. Where do you propose it comes from?

 

How about using the limited funds on the things that need doing, rather than wasting hundreds of thousands, (almost certainly millions, ultimately), on half-cocked ideas that do not?

 

There is very little doubt, very little doubt at all, that far more than half of boaters do not see the need for the South East Visitor Moorings project, or indeed others like it.

 

CRT had a bee in their bonnet that it was all required, although for most of the sites the case couldn't even come close to being proven. Analysis of the 350 odd replies to the consultation shows clearly that more responses were against wasting this money than in favour of it, despite CRT's claimed 50/50 response.

 

Why press ahead with a very expensive plan that more licence payers do not want than actually do. If it proves to be correct that the two things it hinges on CRT do not have the statutory powers to enforce, (the no return rule, and the "fines"), then it will quickly fall into complete disrepute as an act of foolhardiness not very different from the "3 bollards at every lock-side" nonsense of a few years ago.

 

Spend more of the limited money on dredging and repairs, not on spurious things like SEVM. I have just received a fairly unapologetic answer from the manager of south East Waterways this morning that tree cutting on some of the most restricted parts of the GU is only possible every 4 to 5 years. I'd rather they spent money meaning I didn't have my eye out on a low hanging branch, than on some of the projects currently sucking it up. I'm sure given a stark choice many other regular boaters would say the same.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

My license has gone up normally above inflation for every year I can remember. The numbers of licenses sold has gone up by 10,000 in recent years. The number of boats paying for moorings has increased. The number of users of the canal that do not contribute to the canal maintenance , tourists, walkers, cyclists, etc has also increased. .

 

Do we really just want the canals as a rich mans plaything with all VM's outsourced to NCP, I guess you would be happy as they could tow all overstayers to specified areas and demand large amounts of cash for their release.

 

Not everything a charity does should be about money

It is a fallacy to suggest the number of users that do not contribute to canal maintenance has gone up.

 

It is true that Robin Evans was set a target to double visitor numbers. However, the facts are that he failed to do so.

 

The Evans achievements (page 3)

 

Bearing in mind that CaRT already contracts out much of its maintenance work to May Gurney and Fountains, I can visualize the same happening with enforcement.

 

BW/CaRT was spending £2.2m a year on enforcement and we are told that this employs about 50 staff. On top of that we are told that the trustees have committed to spend an extra £0.5m a year.

 

[Higgs]

Except for boaters, other users are not captive. Cyclists, anglers and walkers can all choose to do what they like elsewhere. CRT's tune would change if boaters, too, could also pick and choose to the same degree. Cyclists, anglers, walkers, and the public, are all flakey and I don't think much significant finance will be forthcoming from these users in a hurry.

 

Extra cash would be ok from the boaters, but it should include a positive benefit and not come in the form of a penalty (cloaked) or a reduction of amenities. Observation also points to a reduction of service and an increase in costs when privatised companies become involved in services to people. If money is the bottom line, it's a poor bottom line. It's old tat and provides for nothing much, in the end, well, usually less.

 

Just put the friggin people on the ground.

[carlt]

 

BW/CaRT was spending £2.2m a year on enforcement and we are told that this employs about 50 staff. On top of that we are told that the trustees have committed to spend an extra £0.5m a year.

 

Do you have any figures on how much money this enforcement recovers, Allan?

Except for boaters, other users are not captive. Cyclists, anglers and walkers can all choose to do what they like elsewhere.

Since BW destroyed my boat I have had boats moored at 5 different locations managed by 4 different authorities, not one of them BW/CRT.

 

Boaters aren't captive, merely resistant to change.

 

Cyclists, anglers and walkers can indeed choose to do what they like elsewhere but the revenue won't drop if they do but the number of "inconsiderate cyclists/anglers/walkers" threads will.

[Higgs]

Do you have any figures on how much money this enforcement recovers, Allan?

Since BW destroyed my boat I have had boats moored at 5 different locations managed by 4 different authorities, not one of them BW/CRT.

 

Boaters aren't captive, merely resistant to change.

 

Cyclists, anglers and walkers can indeed choose to do what they like elsewhere but the revenue won't drop if they do but the number of "inconsiderate cyclists/anglers/walkers" threads will.

 

I think most boaters aren't going to suddenly move to a different system. Change isn't always for the best.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Higgs

[alan_fincher]

Do you have any figures on how much money this enforcement recovers, Allan?

Difficult, I'm guessing, because it is probably not possible to predict how many evaders their might be if enforcement was slack or non existent?

 

Without looking up the detail, of exact numbers, and exactly over what period, I think that licence evasion now claimed at about 4% average country wide was at one stage claimed to be running at as much as 10% more than that.

 

So, (and I'm on on slightly dodgy ground here, I know!), you could easily claim at least 10% of all licence revenue is only collected because of the threat of enforcement activities. If that were (say) 3,500 licences at a (conservative?) average of five hundred quid each, then that would be around £1.75 million, maybe?

 

Clearly at the moment they are also making further revenue by CC-er enforcement, and many CRT tow-path LTMs in my area are now letting for large sums to boats that have for many years not had a home mooring. Even where moorings are taken by non live-aboards the fact that CC-ers are competing for them is pushing up the price to everybody. Whether you think this is a "a good thing" or "a bad thing", of course differs from person to person, but as someone who failed to win a CRT LTM recently as the price was going well over "guide", there is little doubt that enforcement action is both increasing CRT revenue, but also (unfortunately), pushing up costs for people not normally touched by enforcement issues.

[mayalld]

On the contrary it is you who appears lost.

 

s43 charges are not contractual charges but s43 allows charges to be levied for services.It does not, however, allow for those services to be charged for twice.

 

There is an element of the licence fee that covers the charge for the service known as "mooring" so any charge implemented above and beyond this portion of the licence fee is unreasonable and, in my opinion, unlawful.

 

The licence fee covers the right to have a boat on the water. It doesn't cover any other services.

 

Note that even if you are unable to leave your mooring because the canal is closed, there is no refund of licence fee.

 

As such, "mooring" is a service over and above what you pay for in your licence fee, and CRT can charge for it under s43.

 

Equally, they can waive charges for mooring under s43 (which they do for the first X days at a mooring.

[Tuscan]

Difficult, I'm guessing, because it is probably not possible to predict how many evaders their might be if enforcement was slack or non existent?

 

Without looking up the detail, of exact numbers, and exactly over what period, I think that licence evasion now claimed at about 4% average country wide was at one stage claimed to be running at as much as 10% more than that.

 

So, (and I'm on on slightly dodgy ground here, I know!), you could easily claim at least 10% of all licence revenue is only collected because of the threat of enforcement activities. If that were (say) 3,500 licences at a (conservative?) average of five hundred quid each, then that would be around £1.75 million, maybe?

 

Clearly at the moment they are also making further revenue by CC-er enforcement, and many CRT tow-path LTMs in my area are now letting for large sums to boats that have for many years not had a home mooring. Even where moorings are taken by non live-aboards the fact that CC-ers are competing for them is pushing up the price to everybody. Whether you think this is a "a good thing" or "a bad thing", of course differs from person to person, but as someone who failed to win a CRT LTM recently as the price was going well over "guide", there is little doubt that enforcement action is both increasing CRT revenue, but also (unfortunately), pushing up costs for people not normally touched by enforcement issues.

No disagreeing with the stats but I suspect there are also more boaters generally looking for LTM's although recently the auction price of LTM's have been higher than my marina charges!!!

 

The recent additional £0.5m will only provide 3 new staff, I believe the rest is signage, enforcement admin, etc etc.

[Higgs]

 

The licence fee covers the right to have a boat on the water. It doesn't cover any other services.

 

Note that even if you are unable to leave your mooring because the canal is closed, there is no refund of licence fee.

 

As such, "mooring" is a service over and above what you pay for in your licence fee, and CRT can charge for it under s43.

 

Equally, they can waive charges for mooring under s43 (which they do for the first X days at a mooring.

 

 

Mooring is a necessity.

[carlt]

 

The licence fee covers the right to have a boat on the water. It doesn't cover any other services.

 

As such, "mooring" is a service over and above what you pay for in your licence fee, and CRT can charge for it under s43.

 

Really?

 

2.1. The Licence allows you to use the Boat in any Waterway including mooring for short periods while

cruising. ‘Short period’ means up to 14 days or less where a local restriction applies.

 

. From the Licence T&Cs

 

I think most boaters aren't going to suddenly move to a different system. Change isn't always for the best.

As I said "resistant to change".

 

I know one octogenarian angler who has been fishing the same stretch of canal since he was a child so it isn't just boaters who don't like change.

Edited June 20, 2013 by carlt

[jenlyn]

The licence fee covers the right to have a boat on the water. It doesn't cover any other services.

 

Note that even if you are unable to leave your mooring because the canal is closed, there is no refund of licence fee.

 

As such, "mooring" is a service over and above what you pay for in your licence fee, and CRT can charge for it under s43.

 

Equally, they can waive charges for mooring under s43 (which they do for the first X days at a mooring.

Dont start trotting out that cr*p dave, you've been doing really well lately. Don't spoil it.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Do you have any figures on how much money this enforcement recovers, Allan?

 

 

When BW/CaRT removes a boat from the water they are sometimes able to recover the costs. However, this is not always the case and I do not have any figures related to recovery.

 

In the past, enforcement has been aimed at reducing the number of unlicenced boats on the waterways. The enforcement team came into operation in 2009 and claims to have reduced licence evasion by about 6%. However, 6% of licences only amounts to less than a third of what is being spent on enforcement.

 

Now, of course, CaRT is concentrating on CC enforcement as well. There is no potential for recovery as CaRT tends not to take boaters to court. When they do they say it costs them an average of £8000.

 

In short enforcement is not cost effective from a purely financial point of view.

 

**** Edited to add, I have not taken into account any recovery from CC's taking moorings or RMP's

Edited June 20, 2013 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Jerra]

Thank you for some interesting answers. However the section of the Lancaster beyond Tewitfield isn't stagnant does have water (in alot of it) still attracts walkers etc and doesn't need dredged or much other maintenance. I doubt you will ever find a way to get walkers and cyclists to pay much if anything towards dredging lock gates etc. It would be slightly easier with anglers but I doubt they would increase much what they already pay.

 

So how are you going to get these walkers cyclists etc to pay when cyclists can't even be persuaded to cycle sensibly (in many case OK not all but a good number).

 

It is all very well suggesting these other "users" should pay more but how exactly are you going to do it. Also cyclists and walkers (and to a certain extent anglers) have alternatives they can use and so more expense may just make them move. Many (most?) boat owners have no alternative to the canal system.

 

So having identified those you think should pay other than boaters how are you going to get them to pay and how much?

[carlt]

However the section of the Lancaster beyond Tewitfield isn't stagnant does have water (in alot of it) still attracts walkers etc and doesn't need dredged or much other maintenance.

Yes indeed, a stretch less than 10 miles long, I can think of a few stretches too but a tiny proportion compared to what has been lost or is in danger of going and the fact that there is no maintenance regime means that there is always a risk that these short stretches will be lost too.

 

 

So having identified those you think should pay other than boaters how are you going to get them to pay and how much?

I have already suggested a way of making cyclists pay.

 

With talk of "tagging" boaters and charging them automatically it is not too far a leap to make the fishing licence "smart" and charge them when they go fishing in the canal.

 

Walkers are trickier but, in my opinion, shouldn't be charged.

Also cyclists and walkers (and to a certain extent anglers) have alternatives they can use and so more expense may just make them move.

As little or no revenue is derived from these sources they will hardly be missed, financially, and for some boaters their absence would be welcomed.

Many (most?) boat owners have no alternative to the canal system.

 

As I said, resistance to change is not the same as not having a choice.