Where is C&RT going?

[Doodlebug]

Hi all,

 

C&RT has made a lot of controversial decisions recently, and so I would be interested to hear peoples opinions on where they think its all heading. They are obviously anti cc so how hard can they make life for us. Is that the intention? It doesn't seem to be motivated by money or they wouldn't have made cheaper winter moorings.

 

I would be interested to hear peoples ideas.

 

Thanks

 

Doodlebug

[RLWP]

There are a lot of threads running already on the specific issues, why not contribute your ideas to those?

 

Richard

[Doodlebug]

Because the threads are talking about the immediate future. I am looking long term I.e. over the next 5 years. Will licences continue to rise. Will they make every mooring a 24 hour mooring. Etc. etc.

[sueb]

I don't think Cart are coming up with any new ideas that BW didn't come up with. I do think they are fed up with one small group of boaters that cause them a disproportionate amount of trouble

[RLWP]

Hang on while I find out

 

 

Richard

[Doodlebug]

I'm interested in what other people think will happen long term. Indeed they are few up with a number of boaters who are breaking the rules but sofa it seems to me that their method for dealing with it is to make life irritating for everyone whilst helping the boaters causing the problems to carry on (i.e. the roving mooring permits)

[cotswoldsman]

I'm interested in what other people think will happen long term. Indeed they are few up with a number of boaters who are breaking the rules but sofa it seems to me that their method for dealing with it is to make life irritating for everyone whilst helping the boaters causing the problems to carry on (i.e. the roving mooring permits)

YAWN

[Paul C]

Unless the economy improves dramatically, I don't think they'll be altogether successful in continued funding from government much after the existing long term funding agreement (is it 10 years?)

 

Longer term, I suspect they are going to be focusing more strongly on keeping the main cruiseways navigable at the expense of remainder waterways, trying to attract more non-boating users to canals and somehow extract money out of them (probably via donations/becoming 'friends' - they have already rejected a paid membership idea), and trying their best to convert unprofitable areas of canal use into profitable ones (this might include a focused campaign in the future to do away with CCing and require everyone to have a home mooring, by tabling legislation to supercede the 1995 act; or sweeping changes/increases in mooring costs and licence costs).

 

It seems they're not afraid to try out controversial ideas to increase revenue and embrace new technology.

 

Lets hope they don't upset too many people and destroy too much history in the process.

[Doodlebug]

Unless the economy improves dramatically, I don't think they'll be altogether successful in continued funding from government much after the existing long term funding agreement (is it 10 years?)

 

Longer term, I suspect they are going to be focusing more strongly on keeping the main cruiseways navigable at the expense of remainder waterways, trying to attract more non-boating users to canals and somehow extract money out of them (probably via donations/becoming 'friends' - they have already rejected a paid membership idea), and trying their best to convert unprofitable areas of canal use into profitable ones (this might include a focused campaign in the future to do away with CCing and require everyone to have a home mooring, by tabling legislation to supercede the 1995 act; or sweeping changes/increases in mooring costs and licence costs).

 

It seems they're not afraid to try out controversial ideas to increase revenue and embrace new technology.

 

Lets hope they don't upset too many people and destroy too much history in the process.

 

Thank you, thats what I was interested to hear.

 

 

YAWN

 

If you're bored of these topics then don't open them, if you're tired then go to bed.

[MtB]

I keep seeing large signs up on the southern Oxford saying something like "500 miles of canal were lost last century, give generously to stop more being lost in future".

 

I think the future is as Paul says, concentration of resources on the cruiseways and leave all the other waterways to degenerate into footpaths next to unnavigable ditches.

 

Does anyone have a link to a map showing which waterways are 'cruiseway' status and which aren't, please?

 

(Cruiseways are waterways were CRT have some sort of obligation to maintain them in navigable condition as I understand it. Not all canals are cruiseways. Those that aren't are at serious risk in the medium term I suspect.

 

MtB

[Phil Ambrose]

Being on EA waters at the moment I am a bit behind on all the implications. However could someone explain how doing away with CCers improve revenue income etc and what would CaRT gain by forcing everyone to have a home mooringm

Phil

[mayalld]

I keep seeing large signs up on the southern Oxford saying something like "500 miles of canal were lost last century, give generously to stop more being lost in future".

 

I think the future is as Paul says, concentration of resources on the cruiseways and leave all the other waterways to degenerate into footpaths next to unnavigable ditches.

 

Does anyone have a link to a map showing which waterways are 'cruiseway' status and which aren't, please?

 

(Cruiseways are waterways were CRT have some sort of obligation to maintain them in navigable condition as I understand it. Not all canals are cruiseways. Those that aren't are at serious risk in the medium term I suspect.

 

MtB

 

It is worth mentioning that CRT have obligations to maintain some remainder waterways in a navigable condition.

Being on EA waters at the moment I am a bit behind on all the implications. However could someone explain how doing away with CCers improve revenue income etc and what would CaRT gain by forcing everyone to have a home mooringm

Phil

 

Because every home mooring (or rather 99% of them) brings in revenue to CRT, whether in the form of a full CRT mooring permit, and EOG Permit, a mooring agreement or a connection fee.

[Doodlebug]

If everyone had a home mooring then most would be paying a large amount to C&RT for it, however there are not enough moorings to go round and I for one would hate being tied down somewhere.

 

If it came down to it I would buy a cheap mooring somewhere I will never go and then continue as I have been. If I had a mooring I would only stop there for maybe one month of the year.

[PaulG]

Being on EA waters at the moment I am a bit behind on all the implications. However could someone explain how doing away with CCers improve revenue income etc and what would CaRT gain by forcing everyone to have a home mooringm

Phil

IF they were able to get rid of CC'ers altogether, then they'd get more revenue.

Forcing everyone to have a home mooring would fill up empty spaces in marinas (many of which are CRT owned), and the laws of supply and demand would likely increase mooring prices.

[DeanS]

I was interested to hear of CRT's "adopt a canal" plan. I think in certain areas, that would work. Some canals are in dire needs of some local community pride and adoption.

 

I am sure that the miles and miles of open towpath will always be there, but getting to them will possibly be trickier...with less dredging and more tree/weed growth. I'm hoping this also transates into areas where enforcement pressures disappear, leaving just certain hotspots to be the focus of VM limits etc. Prior to my L&L trip this year, I thought that VMs were important. Now I feel they are only really important to boaters who are out for a weekend and dont like stepping in mud etc. Or hirers who are scared to moor on a towpath. For boaters like myself, I'm now quite happy to tie up on the offside somewhere...to a raggety fence...and "rough it". I think this might be the way it will be in 10yrs, so I'm happy to start now.

 

Yes, I see licences going up....when CRT realise that the runners, anglers and joggers aren't going to make much of an upwards dent in their cashflow charts.

[MtB]

Now I feel they are only really important to boaters who are out for a weekend and dont like stepping in mud etc. Or hirers who are scared to moor on a towpath. For boaters like myself, I'm now quite happy to tie up on the offside somewhere...to a raggety fence...and "rough it". I think this might be the way it will be in 10yrs, so I'm happy to start now.

 

Yep, totally agree. I've always preferred to moor on the offside overnight when possible, but I was shocked to find this became difficult if not impossible ten years ago when I changed from a NB drawing 18in to one drawing 2ft 6in.

 

CRT maintain the canals to suit only the modern shallow draft hulls and to add to my other answers to the OP's question can see the future being very difficult to navigate a historic ex-working boat drawing 3ft 6in anywhere but down the centre channel of the busiest waterways.

 

MtB

[alan_fincher]

IF they were able to get rid of CC'ers altogether, then they'd get more revenue.

Forcing everyone to have a home mooring would fill up empty spaces in marinas (many of which are CRT owned), and the laws of supply and demand would likely increase mooring prices.

 

Only if those you are referring to possibly have the means to pay for expensive marina moorings, even if they wanted to.

 

If you think they all do, you are not very up to speed on just how little of them have to survive on.

Try talking to a good waterways chaplain, and you will realise that many of us with our home moorings are in very privileged positions compared to a lot who live on boats, and really do not have very much income at all.

 

Every full boat licence represents considerable income for CRT, an abandoned unlicensed boat does not. The number of license boats on CRT waters is already in decline, (by their own figures), and forcing more people away reduces income, not increases it.

[Guest]

 

Yep, totally agree. I've always preferred to moor on the offside overnight when possible, but I was shocked to find this became difficult if not impossible ten years ago when I changed from a NB drawing 18in to one drawing 2ft 6in.

 

CRT maintain the canals to suit only the modern shallow draft hulls and to add to my other answers to the OP's question can see the future being very difficult to navigate a historic ex-working boat drawing 3ft 6in anywhere but down the centre channel of the busiest waterways.

 

MtB

 

not a map but discussed here

 

Richard's post at #7 contains a link to a list.

[8 Hairy Feet]

A; To Hell in a handC&RT

[BlueStringPudding]

IF they were able to get rid of CC'ers altogether, then they'd get more revenue.

Forcing everyone to have a home mooring would fill up empty spaces in marinas (many of which are CRT owned), and the laws of supply and demand would likely increase mooring prices.

Surely the laws of supply and demand are to give customers what they want and they will pay for it. The gaps in marinas proves that Cart did not research what customers want to pay for. Many many boaters I speak to would never want a marina mooring. Many more seem to want online moorings with no additional facilities but can't get them. And a handful I've spoken to just want to always travel. That middle group is a big fat relatively easy income generator for Cart if they would only tap into it. It doesn't increase the number of boats moored on the canals as it remains the same as now. But it does bring them much more money. Their new announcement about winter mooring not being with x distance of a marina would be a limiting but manageable factor. Maybe they could trial it with this winter's moorings and see whether they want to roll it out for the rest of the year. Edited September 3, 2013 by BlueStringPudding

[Captain Fizz]

The lack of maintenance is already causing problems and I can only see it getting worse.

I would be quite happy to spend time tree trimming and cutting back towpath growth if CaRT would provide the means of removing the slash.

[Tony Brooks]

I suspect the trustees now realise they were negligent in agreeing to the conditions under which they took over from BW and are now blundering about trying to divert attention from this. I suspect the board an managers are doing exactly what they have been told to do (be it informally) to try to obscure the real issue - as in bury unpalatable announcements on important news days.

 

I just hope I am wrong, but the more I hear the more there seems to be no effective accountability for the managers and above.

[grahame r]

Is it possible that CaRT just want all of the waterways to contunue and improve as they claim? Surely if they wanted to be rid of CCers they could just increase the licence fees for people without a home mooring. I know it's nice and easy to have a big bad bogey man to blame for all our ills but these constant accusations of ulterior motives and hidden agendas is verging on paranoia.

[Paul C]

Is it possible that CaRT just want all of the waterways to contunue and improve as they claim? Surely if they wanted to be rid of CCers they could just increase the licence fees for people without a home mooring. I know it's nice and easy to have a big bad bogey man to blame for all our ills but these constant accusations of ulterior motives and hidden agendas is verging on paranoia.

 

Its possible (in fact, I'd say they definitely do) but its difficult to see where the funding to do this would come from. I assumed a realistic scenario of government funding decreasing significantly long term in my ponderings.

[jenlyn]

I don't think Cart are coming up with any new ideas that BW didn't come up with. I do think they are fed up with one small group of boaters that cause them a disproportionate amount of trouble

Yes, NABO are a bit of a pain in the ass.:-)