Radio 4, Friday 24/10, You and Yours

[jake_crew]

A discussion about live-aboards in London - and the congestion troubles.

 

Starts 25 minutes in.

[youthoftoday]

What's the gist?

[MtB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m3jcw

[RLWP]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m3jcw

 

 

Rising property prices in London and the south-east have led some people to give up bricks and mortar, and head on to the canals. The Canal and River Trust says it's a growing concern, because "the system wasn't designed to hold so many boats". You & Yours finds out the true extent of the rise, and discovers what life is like aboard a London narrow boat.

 

Richard

[MtB]

Hmmm Simon Salem at the end of the article says he thinks the answer to the burgeoning congestion in London is "for communities to work together".

 

Well that's sorted then. Thank goodness for Simon!

 

 

MtB

[jake_crew]

The gist is as RLWP says, with no real conclusion.

 

A typical YAY programme really.

 

The live recording (!) of a "Jeeves" story by Martin Jarvis before it was much more to my taste

[Theo]

It looks as if I don't need to listen. Nothing that we didn't know already?

 

N

[Water Rat.]

I thought it was interesting that the slant was actually that living on a boat was, price wise, not dissimilar to renting a flat. A good point raised.

 

Omitted was that there are not the facilities in terms of water and elsan points to accommodate this number of 'cc'ing' live aboard boats.

 

CRT definitely missed an opportunity to point out the difficulties being experienced by boaters because there are simply too many boats.

 

On another point, there are miles of towpath unusable because of the underground cables and the possible dangers involved with hammering your pins into the ground - but is there any reason why rings or piling cannot be installed to use this space?

Edited October 25, 2014 by Water Rat.

[Alf Roberts]

Not installing more facilities is sheer bloody mindedness on the part of CRT. It would be simple cheap and make so much difference to so many people.

As for concrete edge. The boaters should get together and install their own anchor bolts. It's very easy to do.

[MtB]

I thought it was interesting that the slant was actually that living on a boat was, price wise, not dissimilar to renting a flat. A good point raised.

 

Omitted was that there are not the facilities in terms of water and elsan points to accommodate this number of 'cc'ing' live aboard boats.

 

CRT definitely missed an opportunity to point out the difficulties being experienced by boaters because there are simply too many boats.

 

On another point, there are miles of towpath unusable because of the underground cables and the possible dangers involved with hammering your pins into the ground - but is there any reason why rings or piling cannot be installed to use this space?

 

 

Installation of more facilities would simply suck in thousands more boats then the problem would ratchet up a level.

 

One thing not yet discussed is WHY 'You and Yours' did the article. My impression although they didn't actually say, was that CRT approached the BBC and requested it.

 

The general thrust of the article was very different from general tone of 'escape the rat race and live an idyllic lifestyle costing buttons' seen in other media treatment of the subject.

 

 

MtB

[Alf Roberts]

 

 

Installation of more facilities would simply suck in thousands more boats then the problem would ratchet up a level.

 

 

 

Exactly. As I say, bloody mindedness.

 

Make life as miserable as you can for the people who have chosen this way of life.

 

The general thrust of the article was very different from general tone of 'escape the rat race and live an idyllic lifestyle costing buttons' seen in other media treatment of the subject.

 

 

MtB

 

Where I do agree with you is that rose-tinted specs are best removed but it is naive to suppose that the people who are drawn to this life had them on in the first place. Most boat dwellers in London did not do this because of Guardian articles.

[blackrose]

 

Exactly. As I say, bloody mindedness.

 

Make life as miserable as you can for the people who have chosen this way of life.

 

But I think Mike's point was that increasing facilities will just encourage more new liveaboards and so in turn create an even greater demand - so it doesn't actually solve the problem. I suppose one could accuse CRT of making people's lives as miserable as possible simply by failing to respond to demand, but on the other hand they didn't create the higher demand (mainly coming from new liveaboards), and no waterways authority was ever really established to act as a housing authority.

Edited October 25, 2014 by blackrose

[Alf Roberts]

 

But I think Mike's point was that increasing facilities will just encourage more new liveaboards and so in turn create an even greater demand - so it doesn't actually solve the problem. I suppose one could accuse CRT of making people's lives as miserable as possible simply by failing to respond to demand, but on the other hand they didn't create the higher demand (mainly coming from new liveaboards), and no waterways authority was ever really established to act as a housing authority.

 

No, it won't. People don't make this decision on the amount of facilities. If your (or Mike's argument) is that people don't go into this with their eyes wide open then the lack of water points isn't going to influence their decision. It only makes a difference to those who already live aboard.

 

All refusing to make the facilities fit the reality is doing is a making a sop for those who believe people shouldn't be living this lifestyle. That is a different matter.

 

Or is the argument that reducing the amount of facilities is an attempt be CRT to drive people off the water?

[blackrose]

 

No, it won't. People don't make this decision on the amount of facilities. If your (or Mike's argument) is that people don't go into this with their eyes wide open then the lack of water points isn't going to influence their decision. It only makes a difference to those who already live aboard.

 

All refusing to make the facilities fit the reality is doing is a making a sop for those who believe people shouldn't be living this lifestyle. That is a different matter.

 

Or is the argument that reducing the amount of facilities is an attempt be CRT to drive people off the water?

 

You obviously understand the workings of supply and demand better than most economists.

 

I never mentioned anything about people getting onto the waterways without their eyes wide open, so I don't know where that came from, but it's common sense that if facilities are improved and increased then more people will be able to make use of those facilities.

 

Edit: As an example, if CRT open up new long term moorings on the Paddington Arm or Regents Canal in London what do you think will happen? I'd say that those moorings will obviously fill up with liveaboard boaters pretty quickly - many of those will be new liveaboards and extra facilities will have to be provided. If they expanded those moorings to include long stretches of the canal more people would be encouraged to use them - and not just the boaters who are already on the water! I'm not saying that moorings shouldn't be expanded but it's a question of whether CRT, existing boaters, local authorities and land-based local residents want that to happen. So the situation is a bit more complex than just sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of CRT as you state.

 

I didn't know that CRT was reducing the amount of facilities - I just thought they weren't increasing them in line with demand, so I don't really understand what you mean there.

Edited October 25, 2014 by blackrose

[MtB]

 

You obviously understand the workings of supply and demand better than most economists.

 

I never mentioned anything about people getting onto the waterways without their eyes wide open, so I don't know where that came from, but it's common sense that if facilities are improved and increased then more people will be able to make use of those facilities.

 

I didn't know that CRT was reducing the amount of facilities - I just thought they weren't increasing them in line with demand, so I don't really understand what you mean there.

 

 

I've seen it written on here that CRT have removed at least one water tap and elsan station in London in recent years. Possibly more.

 

 

MtB

[blackrose]

 

 

I've seen it written on here that CRT have removed at least one water tap and elsan station in London in recent years. Possibly more.

 

 

MtB

 

Ok, reductions in facilities is a matter which people can feel rightly aggrieved about with some justification.

[Graham Davis]

Not installing more facilities is sheer bloody mindedness on the part of CRT. It would be simple cheap and make so much difference to so many people.

As for concrete edge. The boaters should get together and install their own anchor bolts. It's very easy to do.

 

So you are happy for the canal to become a continuous row of moored boats, so that we have to crawl along everywhere?

Do you want the canal to look like a parking lot?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

No, it won't. People don't make this decision on the amount of facilities. If your (or Mike's argument) is that people don't go into this with their eyes wide open then the lack of water points isn't going to influence their decision. It only makes a difference to those who already live aboard.

 

All refusing to make the facilities fit the reality is doing is a making a sop for those who believe people shouldn't be living this lifestyle. That is a different matter.

 

Or is the argument that reducing the amount of facilities is an attempt be CRT to drive people off the water?

The reason that people are moving onto the water in London is because of the exorbitant cost of housing, whether rented or bought. It is obviously seen as a means of living near their place of work which, as we all know, was exactly what the canals were built for (not). The reality that you speak of is that if CRT create more facilities they will increase demand for them in London so will then need to supply even more facilities going into a death spiral sucking more and more of their resources to help solve London's housing problem.

 

The suggestion of CRT driving people off the water is a bit of a red herring since the nature of waterway life is that it is nomadic, so if there are no facilities where I have moored I will move to somewhere else. What your argument seems to be is 'because I've chosen to moor here there should be more facilities'.

 

Since London, as the wealth centre of the UK, creams off funding from the rest of the country for their various enterprises (Olympics,Crossrail,Millenium Dome, etc.etc) I don't see why they should also cream off CRT funding to install (and maintain) further facilities. If the 'market place' actually worked (which it doesn't) then there would be hundreds of entrepreneurs queuing up to build marinas around London to house all of these boats, but that's not going to happen,is it? so why expect CRT to fill the gap?

 

 

So you are happy for the canal to become a continuous row of moored boats, so that we have to crawl along everywhere?

Do you want the canal to look like a parking lot?

I think the question is what do we want the London Canals to become? A water-borne shanty town? If there are no restrictions (and I'm NOT arguing for any form of restricted access) then what is to stop the residential boat population of London doubling, tripling, quadrupling or just undergoing exponential growth. Not increasing the number of facilities seems to me to be the only realistic way of stopping this from happening, unless someone can come up with a better idea. Let's face it, the amount of water space in London is not infinite so perhaps we should stop treating it as though it were!

[Jambo]

The reason that people are moving onto the water in London is because of the exorbitant cost of housing, whether rented or bought. It is obviously seen as a means of living near their place of work which, as we all know, was exactly what the canals were built for (not). The reality that you speak of is that if CRT create more facilities they will increase demand for them in London so will then need to supply even more facilities going into a death spiral sucking more and more of their resources to help solve London's housing problem.

 

The suggestion of CRT driving people off the water is a bit of a red herring since the nature of waterway life is that it is nomadic, so if there are no facilities where I have moored I will move to somewhere else. What your argument seems to be is 'because I've chosen to moor here there should be more facilities'.

 

Since London, as the wealth centre of the UK, creams off funding from the rest of the country for their various enterprises (Olympics,Crossrail,Millenium Dome, etc.etc) I don't see why they should also cream off CRT funding to install (and maintain) further facilities. If the 'market place' actually worked (which it doesn't) then there would be hundreds of entrepreneurs queuing up to build marinas around London to house all of these boats, but that's not going to happen,is it? so why expect CRT to fill the gap?

 

I think the question is what do we want the London Canals to become? A water-borne shanty town? If there are no restrictions (and I'm NOT arguing for any form of restricted access) then what is to stop the residential boat population of London doubling, tripling, quadrupling or just undergoing exponential growth. Not increasing the number of facilities seems to me to be the only realistic way of stopping this from happening, unless someone can come up with a better idea. Let's face it, the amount of water space in London is not infinite so perhaps we should stop treating it as though it were!

 

Increasing the number of water taps or elsans is not going to make a meaningful difference to the number of boats in London. It can be a pain waiting to fill up with water or empty the toilets but water and sewage points are accessible in London if you get up at a reasonable time on a weekend (and that's really not very early in the morning) or move during the week. Keeping the services so restricted will not stop people from choosing to live on the water.

A few more water points where there are gaps would be nice though (I believe one's going in around Haggerston but another, maybe at the Sainsbury's by Ladbroke Grove would fill quite a large gap in west London). More important is an increase in the number of public elsans as there are only...7(?) inside the M25 which is clearly insufficient for the number of boats, especially when one gets blocked.

Given that there has been this increase in the number of boats in the area I think it's not unreasonable to expect that C&RT should increase investment in the services which these boats rely on.

[Mike Tee]

Perhaps the question should be 'Are there enough facilities in the area to cover reasonable use by the boats that should be there (ie those that C&RT think should be there)?'

If there are floods of 'illegal' boats, why should C&RT make it any easier for them? However, to make this work for the 'legal' boats C&RT need to police their whole network properly. Until then, the resources available will be over-used by boats that are taking the p::s by living in London without contributing to the cost of the resources supplied.

Simply put, it seems there are two options - either make the whole area (excluding rigidly enforced VM's) residential and make them pay accordingly, or remove all those who are milking the system.

Arguing against my own point, there are many areas with boats being used as cheap (non contributors) residents, my own area of MK being one of them, so in fairness this would have to be rolled out all over the system - that's not going to happen. So things will muddle along as they are now, with complaints on both sides and C&RT not having the income or the manpower (or the inclination?) to do anything about it. In the meantime, those who pay for a mooring in London will be subsidising them who don't, and everybody putting up with Dickensian type facilities. Maybe the Salvation Army could help.

[Phoenix_V]

As for concrete edge. The boaters should get together and install their own anchor bolts. It's very easy to do.

then they will take their licence away for damaging the "historic" edging - read their "3 strikes and you are out " nonsense

[Jambo]

Perhaps the question should be 'Are there enough facilities in the area to cover reasonable use by the boats that should be there (ie those that C&RT think should be there)?'

If there are floods of 'illegal' boats, why should C&RT make it any easier for them? However, to make this work for the 'legal' boats C&RT need to police their whole network properly. Until then, the resources available will be over-used by boats that are taking the p::s by living in London without contributing to the cost of the resources supplied.

Simply put, it seems there are two options - either make the whole area (excluding rigidly enforced VM's) residential and make them pay accordingly, or remove all those who are milking the system.

Arguing against my own point, there are many areas with boats being used as cheap (non contributors) residents, my own area of MK being one of them, so in fairness this would have to be rolled out all over the system - that's not going to happen. So things will muddle along as they are now, with complaints on both sides and C&RT not having the income or the manpower (or the inclination?) to do anything about it. In the meantime, those who pay for a mooring in London will be subsidising them who don't, and everybody putting up with Dickensian type facilities. Maybe the Salvation Army could help.

 

I don't think that the rest of us should be penalised because there are people with unlicenced boats. Unlicensed boats are a small minority of the total and there is already a very strong case for increasing the provision of services on the basis of the number of licensed boats.

[Alf Roberts]

Perhaps the question should be 'Are there enough facilities in the area to cover reasonable use by the boats that should be there (ie those that C&RT think should be there)?'

If there are floods of 'illegal' boats, why should C&RT make it any easier for them? However, to make this work for the 'legal' boats C&RT need to police their whole network properly. Until then, the resources available will be over-used by boats that are taking the p::s by living in London without contributing to the cost of the resources supplied.

Simply put, it seems there are two options - either make the whole area (excluding rigidly enforced VM's) residential and make them pay accordingly, or remove all those who are milking the system.

Arguing against my own point, there are many areas with boats being used as cheap (non contributors) residents, my own area of MK being one of them, so in fairness this would have to be rolled out all over the system - that's not going to happen. So things will muddle along as they are now, with complaints on both sides and C&RT not having the income or the manpower (or the inclination?) to do anything about it. In the meantime, those who pay for a mooring in London will be subsidising them who don't, and everybody putting up with Dickensian type facilities. Maybe the Salvation Army could help.

Floods of illegal boats is just so much confused nonsense. The boats in London are, for the most part, licensed and so very much paying for resources they have a right to expect so 'milking the system' is also nonsense. If Simon Salem states the conditions under which they must grant a licence then 'those that CRT think should be there' is all the licensed boats so more nonsense stems from this premise.

 

You appear to be allowing the black cloud you carry whilst boating to fuel some kind of rant. Of you want to cut off your nose to spite your face then support the slow running down of services so more effluence ends in the canal and you get the 'Dickensian' reality you seem to relish.

Edited October 26, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[TaffyRon]

As long as they stay in the south east I dont care

[Alf Roberts]

 

So you are happy for the canal to become a continuous row of moored boats, so that we have to crawl along everywhere?

Do you want the canal to look like a parking lot?

Never having been to America I have no idea of what a parking lot looks like. But yes I would very much like to see more boats in London. I think they bring vibrance and safety to the waterways of the capital. ( or would you rather return to the dangerous dereliction of the 80s and 90s?).

 

I also agree that visitor moorings should be reserved for visitors which would go a long way to making them accessible to those who feel they aren't.

 

To those who say that the liveaboards make London more difficult to visit - I used to boat there as a visitor in the late 1990s and there were hardly any visiting boats, mainly because of a perception that it wasn't safe. Now, strangely, there seems to be queues of boats wanting to go there. Bit contradictory ?

 

How come there's no hire companies serving the capital ? Is that because of the live aboard scum too?