Space to cruise in London?

[Gordias]

Sabcat

 

Your post assumes that the only cost imposed by each boater is for basic services (water, pump-out, etc).

 

It's not true.

 

There are opportunity costs - for example dog-walkers are less happy to walk past several miles of end-to-end boats than a few boats and a lot of canal. There are indirect negative effects like noise pollution (mentioned earlier in this thread as an issue in London). And the boats that move require a lot of expensive maintenance of the canal system.

 

CaRT must take account of other potential canal users (boaters are a minority).

 

CaRT require a substantial income so they can maintain all parts of the system and encourage more of the right kinds of use.

 

Paying to expand the system for people who refuse to pay the market price for their use of the system makes no sense for them.

Of course you could argue that dog walkers should pay by the mile, and fishermen by the hour, but even so boaters should pay their part.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Gordias

[Sabcat]

Sabcat

 

Your post assumes that the only cost imposed by each boater is for basic services (water, pump-out, etc).

 

It's not true.

 

There are opportunity costs - for example dog-walkers are less happy to walk past several miles of end-to-end boats than a few boats and a lot of canal. There are indirect negative effects like noise pollution (mentioned earlier in this thread as an issue in London). And the boats that move require a lot of expensive maintenance of the canal system.

 

CaRT must take account of other potential canal users (boaters are a minority).

 

CaRT require a substantial income so they can maintain all parts of the system and encourage more of the right kinds of use.

 

Paying to expand the system for people who refuse to pay the market price for their use of the system makes no sense for them.

Of course you could argue that dog walkers should pay by the mile, and fishermen by the hour, but even so boaters should pay their part.

 

It might be a valid argument, A level sociology text book speaks aside, if you weren't inventing the preferences of canal users - I could just as easily say that a canal based community is a benefit for dog walkers and other users making their time on the tow path more pleasant but as, like you, I've not spoken to a significant number of dog walkers I have no data so I'd just be making stuff up as well and made up stuff is no basis for an argument.

 

Right kinds of use, as decided by who and under what authority? There is already legislation in place governing the movement of boats which via the licence fee contribute to the system. Improving facilities so the capacity for more boats to use an area increases is investing money in the users - and as has already been posted the boats moved from other areas will be replaced there if the demand exists - that provide an income to CaRT. Does the maintenance cost increase as boats do? Dredging becomes less necessary for a start.

 

The environmental impact of more boats in an area is a reason for CaRT to tackle the issue - they can't limit the number of boats, they have no authority to do so, they could manage it though through service provision.

[Wanted]

Having passed through London this Summer it seems to me that the bulk of the overcrowding is in some relatively small areas, particularly on the Regents Canal. From Little Venice onwards heading east there is little or no room and plenty of boats two and three abreast. West of Little Venice there are long swathes of the towpath empty of boats. Now clearly some lengths will not be suitable for a variety of reasons and services might currently be sparse but there is plenty of room for CRT to provide more space and facilities. I suspect the worst overcrowding is due to many people wanting to live in the most popular places, an understandable desire but one which will shortly create many of the problems predicted in various posts above.

 

Shhhh! Don't tell em about the bit of London west of LV...

[Gordias]

Sabcat

 

I provided a link on "externalities" earlier because it's the economists answer to "happy children and fluffy kittens" arguments. As I said in an earlier post, it's possible to measure negative externalities, so there's no need for us to engage in an exchange of scenarios.

 

I made a prediction earlier, which I ask you to read. It was based on the usual thing: sooner or later the local inhabitants in areas negatively affected by the presence of too many boaters will react. Their legal options are not limited by the laws governing and restricting CaRT.

 

It's not part of CaRT's responsibilities to mitigate the cost of housing in London, even if some of those who want to live there cheaply own boats.

 

I don't see any reason the CaRT would want to defend live-aboard boaters in such over-heated hot spots, except those who have paid for, and occupy, a genuine live-aboard mooring. Nor can I see any reason for CaRT to spend money on facilities to support additional "near-stationary CCer" live-aboard boaters in places like London.

 

Funnily enough the easiest way to motivate CaRT to add facilities in places like London would be to allow them to control which boats are moored where, and for boaters to to pay them reasonable fees for use of their "real estate". As far as I can see it's too late for that.

[John V]

greeny

[mark99]

One for Nigel perhaps - if things in a certain overcrowded area came to a head with residents and local authority highly motivated to move on or restrict boaters mooring, how would it be effected -

 

via Local Authority vrs CaRT or

 

Local Authority, realising CaRT are restricted, overreach and go for boaters directly?

 

Or are the Local Authority fairly toothless unless a fire hazard is created?

Edited November 6, 2014 by mark99

[Phil Ambrose]

And a virtual greenie from me, very well put.

Phil

[MtB]

One for Nigel perhaps - if things in a certain overcrowded area came to a head with residents and local authority highly motivated to move on or restrict boaters mooring, how would it be effected -

 

via Local Authority vrs CaRT or

 

Local Authority, realising CaRT are restricted, overreach and go for boaters directly?

 

Or are the Local Authority fairly toothless unless a fire hazard is created?

 

 

My view is water quality will turn out to be the weapon of choice for the residents, LA etc. Boaters will be accused of polluting the water with effluent (whether of not it's true) and this used as a reason to disperse them.

 

Not sure what laws will be used but yes, I suspect individual boaters will be targeted in such a way that new boaters will decide "near stationary CCing" (love that term!) in London hotspots simply isn't worth the incoming grief from residents and LA.

 

It's only going to take one video of a boater emptying their bog into the cut at midnight published on youtube for outrage to occur and all hell to break loose.

 

 

MtB

[magnetman]

snip..........

 

Funnily enough the easiest way to motivate CaRT to add facilities in places like London would be to allow them to control which boats are moored where, and for boaters to to pay them reasonable fees for use of their "real estate". As far as I can see it's too late for that.

 

It happens in almost every other walk of life. Demand tends to push up the costs so it just seems plain bizarre that this can't happen in this case.

 

Another very good post Gordias

 

 

My view is water quality will turn out to be the weapon of choice for the residents, LA etc. Boaters will be accused of polluting the water with effluent (whether of not it's true) and this used as a reason to disperse them.

 

Not sure what laws will be used but yes, I suspect individual boaters will be targeted in such a way that new boaters will decide "near stationary CCing" (love that term!) in London hotspots simply isn't worth the incoming grief from residents and LA.

 

It's only going to take one video of a canalside resident boater emptying a bucket their bog into the cut at midnight published on youtube for outrage to occur and all hell to break loose.

 

 

MtB

 

don't give them ideas they have spies on this forum

Edited November 6, 2014 by magnetman

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

I don't see any reason the CaRT would want to defend live-aboard boaters in such over-heated hot spots, except those who have paid for, and occupy, a genuine live-aboard mooring. Nor can I see any reason for CaRT to spend money on facilities to support additional "near-stationary CCer" live-aboard boaters in places like London.

 

 

 

I understand your argument about facilities to support "near stationary ccers" ( I might not agree but so be it) the problem is that lack of facilities effects boats simply visiting the area

[Tuscan]

Recently there seems to be a growing number of boaters moving to cruise the London area who are new to boating , these boaters then appear to be very suprised just how difficult it is to get supplies of diesel, coal, pump outs , water etc without some considerable effort on their part.

[cotswoldsman]

Recently there seems to be a growing number of boaters moving to cruise the London area who are new to boating , these boaters then appear to be very suprised just how difficult it is to get supplies of diesel, coal, pump outs , water etc without some considerable effort on their part.

Yes there certainly seems an expectation that it should all be delivered by boat!!

[magnetman]

maybe people should be charged extra as soon as they occupy water say between Kensal green and Limehouse? a toll system.

 

I'm sure it isn't allowed but it would probably help keep the place more useable. After all anyone visiting London as a tourist is expecting to pay to park a vehicle, eat, sleep, travel etc etc so why should boats be able to visit freely and basically squat? As the toll would be daily it would be very cheap (compared with a hotel) for someone who just wanted to have a cruise through and moor for Camden for a bit then perhaps take a walk in Victoria Park.

 

Toll money to go to improved facilities for visitors. There would also be nice little rows of residential moorings for people who -do- want to pay market rate to stay in a central location on a boat in the long term. There must be some

[MtB]

maybe people should be charged extra as soon as they occupy water say between Kensal green and Limehouse? a toll system.

 

I'm sure it isn't allowed but it would probably help keep the place more useable. After all anyone visiting London as a tourist is expecting to pay to park a vehicle, eat, sleep, travel etc etc so why should boats be able to visit freely and basically squat? As the toll would be daily it would be very cheap (compared with a hotel) for someone who just wanted to have a cruise through and moor for Camden for a bit then perhaps take a walk in Victoria Park.

 

Toll money to go to improved facilities for visitors. There would also be nice little rows of residential moorings for people who -do- want to pay market rate to stay in a central location on a boat in the long term. There must be some

 

Careful now. I proposed this a couple of years ago and got universally condemned for suggesting it!

 

My view is that boaters should be recorded entering the city, given 14 days free of charge then it's £25 a day beyond that unless the boat has a permanent mooring.

 

I know the laws don't exist to do this, but if they did, it would be a very tidy and simple solution.

 

MtB

[mark99]

 

Careful now. I proposed this a couple of years ago and got universally condemned for suggesting it!

 

My view is that boaters should be recorded entering the city, given 14 days free of charge then it's £25 a day beyond that unless the boat has a permanent mooring.

 

I know the laws don't exist to do this, but if they did, it would be a very tidy and simple solution.

 

MtB

 

 

I can think of an ideal place for the Western Toll House too.

 

North Circular Aquaduct.

Edited November 6, 2014 by mark99

[magnetman]

I suppose a severly limiting factor is that the Regents is basically a very small canal so visitors from abroad won't really be able to use it like they can use other european capital cities because their boats are too long wide or high.

 

So it might end up being very underused although hire boat companies would thrive which might make it a popular destination for tourists. as it is its so difficult to find a mooring reliably in a place you want to stop its a bit ridiculous really. so more moorings could be created but these would get filled quickly with the current situation so not worth it.

and the Eastern toll house can be Commercial Road lock which has aiui already been identified as a potential location for more offside moorings. What could be more convenient than a man on a boat collecting the tolls ? A little pontoon with an outboard motor on one end could be used to close off the navigation to say 5ft so unpowereds can get past and pedestrians don't use the pontoon as a bridge.

 

Mike I think 14 days free is too much, would be better to make it 2 or 3, why would anyone not living in London need or want to spend 2 weeks there?

[Gordias]

I understand your argument about facilities to support "near stationary ccers" ( I might not agree but so be it) the problem is that lack of facilities effects boats simply visiting the area

 

I share your concern. It's one of the things I had in mind when I added this to an earlier post about what CaRT might be forced to do to secure a viable income:

I think this would cause problems for boaters during the process, which would certainly take a few years, and it might well have long-term negative effects too.

 

If CaRT have to work with another powerful player, for example the local authorities in London, CaRT won't necessarily be able to limit the measures taken so there are no negative effects on boaters in the rest of the system. For example a London authority might find their easiest recourse is system-wide H&S regulation regarding emissions, noise, waste disposal, water quality, equipment quality, etc. If they were sufficiently annoyed they could take out half the boats in the system with a couple of pages of H&S rules.

 

On the plus side, there are ways to manage the interaction wishes of boaters many interactions between different categories of boaters in London, as demonstrated by the suggestions made by magnetman and MtB above. CaRT may not have the powers to do this now, but they would probably prefer to have such powers thrust upon them, and use them fairly, than to support someone else "nuking" all boaters via H&S or some other regulatory measures.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Gordias

[Dharl]

 

 

Mike I think 14 days free is too much, would be better to make it 2 or 3, why would anyone not living in London need or want to spend 2 weeks there?

 

I think Mike's idea has legs (or maybe water wings?). I think the free 14 days is also good as it is similar to other time limits around the system which would make it less confusing. Am sure some people would like to CC for up to two weeks around the capital, though not my personal cup of tea!

[magnetman]

interaction wishes of boaters

I like that expression

 

And another good post on the subject.

 

I think Mike's idea has legs (or maybe water wings?). I think the free 14 days is also good as it is similar to other time limits around the system which would make it less confusing. Am sure some people would like to CC for up to two weeks around the capital, though not my personal cup of tea!

Yes good point about the 14d

[Gordias]

interaction wishes of boaters

 

I like that expression

 

It was a typo, but it made me laugh after you pointed it out.

 

I had to go back and change it though - no matter how hard I try I can't pretend the original version meant anything

Edited November 6, 2014 by Gordias

[AndrewIC]

Careful now. I proposed this a couple of years ago and got universally condemned for suggesting it!

 

My view is that boaters should be recorded entering the city, given 14 days free of charge then it's £25 a day beyond that unless the boat has a permanent mooring.

 

I know the laws don't exist to do this, but if they did, it would be a very tidy and simple solution.

 

MtB

CRT currently impose a maximum stay of 14 days (actually it might be 14 nights) on the whole of the connected portion of the Montgomery canal - 14 full stop, not 14 then a charge. Do they have a statutory basis to do so? If so, then how is one specified stretch of water different from another? They may already have the powers?

[magnetman]

What happens if you overstay on the Monty?

 

14 days full stop sounds like they have some sort of draconian powers or a big scary -non specified origin- man who comes and growls at you.

 

Or is it a nice friendly place full of 'proper boaters' rather than squatters

[Lady Muck]

Yes there certainly seems an expectation that it should all be delivered by boat!!

it's a hard lesson learned when you are new (and I was new once lol) that boating is really inconvenient. Engineers won't come at the drop of a hat, the Alde repairman is so busy, we've had to wait months for service, the fuel boats can't serve when there are stoppages and you can forget filling up with water when it freezes.

I'm a damn sight more organised now, so I don't tend to get caught out, but it's taken me quite a while.

[Jerra]

I know Alf doesn't think much of the concept of the canal in London getting full, so can anyone give me a half way realistic answer to these questions.

 

1. How many boats are there in London at the moment? A very rough round figure will do CCers and those with moorings.

 

2. How many miles of canal are there in the area people refer to as London? I assume that is inside the M25.

 

3. Roughly how many boats are added to the London numbers over a time scale. I don't mind if it is per year, month week or whatever.

 

4. Is there much of London where you can moor both sides of the canal. That is say permanent moorings one side and tow path the other type of situation.

[Gordias]

A partial response based on a thread I found today by accident:

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=69010

 

• 2964 boats on Boats "London's Waterways" as of March 2014 using CaRT's definition of the area (I have no reference for that).
• 14% growth between March 2013 and March 2014 (say one extra boat per day)
• 36% growth over the five years to March 2014, which suggests (but doesn't prove) the rate of new boats being added is increasing
• 85% more "CCers" in the year March 2013 to March 2014 (this is also hard to interpret: it could be 100 to 185, or 1000 to 1850)
• I don't know how many of those boats are in marinas - it could be significant

 

Worth calculating how much space those boats would take If they were all moored (with no doubling) on the side of the canals

 

I'd expect the "theoretical mooring capacity" and the practical one to be very different. The locals won't want a continuous line of boats along the canals.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Gordias