Jump to content

CRT survey


larryjc

Featured Posts

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Getting back to the subject of the thread :

Q4

We run this survey to help us find out what you, as a boater, think about both the Canal & River Trust and the waterways.
We first want to give you a chance to tell us what you're thinking so this question is fairly open.
Please can you tell us in your own words how you feel about the Canal & River Trust at the moment and what makes you feel this way?

Answer

Very disappointed with the levels of maintenance (leaky or broken locks and paddles, crumbling locks, lack of dredging etc etc) but funds can be found for ridiculous 'duck-lanes', art and dredging of non-navigable waterways to encourage plant growth, & so on - totally unrelated to canal navigation.

The lack of action on speeding cyclists - in fact, the seeming encouragement by tarmacking of the tow-path.

Lack of knowledge, &/or incorrect data when posting stoppage information (wrong lock numbers, incorrect information re winding holes etc.)

Our responses were pretty similar. Focus on the well being of those using the navigation and infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Getting back to the subject of the thread :

Q4

We run this survey to help us find out what you, as a boater, think about both the Canal & River Trust and the waterways.
We first want to give you a chance to tell us what you're thinking so this question is fairly open.
Please can you tell us in your own words how you feel about the Canal & River Trust at the moment and what makes you feel this way?

Answer

Very disappointed with the levels of maintenance (leaky or broken locks and paddles, crumbling locks, lack of dredging etc etc) but funds can be found for ridiculous 'duck-lanes', art and dredging of non-navigable waterways to encourage plant growth, & so on - totally unrelated to canal navigation.

The lack of action on speeding cyclists - in fact, the seeming encouragement by tarmacking of the tow-path.

Lack of knowledge, &/or incorrect data when posting stoppage information (wrong lock numbers, incorrect information re winding holes etc.)

Like I said in my 1st post on this topic most will answer similar. Your answers seem to be very similar to mine. More interesting is what Cart will get from this. Surely they don't need a survey to know what boaters think of them. A quick check on Facebook and on here would give them a very good idea of the state of play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Red Ruth said:

clearly - they're boats not houses. But the Objects seem to support the position that there is a public benefit in the use of boats for human habitation, as you've seen. 

Not quite. It refers to the navigation of boats... etc. 

That implies movement. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

navigation
 
noun
  1. .
    the process or activity of accurately ascertaining one's position and planning and following a route.
    "Columbus corrected his westward course by celestial navigation"
    .
  2. the passage of ships.
    "transporter bridges to span rivers without hindering navigation"
     
    Both of which clearly to me at least require movement - following a route & you can't be going past a bridge without moving.  So to me as far as the CRT are concerned it is clear you can live on your boat providing you are on the move not trying to hang around in one place.
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Red Ruth said:

The mile long stretch of empty visitor moorings is a choice that CRT have made- not boaters. If the problem was 'overstaying' they would be full of boats - not empty.

I think you’ve missed the point. They used to be full of overstayers so in a measure to remove the freeloaders CaRT changed the moorings from 14 day to 2 day, making it simpler to enforce movement. It now means that the visitor moorings are now available to visitors as they were intended, albeit for only 2 days which is a shame, and caused once again by the minority spoiling it for the majority. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WotEver said:

I think you’ve missed the point. They used to be full of overstayers so in a measure to remove the freeloaders CaRT changed the moorings from 14 day to 2 day, making it simpler to enforce movement. It now means that the visitor moorings are now available to visitors as they were intended, albeit for only 2 days which is a shame, and caused once again by the minority spoiling it for the majority. 

Thank you for that - the point was well missed.
In addition CaRT added £25 a day fee after the second day which was probably a big incentive for over-stayers to move.
Having said that I think CaRT also got it a bit wrong why can't some of these mooring be 5 days then £25. Would have achieved much the same outcome and have less effect on visiting boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Red Ruth said:

Sorry - I could have been clearer. Follow the link i left above - the Charitable Objects are contained within the Articles of Association. Also in there are the Powers CRT has, and the rules for how governance by trustees work. I'm not changing my stance - the Objects are at the beginning, and the 'defined terms' are at the end, but the latter does relate to the former. 

 

Regardless, the object is to manage the waterways for navigation by any boat also used for human habitation - if CRT want boats to move further, they might want to consider what incentives or facilities they can provide under their powers to achieve that - rather than what sanctions they can apply under law. They are empowered to provide education, for example. Mooring rings, dredging, bins, facilities etc.. 

My implication was that their duty lay in respect of navigating, not staying put!  But, as I said, it does not define what counts as navigating . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

People have lived on boats for yonks. When I moved aboard 28 years ago I was told of the few very easy to understand very easy to comply with rules concerning boat movements. The same rules still apply and are still easy to comply with, you move around LOTS or you pay for a mooring. You can live on your boat quite easily. The beauty of boats is that they move.

That's 3 greenies I have had to give you now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/03/2018 at 21:49, Alan de Enfield said:

Getting back to the subject of the thread :

Q4

We run this survey to help us find out what you, as a boater, think about both the Canal & River Trust and the waterways.
We first want to give you a chance to tell us what you're thinking so this question is fairly open.
Please can you tell us in your own words how you feel about the Canal & River Trust at the moment and what makes you feel this way?

Answer

Very disappointed with the levels of maintenance (leaky or broken locks and paddles, crumbling locks, lack of dredging etc etc) but funds can be found for ridiculous 'duck-lanes', art and dredging of non-navigable waterways to encourage plant growth, & so on - totally unrelated to canal navigation.

The lack of action on speeding cyclists - in fact, the seeming encouragement by tarmacking of the tow-path.

Lack of knowledge, &/or incorrect data when posting stoppage information (wrong lock numbers, incorrect information re winding holes etc.)

I find the addition of plants quite nice, and means that I have a little more opportunity to see the river rather than just the sides of boats.

Also, tarmac is good in lots of places, else you end up with path like the attached picture which isn't good for anyone.

IMG_20180104_084948.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Also, tarmac is good in lots of places, else you end up with path like the attached picture which isn't good for anyone.

 

I take it you've not done much boating then, or you'd realise that the condition of that tow-path would be considered a luxury over much of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Also, tarmac is good in lots of places, else you end up with path like the attached picture which isn't good for anyone.

My understanding is that most of the serious upgrades to the towpath are paid for entirely with Other People's Money (TM), typically the likes of Sustrans.  It doesn't come out of CRT's maintenance budget, and I agree that better towpaths are, well, better!

There is a problem with lycra louts in some places, but that is not necessarily down to towpath state - there are some idiots on mountain bikes on the rougher patches too!

My only complaint is the lack of mooring rings when they upgrade the path - I feel bad when driving a couple of feet of steel through the nice shiny surface that comes right up to the capstones.  It doesn't stop me, but I feel bad about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

My only complaint is the lack of mooring rings when they upgrade the path - I feel bad when driving a couple of feet of steel through the nice shiny surface that comes right up to the capstones.  It doesn't stop me, but I feel bad about it.

 

Me neither!

I do think however, a lot of boaters don't even think to try it,  and carry on looking for a muddy bit to stop by. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/03/2018 at 23:41, jds_1981 said:

I find the addition of plants quite nice, and means that I have a little more opportunity to see the river rather than just the sides of boats.

Also, tarmac is good in lots of places, else you end up with path like the attached picture which isn't good for anyone.

IMG_20180104_084948.jpg

this towpath has a problem in respect of lack of drainage it is a lot higher than canal so should not get water logged Tarmac is not the answer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, b0atman said:

this towpath has a problem in respect of lack of drainage it is a lot higher than canal so should not get water logged Tarmac is not the answer.

 

 

A gravel or loose scree towpath will always wear lower in the centre as that’s where everyone walks/cycles/runs/whatever. Tarmac IS the answer!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

A gravel or loose scree towpath will always wear lower in the centre as that’s where everyone walks/cycles/runs/whatever. Tarmac IS the answer!!

Depends which way it is sloped: if, as is the 'obvious' towards the canal then all of the pollution that gathers on the towpath (and there is often in urban areas rather more of it than might be anticipated), it all goes into the canal. Non-porous surfaces should always be designed with downpours and pollution in mind - sadly not always does this happen. Whatever surface is used, on-going maintenance will always be required. Whilst porous surfaces will wear, as suggested, they may well do so in a 'softer' manner whilst hard  surfaces may leave rather dangerous potholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Depends which way it is sloped: if, as is the 'obvious' towards the canal then all of the pollution that gathers on the towpath (and there is often in urban areas rather more of it than might be anticipated), it all goes into the canal. Non-porous surfaces should always be designed with downpours and pollution in mind - sadly not always does this happen. Whatever surface is used, on-going maintenance will always be required. Whilst porous surfaces will wear, as suggested, they may well do so in a 'softer' manner whilst hard  surfaces may leave rather dangerous potholes.

Well, this is on the lea just up from the lea rowing club. It is heavily trafficked. Much of this stretch is tarmacked and has been for a long time. It has no pothole or cracking issues. I guess that initial outlay to tarmac is fairly expensive, more so than doing no maintenance at all along this stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jds_1981 said:

Well, this is on the lea just up from the lea rowing club. It is heavily trafficked. Much of this stretch is tarmacked and has been for a long time. It has no pothole or cracking issues. I guess that initial outlay to tarmac is fairly expensive, more so than doing no maintenance at all along this stretch.

The photo on #69 does not look tarmac. If it is/was then maintenance is lacking as the water is pooling suggesting a rather non-flat surface. The pic also suggests that it was laid to fall away from the canal but with a small upstand on the inside that prevents the surface water from readily draining anywhere useful. The surface is certainly covered with a lot of muck which will not do anyone or the surface much good.

In any event, as our journeys both up and down the motorways as well as the back lanes of this glorious Duchy demonstrate, tarmac surfaces eventually break up, some sooner rather than later, depending on how they are treated, both by users and maintainers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The photo on #69 does not look tarmac. If it is/was then maintenance is lacking as the water is pooling suggesting a rather non-flat surface. The pic also suggests that it was laid to fall away from the canal but with a small upstand on the inside that prevents the surface water from readily draining anywhere useful. The surface is certainly covered with a lot of muck which will not do anyone or the surface much good.

In any event, as our journeys both up and down the motorways as well as the back lanes of this glorious Duchy demonstrate, tarmac surfaces eventually break up, some sooner rather than later, depending on how they are treated, both by users and maintainers.

Yes, those photos are worn down gravel.

Tarmac pavements last a long time though, decades unless they are exposed to severe weather cycles or trees. Motorways are a different matter though as their wear mainly comes from heavy axled trucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jds_1981 said:

Yes, those photos are worn down gravel.

Tarmac pavements last a long time though, decades unless they are exposed to severe weather cycles or trees. Motorways are a different matter though as their wear mainly comes from heavy axled trucks.

Not down our back lanes they aren't. Mainly weather and the maintenance schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.