Jump to content

Crt funding


roland elsdon

Featured Posts

As apoorly paid now retired  health professional i am not going to encourage this government to dodge its duties by giving to a

govt charity.  what they raise on one side they cut from the other . I did my giving in the many hours of unclaimable involuntary overtime forced upon me by their refusal to fund staffing adequately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

CART generally do a good job and I still think as others that the licence is good value. However what really gets my goat is that although I only pay about 20 quid a week for my licence cyclists who rip the towpath to shreds especially when its wet in the winter pay absolutely diddly squat yet many tear around giving not a jot for the infrastructure.

They do pay taxes, though. Careful what you wish for!

 

Edited by Machpoint005
double post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

They do pay taxes, though. Careful what you wish for!

 

You have lost me there? We all pay taxes unless we are dead. cyclists, boaters, golfers, monks, all of us there is tax on just about everything we ever use or buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

We all pay taxes unless we are dead

Exactly. The majority (one of your favourite words) of CRT funding comes from central government, which gets it from taxation.

We boaters pay an additional fee (or tax) for the privilege of using our boat on the network. If all canal users had to pay a fee instead of funding the system from taxation, boaters would end up paying a great deal more than cyclists, walkers or people seeking tranquillity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

Exactly. The majority (one of your favourite words) of CRT funding comes from central government, which gets it from taxation.

We boaters pay an additional fee (or tax) for the privilege of using our boat on the network. If all canal users had to pay a fee instead of funding the system from taxation, boaters would end up paying a great deal more than cyclists, walkers or people seeking tranquillity.

So if  we all pay for it as you say correctly why  do you think boaters have to pay and additional fee of using the network when cyclists dont?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Boaters use water and facilities - cyclists and walkers don't.

What a crap reply. Cyclists often top up water bottles and have bw keys and use facilities and absolutely destroy towpath surfaces. We all pay for the road infrastructure through taxation  also and I also pay for a vehicle excise licence for my car wheras again cyclists pay diddly squat, they dont even need insurance for when they  cause an accident like motorists do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

Boaters use water and facilities - cyclists and walkers don't.

Take my bwb key everywhere cycling boating walking you never know you also do pay tax when you die and if you dont they take from your estate hence probate- pays taxman then family,we hadto borrow from govt  for 5 years to pay iht..as funds were in house we couldnt sell

I have 3rd party insurance through my bike licence and house insurance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsmelly said:

So if  we all pay for it as you say correctly why  do you think boaters have to pay and additional fee of using the network when cyclists dont?

Okay, in back-of-a-fag-packet terms then:

 

Taxpayer/government funding of the waterways is about £50 million a year - roughly £1 per taxpayer.

 

There are about 3.5 million regular cyclists in the UK, so that's about £3.5 million in tax they contribute to CRT each year. I'd hazard a guess that that's more than enough to keep the towpaths in tippy-top condition.

 

Meanwhile there are about 35,000 licence-paying boaters contributing about £35,000 in tax. About one percent of the contribution from cyclists - simply because cyclists outnumber them by 100 to 1 - and an absolute drop in the ocean in terms of maintaining all the infrastructure they rely on but cyclists don't.

 

Doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to me that boaters are asked to pay an additional fee while cyclists aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

CART generaly do a good job and I still think as others that the licence is good value. However what realy gets my goat is that although I only pay about 20 quid a week for my licence cyclists who rip the towpath to shreds especialy when its wet in the winter pay absolutely diddly squat yet many tear around giving not a jot for the infrastructure.

well............... its not their fault that the cycle-paths [aka towpaths] are not fit for boaters, after they are encouraged to use them. Though cycle paths are not really fit for cycling if they are muddy.  I could argue that as a cyclist, most road surfaces are rubbished by heavy traffic, and poor maintenance. I understood that a lot of the cost of towpath maintenance is subsidised by non boaters. Its not really practical to licence cyclists, the damage caused by a few kiddies bikes does not compare with aggressive use on soft surfaces by bikes with cross country tyres. A licence would be unenforceable imho.

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

well............... its not their fault that the cycle-paths [aka towpaths] are not fit for boaters, after they are encouraged to use them. Though cycle paths are not really fit for cycling if they are muddy.  I could argue that as a cyclist, the roads surfaces are rubbished by heavy traffic, and poor maintenance. I understood that a lot of the cost of towpath maintenance is subsidised by non boaters.

 

19 minutes ago, magictime said:

Okay, in back-of-a-fag-packet terms then:

 

Taxpayer/government funding of the waterways is about £50 million a year - roughly £1 per taxpayer.

 

There are about 3.5 million regular cyclists in the UK, so that's about £3.5 million in tax they contribute to CRT each year. I'd hazard a guess that that's more than enough to keep the towpaths in tippy-top condition.

 

Meanwhile there are about 35,000 licence-paying boaters contributing about £35,000 in tax. About one percent of the contribution from cyclists - simply because cyclists outnumber them by 100 to 1 - and an absolute drop in the ocean in terms of maintaining all the infrastructure they rely on but cyclists don't.

 

Doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to me that boaters are asked to pay an additional fee while cyclists aren't.

mmmmmmso lets see. You are saying that all taxpayers put into the pot, so both cyclists and boaters already pay the same in from their  taxes but boaters have to pay in extra because they own a boat but cyclists dont because they own a cycle? even  though we are both using  the same facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

 

mmmmmmso lets see. You are saying that all taxpayers put into the pot, so both cyclists and boaters already pay the same in from their  taxes but boaters have to pay in extra because they own a boat but cyclists dont because they own a cycle? even  though we are both using  the same facility.

A somewhat over simplification.  The point being made is that the cyclists don't need the canal dredged or the locks to work(in fact only boaters need that) so it is sensible and to most fair they pay more than those who merely use the towpath.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jerra said:

A somewhat over simplification.  The point being made is that the cyclists don't need the canal dredged or the locks to work(in fact only boaters need that) so it is sensible and to most fair they pay more than those who merely use the towpath.

C&RTs income from Boat licences and mooring fees is £36 million (2017)

 

C&RT also have a significant income from water utilities allowing surface water drainage and discharges into the canal, and others for water extraction (business, farmers etc).  + other utilities crossing the canal, etc. This income was £27 million (2107)

They are being paid to allow water to be 'put in' the canals, and they are being paid to allow the same water to be 'taken out' of the canals - good business if you can get it !!

 

They would not have that 'utilities' income if the canals had silted up, or the water 'run away' because of lack of maintenance of the infrastructure.

It is not only boaters that need water, locks, by-washes etc.

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C&RT have a legally enforceable duty to keep the canals open and navigable - allowing them to fail is not an option.

 

As C&RT themselves say in their water management strategy documents :

 

The Trust has a duty to maintain its navigations under Section 105 of the Transport Act 1968.

The 1968 Act classifies waterways into three categories:

cruising waterway,

commercial waterway and

remainder waterway.

 

The list of cruising and commercial waterways is in Schedule 12 of the Transport Act 1968.
The categories can be defined as:

•    Cruising    waterways    – the Act requires the Trust to keep these waterways in a suitable condition  for use by cruising craft

•    Commercial    waterways    – the Act requires the Trust to keep these waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels

•    Remainder    waterways    – any waterway which is not a cruising or commercial waterway

 

Extract from Schedule 12 of the 1968 Act.

 

Commercial Waterways

The main navigable channels of the following waterways:—

The Aire and Calder Navigation from the tail of River Lock, Leeds, and from the Calder and Hebble navigation at Wakefield, to its entrance to Goole Docks and to its junction with the River Ouse at Selby.

The Calder and Hebble Navigation from the tail of Greenwood Lock to its junction with the Aire and Calder Navigation at Wakefield.

The Caledonian Canal.

The Crinan Canal.

The Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation from the tail of the bottom lock at Tinsley to its junction with the River Trent at Keadby.

The New Junction Canal connecting the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation with the Aire and Calder Navigation.

The Trent Navigation from the tail of Meadow Lane Lock, Nottingham, to Gainsborough Bridge.

The Weaver Navigation and the Weston Canal from Winsford Bridge to the junctions with the Manchester Ship Canal at Marsh Lock and at Delamere Dock.

The River Severn from Stourport to its junction with the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal at Gloucester.

The Gloucester and Sharpness Canal.

The River Lee Navigation from Hertford to the River Thames at Limehouse and to the tail of Bow Locks.

 

Cruising Waterways

The main navigable channels of the following waterways:—

The Ashby Canal from its junction with the Coventry Canal to Snarestone.

The Birmingham Canal from its junction with the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal at Farmer’s Bridge and from its junction with the Worcester and Birmingham Canal at Worcester Bar to its junction with the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal at Aldersley by way of the Birmingham level as far as the head of Factory Locks, Tipton, and thence by way of the Wolverhampton Level, including the branch leading to its junction with the Stourbridge Canal at Black Delph by way of the Netherton Tunnel.

The Birmingham and Fazeley Canal from its junction with the Birmingham Canal at Farmer’s Bridge to its junction with the Trent and Mersey Canal at Fradley, including the detached portion of the Coventry Canal between Huddlesford Junction and Fradley Junction and the Digbeth branch.

The Calder and Hebble Navigation from Sowerby Bridge to the tail of Greenwood Lock, including the Huddersfield Broad Canal to Aspley Basin.

The Chesterfield Canal from the tail of Morse Lock, Worksop, to its junction with the River Trent.

The Coventry Canal from its junction with the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal at Fazeley to Coventry.

The Erewash Canal from Tamworth Road Bridge to its junction with the River Trent.

The Fossdyke Navigation.

The Grand Union Canal from its junctions with the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal at Digbeth and Salford to its junctions with the River Thames at Brentford and at Regent’s Canal Dock, including the branches to Northampton and Aylesbury and the Hertford Union Canal leading to the River Lee at Old Ford.

The Grand Union Canal from Leicester to Norton Junction, including the branch to Market Harborough.

The Kennet and Avon Canal from High Bridge, Reading, to the tail of Tyle Mill Lock, and from the head of Bull’s Lock to the tail of Hamstead Lock, and from the tail of Hanham Lock to the tail of the bottom lock at Bath.

The Lancaster Canal from Preston to Tewitfield, including the branch to Glasson Dock.

The Leeds and Liverpool Canal from Old Road Bridge, Aintree, to Leeds, including the branches to Tarleton and Leigh.

The Macclesfield Canal.

The Oxford Canal from its junction with the Grand Union Canal at Braunston to its junction with the Coventry Canal at Hawkesbury and from its junction with the Grand Union Canal at Napton to Oxford, including the branch to the River Thames.

The Peak Forest Canal from the top of Marple Locks to Whaley Bridge.

The Ripon Canal from its junction with the River Ure to the tail of Littlethorpe Lock.

The Sheffield and Tinsley Canal from its commencement at the Sheffield Canal Basin to its junction with the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation at the tail of the bottom lock at Tinsley.

The Shropshire Union Canal from its junction with the Manchester Ship Canal at Ellesmere Port to its junction with the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal at Autherley, including the branches to the River Dee at Chester, to Llantisilio and to Middlewich.

The River Soar Navigation from its junction with the River Trent to Leicester.

The Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal.

The River Stort Navigation.

The Stourbridge Canal from its junction with the Birmingham Canal at Black Delph to its junction with the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal at Stourton.

The Stratford-on-Avon Canal from its junction with the Worcester and Birmingham Canal at King’s Norton to its junction with the Grand Union Canal at Kingswood.

The Trent and Mersey Canal, including the branch to Hall Green.

The Trent Navigation from Shardlow to the tail of Meadow Lane Lock, Nottingham, by way of the Beeston Canal and part of the Nottingham Canal and including the branch to the River Soar and the length of the River Trent from its junction with the Nottingham Canal to Beeston Weir.

The River Ure Navigation from its junction with the Ripon Canal to Swale Nab.

The Witham Navigation from Lincoln to Boston.

The Worcester and Birmingham Canal.

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

It is not only boaters that need water, locks, by-washes etc.

In the big picture this is of course true.  However the point being made was in reply to the argument re cyclists getting use of the part of they system they want/need at no extra cost and boaters paying.  I have yet to meet a utility company taking a stroll along the towpath or cruising in a boat down the canal.

 

I would suggest that as far as the criteria of the discussion and my reply to post #36 boaters are the only ones who need the canal infra structure to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

 

mmmmmmso lets see. You are saying that all taxpayers put into the pot, so both cyclists and boaters already pay the same in from their  taxes but boaters have to pay in extra because they own a boat but cyclists dont because they own a cycle? even  though we are both using  the same facility.

Picture a hotel bar packed with 2 guests and 200 members of the public, each nursing a drink worth £3.

 

The members of the public spend more than enough money to pay the bar staff, keep the furnishings in good order etc. But the guests - let's call them Mr and Mrs Melly - are not happy.

 

"It's an outrage!' fumes Mrs Melly. "Look at all these people wearing out the carpet and hogging the tables!  We're all using the same facility, we've all spent the same £3 on drinks, and yet the management expect the two of us to pay an extra fee just for the use of our private room upstairs and the guests' spa and gym facilities!"

 

Not very persuasive, is it?

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

What a crap reply. Cyclists often top up water bottles and have bw keys and use facilities and absolutely destroy towpath surfaces. We all pay for the road infrastructure through taxation  also and I also pay for a vehicle excise licence for my car wheras again cyclists pay diddly squat, they dont even need insurance for when they  cause an accident like motorists do.

So you're annoyed that cyclist don't pay VED!? Encouraging people to use a (relatively) non-congesting non-polluting form of transport is bad....!?

Just as encouraging folks who have had no choice but to pay for the canals (assuming they pay tax) that we all enjoy, go out and enjoy them by running / cycling down them? 

 

The more people enjoying themselves the better in my opinion, if the towpath is a muddy mess due to use, then so be it. Increased use in this way may lead to the surface being improved to account for it's real present day use. Evolve to exist and all that.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

C&RT have a legally enforceable duty to keep the canals open and navigable - allowing them to fail is not an option.

 

It's irrelevant who pays and who doesn't. The point is CaRT have money but they choose to squander it on silly schemes instead of sticking to the core business ^^^^^^. 

It's about priorities and management. I suspect a lot of the problems could be avoided if they had more local lengthsmen keeping an eye on what's going on. I heard the whole Leeds and Liverpool canal is checked by 1 man based at Nantwich. It must take a very long time to check the whole area.

 

Question: who would be happy to pay a lot more (double?) for a license and mooring if there was a guarantee the system would be properly maintained. The extra £35 million would go a long way to achieving that.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Midnight said:

It's irrelevant who pays and who doesn't. The point is CaRT have money but they choose to squander it on silly schemes instead of sticking to the core business ^^^^^^. 

It's about priorities and management. I suspect a lot of the problems could be avoided if they had more local lengthsmen keeping an eye on what's going on. I heard the whole Leeds and Liverpool canal is checked by 1 man based at Nantwich. It must take a very long time to check the whole area.

 

Question: who would be happy to pay a lot more (double?) for a license and mooring if there was a guarantee the system would be properly maintained. The extra £35 million would go a long way to achieving that.

The problem is of course as you say we no longer have any lengthsmen. In my short time of living aboard of less than thirty years just about all full time staff have gone. Just as a for instance all the locks on the A and C were manned and lockies lived in the adjacent properties  of many and maintained lengths and the locks were kept immaculate. Of course nearly all the commercial traffic has gone from there in that few years so its understandable they have gone although I believe there seems to be just as many  if not more office type workers on the payroll. Nearly all other lockies on the system have also gone in many places were there was a full  time presence. I believe  the licence to be good value but if it doubled and mooring fees that would now price me off the water and back into a house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

The problem is of course as you say we no longer have any lengthsmen. In my short time of living aboard of less than thirty years just about all full time staff have gone. Just as a for instance all the locks on the A and C were manned and lockies lived in the adjacent properties  of many and maintained lengths and the locks were kept immaculate. Of course nearly all the commercial traffic has gone from there in that few years so its understandable they have gone although I believe there seems to be just as many  if not more office type workers on the payroll. Nearly all other lockies on the system have also gone in many places were there was a full  time presence. I believe  the licence to be good value but if it doubled and mooring fees that would now price me off the water and back into a house.

Isn't that the heart of the problem though. I talk to lockies who are frustrated because they aren't allowed to fix things anymore. There is a constant stream of failures because nothing gets done until it's too late. I see substandard work by contractors with no warranties. The way things have gone recently more and more serious stoppages are likely in the future. A 2 week cruise anywhere is now a gamble. I wonder if anyone at CaRT has costed getting rid of the pen-pushers, inspectors, method statement writers, risk assessors, procurement officers,  bean counters, performance monitors, contractors and bringing back lengthsmen and lockies who look after and maintain their own patch. May have to ditch the lock poets, marketing bods and PR men though.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ianali said:

Problem is that almost everything is underfunded in this country. Look at the state of the roads, railways and buses. There is not enough money.

It would help if the culture of 'why should I pay tax' changed to 'how can I help my society' and everyone contributed as their means allowed. As it stands those who have more money than they can spend in their lifetime want still more and begrudge paying one penny in tax, their clever accountants see to that. Large multinational companies run rings round government tax collectors and pay nowhere. The only money available is collected from the less well off who can't afford an accountant.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Detling said:

It would help if the culture of 'why should I pay tax' changed to 'how can I help my society' and everyone contributed as their means allowed. As it stands those who have more money than they can spend in their lifetime want still more and begrudge paying one penny in tax, their clever accountants see to that. Large multinational companies run rings round government tax collectors and pay nowhere. The only money available is collected from the less well off who can't afford an accountant.

90% of income tax is paid by the better off half of us, and the top 1% of earners pay a quarter of the total income tax take.

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

Edited by David Mack
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, David Mack said:

90% of income tax is paid by the better off half of us, and the top 1% of earners pay a quarter of the total income tax take.

https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222

To be fair, 'the better off half of us' consists mainly of people earning, say, £15k to £45k a year - probably not what Detling has in mind when he talks about people who can afford 'clever accountants'.

 

And the point about the top 1% of earners paying 25% of tax is sometimes overegged too.

 

Just to illustrate, if you picture 99 average earners paying 20% tax on £9k of income (£21k minus a personal allowance of £12k), that's 99 times £1800 = £178.2k. The average earner in the top 1% earns about £267k, so if they paid tax at the same 20% rate, that'd be £53.4k - 23% of the £231.6k total.

 

If their income then rises faster than average earners', they'll be paying an ever-higher proportion of the total tax take. But this is hardly a picture of a progressive society in which the highest earners generously pay (more than?) their fair share.

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.