Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 19:11:35 GMT
SURVEY SHOWS DEMAND FOR PRE-BOOKABLE MOORINGS AS AN OPTION IN LONDON
Over the summer the Canal & River Trust carried out a survey to gauge the level of demand for boaters wanting to visit London’s bustling waterways together with their interest in being able to pre-book a short-stay mooring ahead of their arrival. The charity has now collated the 1,400 responses and will be using the results to inform its mooring strategy for the capital.
The survey showed that perceived pressure on mooring space was putting some boaters off visiting London. Of the 27% of respondents who hadn’t visited the capital by boat, 85% said it was because they weren’t certain they’d find a place to moor. There was appetite for an increased range of mooring options, with 59% of all respondents saying they’d consider paying for a reserved mooring.
The results showed:
· 73% had visited London by boat, of which 45% had visited in 2016 and 18% in 2015. 10% had visited before 2010.
· Most visiting boaters moored on general towpath moorings (64%) or visitor moorings (63%), with 14% stopping on paid private moorings.
· 59% of respondents said they would consider paying for a reserved mooring, with most boaters saying they’d pay £10 a night.
· When thinking of cruising into central London, having a safe and secure place to moor was important to 92%, while having a guaranteed place to moor was important to 74%. 63% wanted to moor close to local services, attractions or transport links while 50% thought it was important to moor close to boat facilities.
Matthew Symonds, boating strategy & engagement manager at Canal & River Trust, said: “We’ve had a great response to the survey and I’m pleased that boaters have got in touch to share their views, both positive and negative, of boating in the capital. Our job is to manage the finite space on the canals so that all boaters have a fair chance of finding somewhere to moor up, and in popular places like parts of London this becomes even more important. It looks like being able to guarantee a mooring spot will give many boaters peace of mind and encourage them to visit. Taking this into account we’re planning to trial pre-bookable short-stay mooring spots at Rembrandt Gardens which will begin later in the year. We will be announcing more details soon.
“We’ve also had a lot of feedback on how we can improve boating in London, and I’d like to thank the 923 boaters who shared their thoughts. It’s no surprise to see that boaters want to see more facilities, and we’re doing what we can to find suitable places to put them. Boaters also want to see more mooring spaces and rings and we’ve worked hard to get funding to install around 3,500m of rings over the past two years, creating or improving around 195 mooring spots. We will continue looking for opportunities like this. Also high on the list were requests to reduce overstaying and better enforcement of the rules. We’re going through the comments carefully and they will prove really useful in the development of our wider London mooring strategy, which seeks to meet the needs of boaters and others who enjoy these historic, popular waterways.”
The Trust carried out the survey between Friday 30 June and Friday 26 August 2016. The Trust will also be carrying out further engagement work including surveys of boaters and other stakeholders in London over the coming months to help inform the wider London mooring strategy.
ENDS
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 8, 2016 19:31:10 GMT
Oh look what a surprise the survey gave them the results they where looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 8, 2016 19:35:39 GMT
What I don't understand, is if the moorings spots are in high demand and there's not really enough moorings. How does taking some off them out of general use(to be bookable moorings,) solve the situation.
Or am I being too logical?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2016 19:38:03 GMT
What I don't understand, is if the moorings spots are in high demand and there's not really enough moorings. How does taking some off them out of general use(to be bookable moorings,) solve the situation. Or am I being t logical? Its their way of introducing charges. Softly softly. |
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 8, 2016 19:40:46 GMT
Yes I understand that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 9, 2016 7:27:29 GMT
What I don't understand, is if the moorings spots are in high demand and there's not really enough moorings. How does taking some off them out of general use(to be bookable moorings,) solve the situation. Or am I being t logical? Its their way of introducing charges. Softly softly. No it isn't. It's a way of creating a scheme that allows people to use the canals in London as intended ie to visit in a moving boat, stop for a day or two, and then carry on with a cruise. Something that at the moment people are reluctant to do as a result of the ghettoisation of the London canals by people who are not interested in boating but just want somewhere affordable,to live in central London. We have long had paid-for moorings in Llangollen and that hasn't resulted in a roll out of paid-for moorings around the country so stop your catastrophisation. Paid-for moorings only work when there is an advantage in making the payment and considering you can moor pretty much anywhere on the system if there were places where you had to pay, no-one would use them. anyway I voted yes to the proposal so stick that up your hysteria. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 7:45:52 GMT
Its their way of introducing charges. Softly softly. No it isn't. It's a way of creating a scheme that allows people to use the canals in London as intended ie to visit in a moving boat, stop for a day or two, and then carry on with a cruise. Something that at the moment people are reluctant to do as a result of the ghettoisation of the London canals by people who are not interested in boating but just want somewhere affordable,to live in central London. We have long had paid-for moorings in Llangollen and that hasn't resulted in a roll out of paid-for moorings around the country so stop your catastrophisation. Paid-for moorings only work when there is an advantage in making the payment and considering you can moor pretty much anywhere on the system if there were places where you had to pay, no-one would use them. anyway I voted yes to the proposal so stick that up your hysteria. Nick, you know absolutely nothing about boating in london. You have never boated there. So let's just be clear on the fact that your knowledge on this particular subject, is limited to the crap you have read from others who have never boated there either. As I have suggested to the trust before, if they really wanted to provide extra moorings in London, they would be talking to the businesses and owners of "offside land". Introducing them to the benefits of allowing mooring, and perhaps providing some small facilities for financial reward. The trust will not follow this through, because at the end of the day, they lack the experience and know-how on how to do this. Instead, we see the trust manipulating, exagerating and tinkering. No real aims, no real goals, just corporate theatre. You and a few others suck up this sort of behaviour, because you lack both the knowledge and interest to get involved, (and generally just like to be stubbornly silly). |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 9, 2016 8:40:58 GMT
No it isn't. It's a way of creating a scheme that allows people to use the canals in London as intended ie to visit in a moving boat, stop for a day or two, and then carry on with a cruise. Something that at the moment people are reluctant to do as a result of the ghettoisation of the London canals by people who are not interested in boating but just want somewhere affordable,to live in central London. We have long had paid-for moorings in Llangollen and that hasn't resulted in a roll out of paid-for moorings around the country so stop your catastrophisation. Paid-for moorings only work when there is an advantage in making the payment and considering you can moor pretty much anywhere on the system if there were places where you had to pay, no-one would use them. anyway I voted yes to the proposal so stick that up your hysteria. Nick, you know absolutely nothing about boating in london. You have never boated there. So let's just be clear on the fact that your knowledge on this particular subject, is limited to the crap you have read from others who have never boated there either. As I have suggested to the trust before, if they really wanted to provide extra moorings in London, they would be talking to the businesses and owners of "offside land". Introducing them to the benefits of allowing mooring, and perhaps providing some small facilities for financial reward. The trust will not follow this through, because at the end of the day, they lack the experience and know-how on how to do this. Instead, we see the trust manipulating, exagerating and tinkering. No real aims, no real goals, just corporate theatre. You and a few others suck up this sort of behaviour, because you lack both the knowledge and interest to get involved, (and generally just like to be stubbornly silly). You are fond of making things up, which FYI just goes to make your case look weak. Not that I mind of course! I have boated in London, we went there about 10 years ago (maybe getting on for 15 now) and moored in Paddington basin - just! Since then the hordes have moved in and I am put off visiting due to the extreme congestion. I have walked the towpath around Islington a couple of years back and seen the 3 abreast chokka block moorings so I know that tales of congestion are true. Sure the the trust could create new moorings as you suggest, but that is not what this discussion is about. And bearing in mind the likelihood of noisy frame generators running at all hours, smokey chimneys etc I think CRT might struggle to find offside landowners foolish enough to allow their land to be used. yes there will thus probably be no new moorings, but what may happen is a very slight redistribution of the extant resources so that they are not hogged by gangs of residential boaters doing the pre-arrange mooring swaps to the exclusion of all visitors. That will be a good and fair thing. And if it isn't quite as bad as I'm making out that is not relevant since it is the image of the place that puts visiting boaters off, not the reality. By having a known night stop arranged I would be happy to venture back to the big smoke, if we didn't I wouldn't want to, too stressful for what is supposed to be a leisure activity. anyway I can't image that many paid-for moorings will be created and if you don't want to use them that is your choice, but the majority voice was in favour so get over it! |
|
|
|
Post by jimcheese on Sept 9, 2016 8:47:11 GMT
In inner London, they should be all prebookable and payable with 12 free slots no more for the "residents who happen to live in a boat" to swap about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 8:51:58 GMT
Nick, you know absolutely nothing about boating in london. You have never boated there. So let's just be clear on the fact that your knowledge on this particular subject, is limited to the crap you have read from others who have never boated there either. As I have suggested to the trust before, if they really wanted to provide extra moorings in London, they would be talking to the businesses and owners of "offside land". Introducing them to the benefits of allowing mooring, and perhaps providing some small facilities for financial reward. The trust will not follow this through, because at the end of the day, they lack the experience and know-how on how to do this. Instead, we see the trust manipulating, exagerating and tinkering. No real aims, no real goals, just corporate theatre. You and a few others suck up this sort of behaviour, because you lack both the knowledge and interest to get involved, (and generally just like to be stubbornly silly). You are fond of making things up, which FYI just goes to make your case look weak. Not that I mind of course! I have boated in London, we went there about 10 years ago (maybe getting on for 15 now) and moored in Paddington basin - just! Since then the hordes have moved in and I am out of visiting due to the extreme congestion. I have walked the towpath around Islington a couple of years back and seen the 3 abreast chokka block moorings so I know that tales of congestion are true. Sure the the trust could create new moorings as you suggest, but that is not what this discussion is about. And bearing in mind the likelihood of noisy frame generators running at all hours, smokey chimneys etc I think CRT might struggle to find offside landowners foolish enough to allow their land to be used. yes there will thus probably be no new moorings, but what may happen is a very slight redistribution of the extant resources so that they are not hogged by gangs of residential boaters doing the pre-arrange mooring swaps to the exclusion of all visitors. That will be a good and fair thing. And if it isn't quite as bad as I'm making out that is not relevant since it is the image of the place that puts visiting boaters off, not the reality. By having a known night stop arranged I would be happy to venture back to the big smoke, if we didn't I wouldn't want to, too stressful for what is supposed to be a leisure activity. anyway I can't image that many paid-for moorings will be created and if you don't want to use them that is your choice, but the majority voice was in favour so get over it! Your a bit of a standing joke really Nick. (i filled out a survey on my last experience 10 yrs ago, derrr). Filling out surveys with no knowledge of the subject, this perverting and preventing the ability of the trust to address the real issues. Nothing will ever be addressed whilst we have pompous clots like yourself looking to feed your ego, and that's really sad. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcheese on Sept 9, 2016 9:22:22 GMT
At the mo, the boaters who lurk around a particular general "in demand area" have an advantage over those that would wish to make perhaps a long journey investing their free time to visit. Hence addition of a prebookable system (ok we can argue about numbers but say if they are created like the two at Rembrandt) at least gives a more equitable share of resources.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2016 10:04:34 GMT
At the mo, the boaters who lurk around a particular general "in demand area" have an advantage over those that would wish to make perhaps a long journey investing their free time to visit. Hence addition of a prebookable system (ok we can argue about numbers but say if they are created like the two at Rembrandt) at least gives a more equitable share of resources. One of the options the trust should be looking at is developing new mooring availability. Tinkering and fiddling with what they have at the moment, is nothing more than a half hearted approach to a problem they have helped develop and nurture. They will never find a solution until they climb out of their little boxes, recognise their faults, and consequently address them. |
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Sept 9, 2016 11:18:52 GMT
Jenlyn,
I am not sure how old you are, but many years ago a small groups of people had a dream, to see the canal rise again after years of being ignored and neglected. Their expectation was on the face of it simple, to get the canal navigateable again. They had no idea how many people would use them and I can remember sitting in a meeting where the question was put how many people will use this tunnel or that lock. The answers were always a hundred people/ boats a years. I would guess a 100 boats use say Braunston locks on average daily in the season. So a great change in the expectations for usage as time has gone on.
Using boats as houses was never part of the ethos of the canals; boats carried cargo from one end of England to the other, that is what they were designed for. Incidentally they had a small cabin for the crew to live in. Note cargo was the aim; move it, building a boat fit it out like a house and tie it to the bank never to move was not the aim. London like a number of other places on the canals has become floating villages where people live permanently on a boat loath to move them unless they are pushed hard to do so. A number of the places the tourist boater wants to visit to see sights etc are also working towns and cities and thus attract the liveaboards who want somewhere very cheap to live near to their place of work, schools for their children etc. There is a very limited resource in the amount of canal bank that is available to be used as mooring, thus we have a collision of needs those that want to navigate and those that want to live and be static.
Oh I know of the ideas to encourage offside landowners to put in moorings. The trouble with that is the landowner’s liabilities and responsibilities if they do put moorings in. Would those moorings be free? I would doubt it very much, the landowner has to recover at the very least the costs of installing the moorings, maintenance costs, staff costs to manage the moorings, insurance costs etc. So no I doubt they would be free nor would they be cheap the landowners need to make their money earn.
So lets look at it today. There is a shortage of moorings, is there or is it that the existing moorings are not being used for the purpose for which they were put there? I suspect the latter. Now I would like to bring my boat down to London for say a week, I need some guarantee that having cruised for a week or more that I will be able to find a mooring for my visit otherwise I am not going to make the trip. Will those moorings be free or will I have to pay for them. Is there anything that entitles me to free moorings in a heavily used area, particularly if the moorings have services say water. The answer to my understanding is no, there is not any entitlement to free mooring where CRT adds services to the basic bank side. Now that service could be as little as that ability to be able to book a mooring for a particular boat for a given period. CRT needs to make the provision of moorings in places like London either profit making or at the very least profit neutral. Thus CRT has to charge in order to meet the needs of the charity and not lose money.
|
|
|
|
Post by kris on Sept 9, 2016 11:21:10 GMT
Would either of the supporters for this scheme like to explain. How taking moorings out of general use, solves the overcrowding issue? It was interesting to see the towpath talk had an article on its front page this month. "Where are the next generation of boaters going to come from" well I'd suggest they are arriving on the water in London. So rather than demonising them and chasing them off the water, wouldn't it be better to work with them and find solutions that suit everyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Graham on Sept 9, 2016 11:31:18 GMT
Would either of the supporters for this scheme like to explain. How taking moorings out of general use, solves the overcrowding issue? It was interesting to see the towpath talk had an article on its front page this month. "Where are the next generation of boaters going to come from" well I'd suggest they are arriving on the water in London. So rather than demonising them and chasing them off the water, wouldn't it be better to work with them and find solutions that suit everyone? I understand where you are coming from, however if the boats you are talking about are basically liveaboards they cannot be allowed to take over the totality of the canals in London or anywhere else. There is a limit to the number of liveaboard the resources can support and allow the canals to meet their basic design objective the ability to navigate a boat from place to place either for profit or pleasure. |
|
