Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 12:46:38 GMT
High Peak trail plus many others would suggest that the majority are happy with many of the old railways being used for recreation.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Apr 11, 2021 12:47:42 GMT
The words "socio-economic" certainly broaden the scope away from boating, in much the way CaRT has operated. What will never be addressed is the impact of reduced boating will be to the appeal of canals for casual visitors. Far from the ideal of a linear water park, they will soon become the stinking ditches that prompted the action of restoration groups in the 60's and 70's to fight the infilling of the canals. Any report can hardly ignore the concentrations of settled population that exists on our waterways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 12:57:16 GMT
Closing locks will not impact the millions of towpath users at all- they will still get the same benefit from the use of a pleasant recreational space. Boats are what provides the interest in canals, otherwise they are just dead sheets of water, devoid of action and meaning. Who wants to walk along a dead system thinking "I wish it could be like the old days, with boats on the move." A lot of people now realise that the closing of Britain's railways under Marple and Beeching was not a good thing - deliberate neglect of the canals/waterways is tantamount to the same thing. Letting the canals become run down is a terrible waste of what there is. I suspect this is a sliding scale situation- my own view is that boats provide added interest to the canals, but they are not the only interest. I would bet that for most towpath users, the boats are not the main feature that delivers the 'benefits'. For most, I would guess they really enjoy simply being in an environment that has a more natural feel than their town or city streets, and that has a body of water. A jogger, or a couple on an afternoon walk, will get very similar benefits whether boats are about or not, surely? For me, boats are the icing on the cake in terms of providing a visually attractive environment, but at some point, and if funds get tight enough, my worry is that they might decide they have to do without the icing. Boaters are heavily subsidising the funding via the license fees, but I suspect that maintaining infrastructure and facilities to allow navigation costs more than the license fees provide- so boating is still a net cost to the government. It must have crossed one of these penpushers minds that they could save a big chunk of money by closing half the locks on the system. They may end up losing £30 million in licence fees, but if its costing £60 million to maintain navigation, in their minds that is still a win. They dont use empathy or emotion in making these decisions, and the more senior they are, generally the more ruthless they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 13:00:46 GMT
I think times have moved on.
If you ensure a free flow of water and encourage wildlife and locals to get involved I suspect that would be preferable to the majority. Keep boating to just a few areas as a novelty/historical attraction.
Not my idea of what I hope for but there is going to have to be some serious campaigns to stop it - just my opinion though.
Go to the Cromford canal or the Grand Western canal and you will see that boats and navigation are hardly considerations to visitor numbers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 13:11:16 GMT
High Peak trail plus many others would suggest that the majority are happy with many of the old railways being used for recreation. It's a level walk, of course - but there are plenty of other paths throughout the 'White' Peak District and I bet many would prefer to see steam trains chugging along the line providing another eco-friendly form of public transport. I'm sure many would, but not the majority if the expense was that they wouldn't be able to walk/cycle along the line. Easy 'Green routes' through either cities or countryside are extremely popular especially if you can provide a few notice boards and structures/art works along the way, plus some small scale chargeable working industrial heritage.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 11, 2021 13:58:01 GMT
Boats are what provides the interest in canals, otherwise they are just dead sheets of water, devoid of action and meaning. Who wants to walk along a dead system thinking "I wish it could be like the old days, with boats on the move." A lot of people now realise that the closing of Britain's railways under Marple and Beeching was not a good thing - deliberate neglect of the canals/waterways is tantamount to the same thing. Letting the canals become run down is a terrible waste of what there is. I suspect this is a sliding scale situation- my own view is that boats provide added interest to the canals, but they are not the only interest. I would bet that for most towpath users, the boats are not the main feature that delivers the 'benefits'. For most, I would guess they really enjoy simply being in an environment that has a more natural feel than their town or city streets, and that has a body of water. A jogger, or a couple on an afternoon walk, will get very similar benefits whether boats are about or not, surely? For me, boats are the icing on the cake in terms of providing a visually attractive environment, but at some point, and if funds get tight enough, my worry is that they might decide they have to do without the icing. Boaters are heavily subsidising the funding via the license fees, but I suspect that maintaining infrastructure and facilities to allow navigation costs more than the license fees provide- so boating is still a net cost to the government. It must have crossed one of these penpushers minds that they could save a big chunk of money by closing half the locks on the system. They may end up losing £30 million in licence fees, but if its costing £60 million to maintain navigation, in their minds that is still a win. They dont use empathy or emotion in making these decisions, and the more senior they are, generally the more ruthless they are. Instead of closing sections. Double the fee. Those on low income could perhaps seek benefits to help. Thus government money is provided. However CRT could do with some serious analysis of the expenditure to stop the waste.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 15:13:35 GMT
Instead of closing sections. Double the fee. Those on low income could perhaps seek benefits to help. Thus government money is provided. However CRT could do with some serious analysis of the expenditure to stop the waste. Personally speaking, I'd pay double the fee if I knew it meant I was able to cruise longer distances. Tbh once I retire fully in July I wont be all that well off, but I'd be able and willing to find the money if needed. But as you say, there are a number of people who are already living on a tight margin financially, and I would hate to see whole swathes of these folks being priced out of the waterways. I'm in the older semi-retired demographic myself, but it would be a shame if a lot of younger folks were priced out, for example. I feel they bring a bit more life and colour to the waterways, and without them it might be just a lot of old codgers like me knocking about the place. Not that I mind old codgers- I am one, after all- but you can get a bit too much of a thing sometimes. My worry is that the huge economic damage done by the pandemic, plus the damage that seems to be being done at the moment by restrictions on exports to the EU- is all going to add up to some really vicious public spending cuts in a year or two, and CRTs budget will likely be pared down to the nearest essential penny. We have to stay optimistic that the waterways lifestyle will still be possible, and affordable, but it will probably be CRTs most challenging time since the financial crash, if not more challenging. As well as cutting some boater facilities, they will come under pressure to lose staff and maybe even some premises. I've seen the axe being wielded a few times during my time in the NHS, and its not a pretty sight.
|
|
|
Post by brummieboy on Apr 11, 2021 15:49:15 GMT
I'm glad that although I have a comfortable boat that I've had for 30 years, I've not got megabucks invested in it like some people. I do not have a 'gold plated' pension like some, and my provisions were severely depleted in the 2008 financial crash. There must be lots of people who have invested huge sums into boats who will have no chance of realising a reasonable return when they need to sell their craft. If CaRT have to lose staff, having already got rid of the valuable members with unrivalled experience and knowledge, then they'll have no option but to dispose of some deadwood. Fund raisers who cost £38m to get £37m seem a fair target.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2021 17:13:59 GMT
Hopefully it will be thorough and not a whitewash exercise and that it will result in a way to protect our canals for the future That's a very boatercentric viewpoint , not sure if boaters views will be taken in to account. There was a survey year or so ago, I didn't respond because my expereience was too limited, but I think I've come to the conclusion that things are done on a reactive basis, I'm not sure if it can ever be any other way, with minimal funding and ageing infrastructure. I just don't know how measureable the aims and outcomes are, I mean, there already is a trade off twixt towpath users, and abusers. Increasing footfall is measureable, but the numbers the CRT come up with seem fairly arbitary. If cyclists intimidate other users, is that measureable? I feel sorry for the fish, so for me fishing is a negative activity. Positive aspects of the canals are good habitat for wildlife, good walking, some, but not all, cycle routes. Potential for commerce etc, but I don't think there can be much change even over five to ten years, without some blue sky thinking, and extra cash, how likely is that?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 11, 2021 17:26:24 GMT
Hopefully it will be thorough and not a whitewash exercise and that it will result in a way to protect our canals for the future That's a very boatercentric viewpoint , not sure if boaters views will be taken in to account. There was a survey year or so ago, I didn't respond because my expereience was too limited, but I think I've come to the conclusion that things are done on a reactive basis, I'm not sure if it can ever be any other way, with minimal funding and ageing infrastructure.I just don't know how measureable the aims and outcomes are, I mean, there already is a trade off twixt towpath users, and abusers. Increasing footfall is measureable, but the numbers the CRT come up with seem fairly arbitary. If cyclists intimidate other users, is that measureable? I feel sorry for the fish, so for me fishing is a negative activity. Doing things on a reactive basis most certainly is not the most cost effective way.
Many faults could be cured at a very early stage by a small repair or a slight adjustment and a coating of grease.
After it seizes or snaps it becomes a major fault with a big price tag.
Gate hinges are fitted with wedges to align them, when not attended to and occasionally adjusted, the gate gets heavier to use and then starts being forced .... which causes more wear/damage.
The ageing infrastructure was designed in such a way as to require maintenance and adjustments on a regular basis ..... not to be left until bits break or fall off
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 11, 2021 17:35:56 GMT
That's a very boatercentric viewpoint , not sure if boaters views will be taken in to account. There was a survey year or so ago, I didn't respond because my expereience was too limited, but I think I've come to the conclusion that things are done on a reactive basis, I'm not sure if it can ever be any other way, with minimal funding and ageing infrastructure.I just don't know how measureable the aims and outcomes are, I mean, there already is a trade off twixt towpath users, and abusers. Increasing footfall is measureable, but the numbers the CRT come up with seem fairly arbitary. If cyclists intimidate other users, is that measureable? I feel sorry for the fish, so for me fishing is a negative activity. Doing things on a reactive basis most certainly is not the most cost effective way.
Many faults could be cured at a very early stage by a small repair or a slight adjustment and a coating of grease.
After it seizes or snaps it becomes a major fault with a big price tag.
Gate hinges are fitted with wedges to align them, when not attended to and occasionally adjusted, the gate gets heavier to use and then starts being forced .... which causes more wear/damage.
The ageing infrastructure was designed in such a way as to require maintenance and adjustments on a regular basis ..... not to be left until bits break or fall off
Unfortunately with water it could be catastrophic if you leave the infrastructure to fail. There are a lot of ailing old bridges that aren’t getting a lot of looking after.
|
|