Scottish Canals Looking for Public Opinion on 5 Year Development Plan

[dunedin]

How can anyone think they are too interested in “pretty” stuff. The link in one of my post shows the millions they are spending over the next 6 months shut down of the Crinan canal to fix lock gate issues, through a series of repairs to the hinge quoins repairs and new lock gates. As a tax payer, I am glad they are looking at developing potentially other revenue streams.

You could be right, I hope you’re not.

By reading the questionnaire they circulated - boat navigation is literally way down their list.

 

[srm]

Have completed it, but suspect that it will only be the few people here who are stressing the need to keep the the canals open for navigation. I did make the point that without year round boat traffic the canals will die of neglect.

Incidentally, I have "circumnavigated Britain" quite a few times from Shetland or Orkney through the Caledonian Canal and back up the other side. Well, if that's the way they circumnavigate Britain from England why not the same claim from the Northern Isles?

 

[Sandy]

The pretty stuff is rubbish when you open your hotel curtains in the morning.



The Caledonian Canal at Banavie.

 

[dunedin]

I have just noticed the Scottish Canals website states that the survey Closed on 4th December 2022 - in which case anybody responding may have wasted their time. It also seems to be spectacularly badly publicised, as not seen any reference to this anywhere other on their website (but not on their Facebook posts?) nor any boating media news sites.
I have emailed Scottish Canals to try to clarify.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

The survey request from Scottish Canals popped up in my FB feed just before I posted it here. It is what it is. To be honest, current affairs associated with the UK economic outlook, doesn't bode well for funding requirements. We shall see.

 

[penfold]

Their funding would be sufficient for the core function of keeping the canals open if they didn't fritter it on stuff for non-boaters. The clue is in the name; Scottish Canals, not Scottish Incidentally Canalside Leisure Activities.

 

[ctva]

I have just noticed the Scottish Canals website states that the survey Closed on 4th December 2022 - in which case anybody responding may have wasted their time. It also seems to be spectacularly badly publicised, as not seen any reference to this anywhere other on their website (but not on their Facebook posts?) nor any boating media news sites.
I have emailed Scottish Canals to try to clarify.

Please post their response. I first saw it last month and as others have said, it just smacks of justifying every use apart from the canals prime purpose.

Publicity and communication is a massive weakness of Scottish Canals and needs addressed. They have been told repeatedly.

 

[dunedin]

URGENT - if you want to give your comments please do so in the next 48 hours

Web site is here - Let's Grow Together - Scottish Canals

Just heard back from Scottish Canals. They claim this survey was widely publicised when launched on 9th November (not sure where, so will ask).
They have extended the closing date (without updating the website) to Thursday 5th January - ie 2 days time

So if you want your views on priorities heard, including boat navigation if you thinks so, complete the survey ASAP

 

[srm]

Thanks for that @dunedin .

My comments for priorities:

The answer is in the name Scottish CANALS. "An artificial waterway constructed for navigation"
Keeping the canals as active navigations is the essential core of your business, all the other uses listed in this survey are minor peripherals, nice but not essential. Without vessels using the waterways all year round they become dead museum pieces. My last few transits of the Caledonian canal have been spoilt by berths being taken up with unused vessels, usually close to toilet and shower blocks that I have to queue to use because they are open for walkers and sundry visitors. Indeed on my last transit one of the lock keepers (just before closing up for the night) told me there were no berths available, and I saw no sign of other transiting vessels using them.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

As a tax payer, I would hope that Scottish Canals who receive about 10 million of subsidy can unitise their assets a bit more and maybe even reduce their overheads. If that means new revenue streams from services other than navigation, I am okay with that. Same with increasing the utility of the canals from just navigation. If they receive tax payer money, then all citizens should benefit.

It is incredibly selfish to think of Scottish Canals only as a provider of navigation services, when clearly their assets can be used for much more than that. There is no reason that it can't be more than a canal operator. I can imagine the howls of protest if people were prohibited from using the canal services unless transiting.

 

[dunedin]

UPDATE - In response to my further email, the deadline has now been extended to 10th JANUARY

Well done to Scottish Canals for responding so promptly to this request

 

[awol]

As a tax payer, I would hope that Scottish Canals who receive about 10 million of subsidy can unitise their assets a bit more and maybe even reduce their overheads. If that means new revenue streams from services other than navigation, I am okay with that. Same with increasing the utility of the canals from just navigation. If they receive tax payer money, then all citizens should benefit.

It is incredibly selfish to think of Scottish Canals only as a provider of navigation services, when clearly their assets can be used for much more than that. There is no reason that it can't be more than a canal operator. I can imagine the howls of protest if people were prohibited from using the canal services unless transiting.

My fears are that by focusing on other aspects rather than navigation the money for maintaining the structure, dredging, weed removal, etc. is dispersed elsewhere, health & safety take over (as they have done with the idiotic railings at Neptune's Staircase) and the canals will cease to be recoverable. The Forth/Clyde ditch was reopened with a fanfare at the millenium but it is useless for transit in anything that has an air-draft over 3m or depth over 1.2m (they claim 1.83m but that's bollocks) - no attempt to return to the original 2.75m which may have made it usable.

 

[ylop]

Interesting, thanks for bringing it to our attention.
But somewhat scary, to say the least, that in the first question about areas of interest in CANALs, use for boat navigation is listed as TENTH out of eleven.
I would suggest as many people as possible who actually use the canals respond to the survey and make clear the importance as a Canal, rather than a scenic cycle and footpath.View attachment 148286View attachment 148287

Interesting that you think the order of answers indicates Scottish Canal perception of priorities, but then say must make sure they know it’s more that a pretty tow path whilst that is the only answer lower down the list. A really good survey would potentially randomise the order of the answers. Personally I find the answers are the bottom of a long list can be just as likely to jump out as those at the top so I think your concerns are likely misplaced. However, as a mechanism for yachties to move boats it’s a hugely expensive government liability… so I’d be careful about dismissing the other interests.

 

[ylop]

It certainly gives the impression that they are less interested in traffic through their canals than in recreational opportunities near them. Maybe that's because they see navigation as a given or perhaps they are taking what they see as a pragmatic view of what they think will happen.

Seems a logical approach - government funding about £20M pa, revenue from boat users about £3.5M pa. As a tax payer I’d be asking why I am subsidising boat owners if it’s just a navigation route. As far as I can see tax payers get a return from all the other stuff SC do - supporting education, supporting tourism, supporting active lifestyles, supporting biodiversity etc.

 

[srm]

It is incredibly selfish to think of Scottish Canals only as a provider of navigation services, when clearly their assets can be used for much more than that.

I first used the Caledonian Canal around 1974, when the gates on Neptune's Staircase were wood and lock keepers had to open sluices to use water pressure to fully close the gates. It was an interesting experience. Since then the locks have been seriously upgraded, and maintaining the original structure is obviously expensive.

Scottish Canals have, over time, been extending their user base on the Caledonian well beyond the primary function that was a sea to sea east/west navigation. Unfortunately, they have failed to provide or increase facilities for all the additional users. Transiting vessels pay what some users feel is an excessive fee for use of the canal and its facilities. Am I really being incredibly selfish in wanting to have reasonable access to and be able to use the facilities we are directly paying for? To fill all the berths with long term unused vessels and not keep a reasonable number free for transiting vessels may make the balance sheet look better, but it does not encourage active use of the waterway. Likewise having to take a long walk past lots of unused boats to get to the shower/toilet block on a wet windy night does look like abysmal planning when transit berths could just as easily be located close to the facilities and the long term empty boat parking further away.

Edit, just for clarification I am also a UK tax payer so my transit charges are in addition to my indirect contributions to Scottish Canals.

 

[ylop]

srm - I’ve never heard anyone suggest they wouldn’t use the canal because the walk to the toilets was too far before. Sounds like good planning would be to install a holding tank.

would you pay double for a “premium transit license” which promised you close access to the toilets, guaranteed you a berth etc? It would still be substantially cheaper than a lift out and transport by road and lift back in.

how do the fees compare to other mast up, primarily leisure traffic canals?

 

[awol]

how do the fees compare to other mast up, primarily leisure traffic canals?

The Kiel Canal is nearly 100km long and costs ~20 Euros for a 10m boat. The Caledonian is 37km long (about another 60km is LOch Ness, Loch Oich and Loch Lochy) and costs £215.50 for the same boat.

 

[Sandy]

My fears are that by focusing on other aspects rather than navigation the money for maintaining the structure, dredging, weed removal, etc. is dispersed elsewhere, health & safety take over (as they have done with the idiotic railings at Neptune's Staircase) and the canals will cease to be recoverable. The Forth/Clyde ditch was reopened with a fanfare at the millenium but it is useless for transit in anything that has an air-draft over 3m or depth over 1.2m (they claim 1.83m but that's bollocks) - no attempt to return to the original 2.75m which may have made it usable.

As a child I remember two police divers drowning in the canal at Corpach. The railings at Neptune's Staircase is a vast improvement given the number of visitors who watch the boats pass.

 

[srm]

srm - I’ve never heard anyone suggest they wouldn’t use the canal because the walk to the toilets was too far before. Sounds like good planning would be to install a holding tank.

No, but being told at the end of a day that there are no available berths then having to continue and motor past berths full of deserted, presumably long term unused, boats is not very welcoming and does not make a return or recommendation very likely.
Yes, I do have a holding tank but the subject is the long term use of "Scottish Canals".

 

[awol]

As a child I remember two police divers drowning in the canal at Corpach. The railings at Neptune's Staircase is a vast improvement given the number of visitors who watch the boats pass.

As a single-hander I just pull my boat through the NS locks and the railings (and the tourists) don't half get in the way. I learned the 1st time I came through - never throw a rope to a bystander.