On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:36:25 +0100, [email protected] wrote: >[email protected] wrote: >> >> On 24 Jun 2010, at 18:07, John Slee wrote: >> >> > On 24/06/2010 16:52, Bruce Napier wrote: >> >> I've just said this in the blog: >> >> >> >>> For my money, wed be better to mothball some of the less popular >> >>> and badly maintained routes until the wheel turns again, rather than >> >>> struggle to keep the whole system going. That would lead to an >> >>> acrimonious debate about which canals to close down for a bit, of >> >>> course, but Im thinking of the ones which spend a lot of their time >> >>> stopped anyway, so K&A, Huddersfield Narrow, Rochdale above >> >>> Manchester... >I can't think of anything likely to be more divisive among waterway >enthusiasts than "Which waterways shall we close?" > >Come to think of it, didn't somebody who has been accused of being an >apologist for BW suggest something similar on here a litte while ago...
Indeed. Unfortunately, the problem doesn't go away if you refuse to look at it. The funding is already insufficient to maintain all the current waterways. So, each year, the network is declining. Eventually, unless more revenue is found some of it will fail, and *have* to close. That will be a random choice, perhaps involving key routes (e.g. what if Blisworth tunnel collapsed again?) So, sad to say, it makes sense to consider the option of choosing some waterways to close (or to make "remainder) now, and transfer the money that would have been used for maintaining them to the rest. The rest could then be maintained properly. One benefit of this would actually be the howling of those who would object strongly to their local/favourite waterway being remaindered. That howling would, I suspect, have a considerably greater effect on the politicos than exeercises such as SOW. It's a risk to create a crisis requiring a decision, of course, as the decision might not be the one you want. But the alternative is to watch the slow death of waterways, which I think may make that risk worthwhile. Of course, the better answer is to get more money. My suggested approach to that is to back the restructuring of BW, conditional nf its being given (as a perpetual loan from the government) another £1B of capital as an endowment that it can invest to get the income it needs to maintain its (and the ex-EA waterways) properly in perpetuity. Getting proper funding of the waterways is actually one of the main objectives of restructuring BW, BTW. Adrian Adrian Stott Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
