Adrian Stott wrote: > 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, we,d 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 I,m 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.
errr...the only people who might be interested in this "loan" would be the Qataris. -- Neil Arlidge Barge Maurice A / NB Earnest TNC http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk/tour.html ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
