More asset and infrastructure misery

THE Canal & River Trust (CaRT) admits that almost 40% of the 2,000 miles of waterways it maintains has long lengths of waterway walls or bank protection that is either collapsed or close to life expired, writes Allan Richards.

Towpaths fare somewhat better but still have 20% by length in poor or bad condition.

Unacceptable risk to public safety

A report to CaRT's trustees in January this year (held in secret until the recent intervention of the Waterways Ombudsman) suggests that lack of maintenance will lead to unacceptable risk to public safety and in particular, towpath users.

Regions particularly affected are Manchester & Pennine, North West, South Wales & Severn and South East.

Asset risk grading

The Trust's waterways comprise of a stock of about 25,000 assets which it grades on a five point scale between A (very good) and E (bad). The Trust's definition of a grade D (i.e. poor) asset is that it has ‘structurally significant defects leading to potential loss of stability in the medium term'. The definition of a grade E (bad) asset is ‘failed or in an incipient state of failure (about to collapse in the short term)'.

With the report confirming that almost 40% of CaRT's waterways have ‘structurally significant defects' or have ‘failed' the question must be asked again.

Why take them on?

Why did the trustees agree to take on the task of maintaining British Waterways' waterways without the necessary income to eradicate the significant and growing maintenance backlog?

.... a maintenance backlog which British Waterways reported it could eliminate by 2012.

(The towpath telegraph has it that the recent collapse of a waterway wall on the Southern Oxford (with the resulting closure of the canal) may have been avoidable. The suggestion is that the lock approach wall failed due to a known collapsed by-wash pipe saturating ground behind it.)