Give credit
This is a relatively new technique, although quite widely employed by CaRT and BW before them for a number of years. Firstly we should give credit to the engineers for being willing to experiment with new ideas which may offer a range of benefits in comparison with older ideas.
The world did not stop inventing better canals at the end of the nineteenth century! Secondly, we may also need to accept that, for better or worse, the canal network is a multi-user environment and that what is good for one may not always be as attractive to another. As a boater I would, naturally, always want to make my usage primary and determinative but do have to accept that in today's context there are other voices that must be heard.
Prepare to abandon
Further, we should be willing on all sides to undertake experiments properly. That is to say, we allow a realistic time to gather evidence of longer term performance before rushing to conclusions. Of course, we must also be prepared to abandon ideas that are quickly shown to be non-starters.
I admit that I am always on the lookout for a good piled bank (one that accepts chains or hooks—not all piling does that, there were early experiments that were superseded) so I am not totally unbiased but I also appreciate an environment that is not entirely industrial in character. One only has to look at some of the stretches in Cheshire, for example, where subsidence led to some substantial piling to see how ugly it can become, even if very effective in preventing bank erosion and breaching.
What conclusions
I would hope that our boating representatives, in whatever context, can engage positively with CaRT engineers to see what the experience has been, how it has been assessed, what criteria are being used and whether any conclusions have so far been drawn and why.
We should all be informed about the ways in which the canals are being managed on our behalf and how the engineers are on the look out for ways in which new technology can make the limited resources go further.