Memorandum by The Towpath Action Group
(WTC 57)
WALKING IN TOWNS AND CITIES
The Towpath Action Group welcomes the opportunity
to contribute to the Committee's Inquiry into Walking in Towns
and Cities. TAG was formed in 1987 as a result of difficulties
on utilising the towpath of the Rochdale Canal in central Manchester.
We are now a national organisation, campaigning for improved pedestrian
access along, and on and off, canal towpaths and river paths.
The reason for building canals was principally to link industrial
centres, most of which have now grown up into large towns, cities
and conurbations. It is no surprise therefore that much of our
activities are centred around urban waterways.
Canal towpaths have long been recognised by
the public as an efficient means of getting from A to B, usually
on foot (though also by bicycle) whether it is for walking to
work or school, going to the shops, or just walking the dog. Until
relatively recently however they have not been recognised to quite
the same extent by local authorities and central government. This
is probably in part due to the fact that many urban towpaths are
not designated rights of way. This is partly due to the exemptions
granted to large towns in the original rights of way legislation,
and partly due to the reluctance of the navigation authorities
(often with sound enough reasons) to support rights of way creation
orders. Because the public often have no legal rights to use the
towpaths, it is rather difficult for them to be incorporated into
Local Plans etc.
The situation has changed in the last decade
or so. The country's principal navigation authority, British Waterways,
has promoted a number of long distance footpaths along their canals
(the Grand Union Canal Walk, the Oxford Canal Walk etc). The Thames
Path has been firmly established. More recently, central government
has heavily promoted cycleways along off-road routes, of which
canal towpaths are but one example.
There is therefore a growing recognition of
such routes as a means of green and healthy travel. Particularly
in urban areas where road travel is becoming increasingly slow
and stress-inducing, flat and direct walking routes through cities
are invaluable. This is particularly so where the towpath has
been resurfaced to provide a safe walking surface, where lighting
has been installed and where new access points have been created
at road crossings etc. Birmingham and Leeds City centres are prime
examples of where canal and river-side paths now take considerably
more pedestrian traffic than they ever did before—Manchester,
London, Sheffield and Newcastle-upon-Tyne are not far behind.
The advantages of walking such paths, as opposed
to taking the car are numerous. It is safer, quieter, healthier,
entirely non-polluting, and considerably more pleasurable (particularly
where there are boats or wildlife to accompany your journey).
This is true for all ages, but maybe particularly for school children
(for whom the "school run" brings many town centres
to a stand-still), the disabled (the flat surface is ideal for
the physically-disabled), and the elderly who in many cases do
not have access to a car, and for whom convenient bus routes are
an increasing rarity.
There is little doubt that if local authorities
are to take an increasing role in the use of such paths as part
of a formal walking strategy, there needs to be considerable dialogue
with the navigation authority. On river paths this is not generally
an issue; there is often not a formal navigation authority, and
where there is it is often the Environment Agency who have a limited
mandate for creating "recreational" facilities and would
generally be quite happy for a local authority to grasp the nettle.
On canals, the primary authority, British Waterways, has proved
in recent years that it welcomes the increased pedestrian use
of its towpaths, and subject to the limited constraints it needs
to impose to maintain its operational obligations, has welcomed
many such initiatives already.
The recent Waterways for Tomorrow document highlights
the need to develop our inland waterway system to the needs of
the 21st century, and itself noted the phenomenal growth in the
pedestrian use of the towpath system. British Waterways have welcomed
the document, and through the Association of Inland Navigation
Authorities one hopes that other, lesser, authorities will come
to the same conclusion.
It is probably too much to hope that this will
all "just happen", even though it clearly makes sense
that it should. The Rights of Way 2000 initiative (an attempt
to persuade all highway authorities to fully update their definitive
maps by 2000) made very little progress—a handful of authorities
excepted—because they did not have to do it. Therefore it
seems likely that there will have to be a stick, and where there
is a stick there needs to be a carrot.
Although we would like to see all towpaths as
rights of way, we respect many of the reasons why bodies like
British Waterways do not want that to happen. Neither do we not
think it is a prerequisite for a national or local initiative
to create formal walking routes that encourage further pedestrian
use. After all, virtually all British Waterways' towpaths are
open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
However, British Waterways (and other navigation
authorities) cannot be expected to bear the burden of the increased
maintenance that would be required if their towpaths were adopted
as formal and well-publicised pedestrian routes. If increasing
the use of these routes is going to take pressure off the roads,
then local authorities (and the Highways Agency to a lesser extent)
should need lower budgets for road maintenance. The money thus
released should be used to provide the necessary maintenance of
all footpaths, including towpaths. Clearly there need to be agreements
in place between the navigation authority and the authority responsible
for towpath maintenance, which may involve financial considerations
in either direction, but British Waterways for one have plenty
of such agreements in place already. There seems no reason why
the good practice they have developed cannot spread to the rest
of their network and to the waterways owned and managed by other
navigation authorities.
It seems unlikely to us that the current "guidance"
from DETR is enough to make this happen. One could argue that
the cycling initiative developed from not much more, but it was
fortunate to receive, via Sustrans, some £30-£40m of
Millennium Lottery funding to allow it to develop an identity
and a network that almost forced participation from local authorities.
The London Walking Forum made inroads into footpath promotion
at a much lower level, also with Lottery support, but it is unlikely
that a national campaign for footpaths will ever succeed in the
same way.
Since, central government has seen the cycling
initiative take off largely at the expense of the general public
(through the Lottery award to Sustrans) and matched funding from
local authorities, rather than at the expense of the Treasury,
we would suggest that maybe central government could find the
funds to "kick-start" a similar initiative for pedestrians
in urban areas. We would suggest the promotion of something akin
to the London Walking Forum in a number of large towns and cities
(at least one in each county would be ideal). Led by the local
authorities, but with private and voluntary sector partners, these
fora could develop appropriate "ideal networks" throughout
their towns. They would seek funding, not just from the local
authorities themselves, but also from central government (who
we suggest might like to "pump-prime" with, for example
a specified percentage of the cost, maybe with an upper limit
based on local population statistics), third party funders (Lottery
(particularly New Opportunities Fund and Sports), private trusts
etc). By adopting a local partnership approach, it is more likely
that the right routes will be chosen—the ones that the public
will actually want to use.
The adoption of such routes along canal towpaths
might also serve to promote the regeneration of areas whose hey-day
has long passed. In our major cities, this has already happened
to a large extent; Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle
are certainly good examples of this. This has often happened on
the back of funding from City Challenge, Development Corporations
and the like. Smaller towns have often not had the same access
to such funds, and still have run-down areas running alongside
their inland waterways. For such routes to be attractive, waterside
development, be it residential or commercial, also needs to take
place. We would contend that this is more likely to happen if
a strategy can be developed at a local partnership level, albeit
with moderate financial incentives being made available from central
government.
In conclusion, we welcome the Committee's initiative
in consulting widely on this issue. We believe that formal strategies
need to be developed, but that these should be at a local level,
kick-started and pump-primed from central government funds. If
the Sustrans'success on the cycling initiative is anything to
go by, we believe that there is plenty of opportunity for other
monies to be levered in once cohesive strategies are in place.
Andy Screen
Secretary
January 2001
|
