One Vision for over 3,000 miles of Canal Towpaths

Dear all

I have finally got down to reading this excellent piece, below, by Robert Latham.  Sorry to take so long!

I agree with everything he has written and there is nothing more I could possibly add, apart from underlining the following:

1. We cannot go on for ever building more motorways and high speed rail lines to help us get about as the population, travelling and consumption rises.
2. Therefore, turn your attention, Ian, Anne, Graham and Andy (and all UK colleagues), to the more than 3,000 miles of towpaths that need to be widened (where this can be done) and 
   be 
   free of raised bricks, puddles, mud and vegetation.  Plenty there to keep you all happily pouring over your desks, faces lit up by your computer screens, for the next 500 years, at the present snail like progress!
3. On the Dudley no 1 Canal in Brierley Hill and on the Oxford Canal, great sections of the towpaths have gently subsided beneath the waves.  But, little ever seems to get done to put things right and when it does, it takes a very long time (eg, 
   Brum to Wolverhampton 
   Mainline Canal towpath near Soho Loop, Brum.  At least, it was widened).  
4. Stand up to the heritage lobby on CRT and at English Heritage.  Go for updating, as Robert pointed out must have been done when gas lighting was replaced by the new fangled electric lights in Netherton tunnel.
5. Upgrade all the towpaths to make them feasible for responsible shared use for all 21st century people.
6. The loose chippings are totally unnecessary, make cyclists skid and eventually, it seems, get pushed into the bottom of the canal, anyway.
7. Spend the cycling £62 million for Brum in this way, above - please!

Best wishes

Tim    

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert <birmingham_spider@gmx.net>
Date: 8 January 2015 at 10:33
Subject: Re: [Cttee] West Midlands Customer Service Survey
To: Ian.Lane@canalrivertrust.org.uk, Push bikes Committee Email <cttee@pushbikes.org.uk>


Hi Ian,

I was rather deterred from answering this as it appeared to be a question about customer service, but seeing Roy's reply has encouraged me to respond with my own thoughts.

What I would like to see CRT do is bring the canals into the 21st century instead of maintaining them in a state of post-industrial decline.   Canals on the continent are very much in use for their original purpose (freight), whereas here they are viewed as some sort of living museum, albeit one that is based in some indeterminate time that never existed.   Having no knowledge of freight transport I'm not able to comment on how you could encourage freight on to the canals, but I am a tow-path user.   The tow-paths were of course originally used by draft horses, but they haven't been seen on the tow-path for many decades, if not a century or more.   Yet any attempt to make the tow-paths suitable for 21st century users is met with strong resistance.   One particular bugbear that is raised time and again is hoof grips on bridges.   It is sort of understandable why we might want to maintain the historic brickwork, though much of it is very badly worn.   However, the construction and maintaining of new hoof grips is highly problematic for 21st century users.   I've watched people with push-chairs slipping and tripping on late 20th century hoof grips whilst trying get over bridges.   For cyclists they are not just unpleasant, but also they make it very difficult to control a bike.   Sometimes they force cyclists on to the wrong side of the path, putting cyclists at risk of a head on collision.   Put simply, they are a health and safety issue for modern tow-path users.   Yet CRT strongly resists replacing them with a modern grippy surface (which, ironically, has been used on part of the Bordesley Junction bridge).   Always the "heritage" flag is waved and the request is dismissed.   Yet if I suggest that diesel pumps and pump-put stations should removed on the grounds that neither were present when narrow boats were horse-drawn, that is met with a stony silence.

We have the same problem with the tow-paths away from bridges.   Modern tow-path users need a smooth, durable surface such as bitmac or low-rolling resistance concrete.   What has been chosen is spray and chip, on "aesthetic" grounds, and there is a resistance to sweeping up the loose gravel.   This has simply created a dangerously poor surface for cycling, and in terms of aesthetics, it just looks like end-of-life concrete.   Yet there are sections of canal not used as cycle routes that have beautifully smooth bitmac, and I see no rush to cover them with loose chippings.   On the continent cycle paths are built along canals, out into the countryside and even through nature reserves, and they are built using bitmac or concrete.   Whilst the canals are strips of green, they were built as industrial infrastructure using the latest and best materials.   So why is CRT trying to maintain a look of dereliction?

Roy mentioned the Netherton tunnel.   This was initially lit with gas lighting, and then upgraded to electric lighting powered by a water turbine.   Both would have been state-of-the-art.   When the upgrade to electric lighting was proposed, was someone insisting on keeping the "heritage" gas lighting, or even no illumination at all?   If they were, did anyone listen?   Obviously not, so why does CRT listen to those who want to block progress rather than those who want to update the canals as our forefathers did?

This insistence on keeping the canals in some ill-defined past *is* deterring people from making use of the canals.   Making them more suitable for 21st century users would encourage greater use, and thereby strengthen the position of CRT by making it a provider of modern infrastructure.

To be clear, I'm not advocating the widespread destruction of historic features, many of which are beautiful, but rather making small adjustments to them so they are useful in the 21st century.   Where something has gone beyond its natural life, then there is the opportunity to replace it with something completely new.   New might require the complete removal of a feature.   What is the point in keeping an unexceptional, decaying, steeply arched bridge over an arm that has been filled in and built on, for example?   All that bridge is doing is creating problems for 21st century users.

So to summarise, try to maintain the appearance of that which is beautiful, but ensure the canals can become a useful piece of infrastructure once more.

Regards,

Robert Latham.