What are people's opinions on tarmaccing canal towpaths?

[Carlton green]

Based on the quoted costs of two local-ish towpath restoration schemes, both of which involved very well compacted fine gravel on a properly contained and consolidated broken-stone sub-base, this sort of work comes out at c£700/metre length.

Not sure it’s been mentioned so far, but the environmental impact of this sort of work is large too, serious habitat disturbance, potential destruction of habitat, damage to roots of established trees and shrubs etc. A six inch strip of mud through a minor jungle isn’t totally human-mobility friendly, but it is friendly to everything non-human.

At those sorts of prices nothing happens because there’s nowhere near enough budget. Around here there are gravel and hard soil (compacted by footfall) paths and they’re good enough to cycle over. Where things get a bit muddy (mostly due to poor drainage) then a layer of gravel sufficiently sorts things out. Vegetation can be an issue with soil and gravel paths, other than obscuring things grass and small weeds do no particular harm but have someone remove any trees whilst they can be still pulled out by hand. Brambles are an obstacle, but I can’t recall them blocking a path.

[simonhill]

Biggest problem I've found on the 'wilder' paths are fast-growing nettles which encroach on the path, particularly if wearing shorts.

[mjr]

Not sure it’s been mentioned so far, but the environmental impact of this sort of work is large too, serious habitat disturbance, potential destruction of habitat, damage to roots of established trees and shrubs etc. A six inch strip of mud through a minor jungle isn’t totally human-mobility friendly, but it is friendly to everything non-human.

I don't think it has been mentioned, and it is very much worth considering.

The other thing is worth considering is whether weed killer is used to maintain a weed free tarmac path...

Not routinely, as far as I can tell. It seems more common on gravel and stone paths, which must be easier for weed seeds to grow in than a sealed surface.

A couple of targetted applications a year of most herbicides will also pale into insignificance against the impact of daily blanket salting the earth each winter to keep a bit of ice off roads mainly used by motorists, in order to help people pollute and use more energy to move a vehicle weighing many multiples of its occupant, instead of using lightweight transport.

[mjr]

Not sure it’s been mentioned so far, but the environmental impact of this sort of work is large too, serious habitat disturbance, potential destruction of habitat, damage to roots of established trees and shrubs etc. A six inch strip of mud through a minor jungle isn’t totally human-mobility friendly, but it is friendly to everything non-human.

I don't think it has been mentioned, and it is very much worth considering.

Why does this argument block more reopenings of brownfield routes for active travel, yet rarely stops motorways and quasi-motorways through green fields? On the rare occasion where it seems to stop a quasi-motorway, such as the Norwich third ring road completion (branded as the North Western Link), that plan then returns after a year or two with dozens more millions allocated effectively to trying to find loopholes in the wildlife habitat protections.

Meanwhile, National Highways keeps totalling greenfields on the southern side of the valley for their A47 dual carriageway construction works. Not just the dualling but hundreds of metres either side.

But we can't have the former railway trackbeds (also owned by National Highways) opened as greenway because it would harm wildlife habitat.

But National Highways can fill parts of the trackbed with concrete and spoil primarily to reduce maintenance costs on the bridges. Never mind that it adds millions to the cost of ever opening that section as greenway.

There is no consistency in where and how this reasoning is applied!

[Nearholmer]

Does it actually stop active travel measures, or are you making a leap of assumption?

[Cowsham]

Based on the quoted costs of two local-ish towpath restoration schemes, both of which involved very well compacted fine gravel on a properly contained and consolidated broken-stone sub-base, this sort of work comes out at c£700/metre length.

That might depend on whether that section of canal would need cofferdamned off and drained to do the remedial work and also like the Whitchurch breach ( as seen on the news where two boats went down into the breach on the 22nd of December last year ) the water needs pumped between the dams to supply water to other places ( I think also the water supply to Whitchurch itself) . ( as well as a pump to keep the breached bit drained )
I think it was reported it costs £6000 per week just to keep that bit going hence the urgency to get the breach repaired.

[rareposter]

There is no consistency in where and how this reasoning is applied!

National Highways are not fit for purpose, in fact they're often ideologically opposed to anything that is not road building. See their recent attempts to completely block off potential active travel / rail reopening routes when they infilled bridges:
https://transportactionnetwork.org.uk/b ... -scandals/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cydvjpr27ydo

Green land is significantly cheaper and easier for developers to work with than brown; minimal remediation work, no demolition, you can simply move in and start digging it up and it's also very difficult to undo. There have been several cases where developers, refused planning permission on a site, have "accidentally" moved in and chopped a load of trees down, amazingly enough early on a Sunday morning when no councillors can come along and stop them, then blamed "miscommunication", paid a paltry fine of a few grand and then said "oh well, seeing as we've chopped everything down, we'll build on it anyway".

In an ideal world. NH would be combined with Active Travel England and there'd be a chain of command that assumed AT measures first, then light rail / tram, then road.
Or NH should be left to do remedial work on the existing network and all new roads should be looked at in a completely new light. AT measures first, then bus routes, light rail lines and finally, once everything else has been done, a road can be considered. But it should be the last option, never the first.

[mjr]

Does it actually stop active travel measures, or are you making a leap of assumption?

rareposter 's second link is to a bridge on the Lynn & Fakenham greenway, or rather now a concrete jump blocking its route. It's far from the worst example of NH anti-active-travel acts or the most difficult to overcome, but it all adds up and makes it harder and more expensive to open new greenway routes.

[Nearholmer]

I get that NH are often a force for ill when it comes to active travel, I’ve moaned about them at length here myself, but what you seemed to be contending was that protecting nature is an obstruction to creating active travel routes.

[Carlton green]

There is no consistency in where and how this reasoning is applied!

NH do have consistency in their role and their role is firmly focussed on the powered and rapid mass transit of materials, goods and people over significant distances. Anything else is a diversion from their key objectives, that’s just how it is and it’s not going to change. Active travel covers local journeys over short distances, imho active travel on longer distance routes (between towns and cities) should also be supported too, in some instances the canal towpath network helps with such active travel connectivity.

The thread has wandered well away from the original post, not unusual there, but the common element is that active travel routes should be a part of all road and canal routes used by powered travel. At one time all roads were shared spaces but active travel users have been either forced off of them by large powered vehicles or legally barred from using them.

[atoz]

Frost and ice is only a problem for one or two weeks nowadays. Thank you global warming
and I've even managed to fall in the cut without benefit of frost on occasion.

Not where I live!!!

[eileithyia]

Biggest problem I've found on the 'wilder' paths are fast-growing nettles which encroach on the path, particularly if wearing shorts.

Ah another use of the long frame fitting pump..... a nettle basher.

[mjr]

I get that NH are often a force for ill when it comes to active travel, I’ve moaned about them at length here myself, but what you seemed to be contending was that protecting nature is an obstruction to creating active travel routes.

oh, right. I've only personal experience of being told cycleway projects won't happen due to the prospect of construction works or use disturbing wildlife. If I find an example where someone is foolish enough to tell a reporter or write it in minutes, I'll try to remember to link it here.

[Carlton green]

I get that NH are often a force for ill when it comes to active travel, I’ve moaned about them at length here myself, but what you seemed to be contending was that protecting nature is an obstruction to creating active travel routes.

oh, right. I've only personal experience of being told cycleway projects won't happen due to the prospect of construction works or use disturbing wildlife. If I find an example where someone is foolish enough to tell a reporter or write it in minutes, I'll try to remember to link it here.

H’mm, I’m maybe untrusting but if someone in authority doesn’t have either the means or will to provide a sustainable travel route then amongst the list of excuses would be ‘disturbing wildlife’.

I would observe, from permitted exercise outings on my bike, that during covid motor vehicle traffic massively decreased and wildlife appeared to flourish. If wildlife care is a genuine concern then reduction of motorised traffic would obviously be amongst the ways forward. Construction work does impact on wildlife, but once it’s done nature will eventually reclaim what’s hers, if the works are relatively small (which would be the case for active travel routes) then reclamation will be relatively quick.

[Nearholmer]

On the subject of the type of work under discussion, worth reading about the West Wight Greenway, which is primarily railway trackbed, progressively being “hard surfaced”, c13 miles of it got funded because it shows serious net benefit, and I think is costing c£1M/km, although Im a bit confused by the scope of the overall funding and what it covers, it may also include other elements besides the greenway.