Since I became a Councillor four years ago there has been a significant number of people starting to talk to me about the dramatic increase in the number of cyclists using the towpath. Their concern is not just numbers of cyclists, but also the way a minority of antisocial cyclists are intimidating people away from using the towpath, in particular parents taking young children to school. Many of these people find it ironic that TFL and British Waterways have actively promoted this use, to the point where it is now making them uncomfortable when they try and use the towpath. I make these comments in the light of British Waterways’ recognition that conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists are becoming an issue on the towpath, and which has lead to them commissioning the rather odd works now taking place at Danbury Street Ramp, of which more in a minute. I also speak as a regular commuting cyclist myself, and a parent.
I have a keen interest in achieving the right balance between pedestrian and cyclists’ interests in shared spaces, and during my time as a Councillor I have put a very large amount of time and effort into getting TFL to improve the junction at Goswell Road and City Road. This has now been done, more-or-less as I suggested, and has resulted in better and safer crossing conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, both of which groups were previously getting tangled with each other as they tried to cross two busy roads in close succession. I consider this scheme has achieved an acceptable balance between pedestrian and cyclist interests, making it fair for all.
Turning to the towpath, it is in many people’s view too narrow and too dangerous to take the weight of cycle traffic currently using it, particularly at peak times. More specifically, it seems to be cyclists in a hurry, presumably commuters, and people using their cycles for intensive exercise, that are making the towpath intimidating and unsafe for everyone else – peaceable cyclists and pedestrians alike.
An increasing number of people are of the view that it is time to try and restore the balance between pedestrians and cyclists on the towpath, and I support this view. A 'parallel route' for cyclists has now been identified heading East, running along roads close to the canal, many of which are closed to car traffic. This route would be more appropriate for cyclists in a hurry or commuting, and I think the existence of this route should be more widely promoted. In combination with this, British Waterways could then take further measures to encourage cyclists to slow down on the towpath: the most practical approach in my view being the introduction of 'kissing gates' either side of dangerous bridges, at the top and bottom of ramps, or at other dangerous points. This would mean cyclists would almost certainly have to dismount at these points, slowing them down, and thereby encouraging the ones in a hurry to prefer the parallel route – a ‘stick and carrot' approach. Ideas I have heard suggested to ‘build out’ the towpath at bridges and other narrow spots would make it easier for cyclists to maintain their speed, and is to my mind the wrong approach.
Which brings me to the construction activity at the Danbury Street ramp:
I was first made aware that British Waterways had ideas to ‘improve’ the ramp after a meeting last summer of the ‘Friends of Regents Canal’. British Waterways were aware of pedestrian/cyclist conflicts on the ramp, and had attempted to solve this by putting a ‘kissing gate’ arrangement half way down the ramp. They soon decided that this arrangement was unsafe and removed it again, partly because cyclists continued to travel down the ramp at speed and then had to brake suddenly when they reached the obstruction halfway down. They had therefore come up with a scheme to extend the ramp, which addressed their stated concern, which was that the ramp was not ‘DDA compliant’, which is a rather daft argument for a 200 year old structure in a conservation area. These proposals looked cumbersome and expensive to me, and didn’t really address the issue of conflicts.
I heard nothing more about this scheme, until I received a forwarded email from Gillian Comins, the very energetic and conscientious former secretary of Islington Living Streets. The email was advising her that British Waterways would be starting improvement works to the ramp in less than two weeks. No-one else locally knew anything about it.
I contacted British Waterways, to ask why local Councillors had not been consulted about this, and the project manager admitted to me that “consultation with the local council was not done in this instance”. But he said the contract was placed and that they were going ahead anyway. I also found out that Islington Planners had not been consulted about the scheme, and that it involved felling two large trees to make way for the changes. The tree service advised me they had consented to the removal of the trees on the basis that British Waterways had assured them they had consulted locally on the proposal, which they hadn’t. The trees have already gone.
The scheme they are now going to build has been significantly watered down from the original proposal, to the point where it now provides separate shallow steps for pedestrians, with the ramp rebuilt at the existing gradient. And whilst this resolves the conflict between able-bodied pedestrians and cyclists, wheelchair users and parents with buggies will still have to use the ramp, which is as steep as it was, and which will now be mainly a cycleway. So in short, the scheme is a huge expense, which fails to properly solve any of the problems originally identified.
This is another example of a large public agency which is meant to serve the public (as are TFL) doing pretty much what they like, and just not bothering to consult local people. What I don’t think they realise is that by consulting locally; residents, cyclists and pedestrians, they could probably have got a much better scheme.
I am passionate about proper local consultation and involvement, and If I am successfully re-elected on May 6th (which is quite soon) one of my main priorities will be trying to restore some level of accountability and transparency with organisations such as, TFL and British Waterways, the PCT, HFI, Enterprise, etc. I have begun this process with the PCT in the last year as Chair of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, but this is not much more than scratching the surface of the issue. I should also add that the Labour Group has made a specific manifesto commitment to tackle anti-social cycling, which gives all other cyclists a bad name.
A footnote to the Danbury Street issue is the total road closure on Danbury Street Bridge, which has been given to the contractors whilst the work goes on. Local residents, motorists and cyclists are incensed that this seems to be almost entirely to provide free car parking for contractors visiting the site. So whilst the contractors get free car parking, local people have to drive all round the auction. Except that cyclists are now hopping onto the narrow pavement that is left, and risking accidents with pedestrians. I have spoken to Highways about the cycling issue, and suggested that they reduce the width of the compound sufficiently to allow cyclists to use part of the road – which would eliminate conflict and make it safe for both. They have said they will consider this. Lets see if it actually happens.
