British Waterways Policy Review 2004

Consultation Paper response from IMBA, the International Mountainbike Association.
IMBA represents the views of all who ride mountain bikes from families to enthusiasts, and will respond using the format suggested in paragraph 27 in the introductory letter.
This response will concentrate on a cycling perspective, and will not address other issues raised in the document "Waterways for Tomorrow".

• How well has British Waterways met its objectives as set out in its Framework Document, "Waterways for Tomorrow" and "Scotland's Canals: an asset for the Future" over the past five years?
  In terms of the "objectives" given in the overview of "... to see an improving quality of infrastructure; a better experience for users...." then we would note a steady, if fragmented improvement in the towpath facility.
  We would also commend the non interventionist approach to cycling management at local level - even where cycle use may be outwith national BW policy.

• How well do the Government's objectives for British Waterways as set out in its Framework Document, "Waterways for Tomorrow" and "Scotland's Canals: an asset for the Future" meet current needs and do they need further definition?
  4.18 Developing a closer relationship with users
  We agree with the objective, and feel that the proposal in 4.19 may provide the preferred solution.
  4.19 Charitable Trust
  We support the development of this Trust and the proposed objectives.
  4.23 Improved consultation.
  Extremely important for cyclists.
  Currently liaison with cycling interests is extremely fragmented and an effective cycle liaison / consultation structure needs to be established to facilitate the views of cyclists both at national and local level.
  This would need to involve the major cycling organisations, but particularly CTC, Sustrans, British Cycling and IMBA.
  We would be happy to advise on setting up such a process.
  5.9 Maximising the potential for recreation...
  Fully support this objective, the potential for cycle use on towpaths has by no means been fully exploited.

• How well do the services and functions of British Waterways meet the needs of its customers, visitors and stakeholders?
  
  1. Condition of the towpath. (para.6.5)
     There are considerable variations in the quality of the towpath from length to length.
     IMBA does not see this as a problem, and believes that cyclists should take the network "as it comes", providing sufficient information on towpath quality is available for them to make a judgement on the suitability of the towpath for their journey.
  2. Provision of information
     The use of www.waterscape.com for provision of information as a replacement for literature has generally worked well.
     However, conflicting information can be found on the site which will be confusing to users.
     The awareness of this site within the cycling fraternity is extremely low, and would benefit from links to cycling specific sites.
     The standard and helpfulness of the telephone helpline at Watford is considered to be very good.
  3. Promotion of canalside facilites
     Cyclists can make a considerable contribution to the rural economy.
     Information on pubs, shops and tourism sites is available from commercial publications, but could be better promoted through waterscape - to include accommodation. There is potential here for income generation from providers to BW to promote their facilities.

• How could British Waterways improve its service to and relationship with its customers, visitors and stakeholders?
  We would make the following recommendations:
  
  1. Open the whole of the towpath network to cyclists.
     Cyclist should be involved in any decisions to close towpaths to cyclists.
     We recognise that this may increase liability concerns, and recommend that the Forestry Commission policy on cycling is used as a model to minimise such concerns.
  2. Provide better information on towpath quality
     This needs to be done on a length by length basis, perhaps based on the CTC grading system, so that cyclists can make an informed judgement as to the suitability of the towpath for their needs.
     This information should be available on waterscape, and at towpath access points.
  3. Develop an improved communications network that involves all the major cycling organisations, both at national and local level.
     This could lead to more partnerships as envisaged in para 6.16.
  4. Review the licensing system.
     This does not appear to be achieving a great deal.
     However, some form of membership process (perhaps via the Charitable Trust) may be worth considering for individual cyclists as a means of gaining up to date information on the network.
     We note the recommendation by IWAC to consider chargeable licences, but feel that previous experience in this area has not proved successful.
     We feel that other means of gaining income from cyclists would be preferable - possibly including charging for access to route information.
  5. Promote the cycling information on waterscape through links to cycling websites.
  6. Provide improved information on rail links.
  7. Develop circular routes in partnership with cycling organisations of local cyclists which utilise towpaths and the public rights of way network.
  8. Provide waymarking between towpaths where the paths terminate at tunnels.

I would be grateful if you would add IMBA UK to your consultation list.

Colin Palmer
IMBA UK
13th July 2004

More information / comments?

Last update: 12 Jan 2009