20/02/2023
Baby Tree to the Bull:
build the ramp and steps
Replying to Oliver Dann – Transport Planner (Cycling) - Road Safety and Active Travel Group
Kent County Council
Introduction
Mr Dann responded in late 2022 to our proposal for barriers on Rheims Way and a ramp and steps from Rheims Way into Toddlers Cove and onto the Great Stour path.
Mr Dann’s First Concern:
There is no record of any injury collisions involving pedestrians or cyclists on this stretch of the Rheims Way in the last 20 years. This does not mean there isn't a perception that this route is unsafe but we prioritise work in areas where improvements could most effectively reduce collisions and because this area is not one of them it would be difficult for us to justify supporting this proposal.
Our Response:
Mr Dann hits the nail on the head here. It is about perception. The route looks unsafe and poorly maintained and therefore it is another underused, inadequate cycle path.
He seems to imply (though it is not completely clear) that because there have been no injury collisions the pavement is safe. Just one accident would change the whole picture. The cycle/walking path is habitually overgrown with cyclists forced off the cycle half and vice versa with walkers, especially during busy periods and always in the face of fast-moving, oncoming traffic.
What criteria are there for any road/pathway improvements? It’s not just about safety from collisions but about pollution, air quality, comfort and the aesthetic aspects of walking and cycling (busy ring road path versus peaceful river and gardens).
Mr Dann’s Second Concern:
Our data from Strava users shows that cyclists' most popular route from The Canterbury Academy to the Bull is using the signed cycle route along Queens Avenue, over Whitehall Bridge and under the Rheims Way on Whitehall Road. This route is part of the national cycle network, is off-road or on minor roads and is well-signed. Therefore, it is likely that creating an alternative route to an already safe route would not significantly increase the safety of cyclists.
Our Response:
Although the Strava mobile app, used by cyclists and runners, is a handy source of data, Strava users have a demographic that is quite different from the children and adults going from Wincheap to the London Road estate and vice versa. Strava users tend to be middle class athletic males under 40. See for example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/strava-cycling-running-gender-gap-data-2019-review-indoor-training-turbo-smart-a9242921.html
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-age-and-gender-of-Strava-users-in-the-city-of-Dresden_fig2_330564236
And of course the data will also follow the signposts as cyclists not familiar with the area will follow them.
The route Mr Dann cites is anyway not especially safe because of the cars parked all down the narrow Queens Avenue, and there are nasty junctions both at Queens Avenue/Mead Way and at Whitehall Bridge Road and Whitehall Road. Local cyclists wanting to go to the south of the city would certainly prefer to go down the leafy, car-free arbour next to Victoria Recreation Ground and down a ramp into Toddlers Cove if they had the chance. (As a local walker and cyclist, I certainly would prefer the arbour, and even sometimes do if I am short of time, but after that have to brave the horrible ring road route to the Bull).
A cycle detour, like the current one, can add significantly to the journey time and be off-putting.
If the improvements were made, then the data would change, and the new route would be more popular.
Mr Dann’s Third Concern:
Whilst I can see that this bank is well-trodden by school children climbing over the fence this bank on the side of Rheims Way down to Toddler's Cover is covered in mature trees. Even if a route was possible that avoided the trees (I think this is unlikely) some of the trees would have to be cut down during construction and covering areas of soil with tarmac would likely kill the tree roots beneath, damaging or killing the trees. Within the last year there was significant public criticism about the proposed cutting down of five mature trees on St George's Street in Canterbury and I expect many members of the public would be concerned to see another proposal that involved the removal of mature trees. Furthermore, these mature trees do an excellent job of protecting Toddler’s Cove from noise and air pollution from the Rheims Way.
Our Response:
It is a ‘category error’ or false equivalence to compare installing ramp and steps into Toddlers Cove with removing the five well established mature trees in St George’s Street. The latter is a large, built-up space in the centre of the city and the former is a park area with many newer less established trees. While we would regret the removal of any trees, the skilful construction of steps and ramp would obviate the need for so much tree removal, and it would be an excellent opportunity to plant more and younger trees – perhaps even a whole copse to improve air quality and give protection against noise. There is space there that could be used for this. There is a tall, mature tree outside the Victoria Hotel at the top of Rheims Way entirely unaffected by the pavement all around it, and many other trees in similar situations. This part of the case against the ramp and steps proposal does seem particularly implausible.
Mr Dann’s Fourth Concern:
Whilst I agree that the new access would provide significant benefit in helping to connect parts of the city that are currently disconnected by the railway line and river Stour, I have the following further concerns:
• Creating direct access from a very popular children's play area onto a dual carriageway is a safety risk as young unsupervised children may climb the ramp onto the Rheims Way. I cannot see how this risk could be ‘designed out’.
• The proposed direction of the ramp would create a blind corner with the existing Great Stour path, which is heavily cycled and can be quite busy. You could include barriers to slow cyclists but I expect there would still be increased conflict with cyclists and pedestrians on the Great Stour path.
Our Response:
It's good and encouraging to read the first sentence of the objection.
• On the first bullet point, the ramp and steps are a considerable distance from the Toddlers Cove play area. It’s notable that the unfenced riverbank is much closer and constitutes more of a hazard, and it is also an existing hazard . It would be easy to do a risk assessment for a ramp and steps – identify the hazard or hazards, undertake a thorough risk assessment and then institute risk control – suitable measures to eliminate and control risk.
• On the second bullet point, careful design simply would not create a blind corner with the existing path. The new ramp and path would just flow naturally into the current one in the Chartham direction. The issue of ‘conflict’ between cyclists and pedestrians is not about path design, sharing of paths etc. but about culture.
Mr Dann’s Fifth Concern:
Both KCC and CCC are working hard to deliver active travel improvements across the city such as KCC’s scheme from Burgate to Littlebourne Road which was recently consulted on as well as CCC’s live consultation on their proposed Cycling and Walking Implementation Plan.
Our Response:
Are these improvements citizen-led, councillor-led or officer-led? What criteria were used to develop the proposal for KCC’s scheme from Burgate to the Littlebourne Road? How many deaths and/or serious injuries were there in that area over the last 20 years? That scheme is good and welcome (if unambitious – why not a cycle path all the way to Littlebourne?). Why might that get a green light compared to a smaller improvement (ramp and steps to Toddlers Cove) which might have as much benefit?
Other points that are very important in this matter.
• The proposed changes are backed by both the Canterbury South Kent County Councillor, Mel Dawkins, and the Westgate Canterbury City Councillor Pip Hazelton. As it has this support from democratically elected local councillors and has been identified in response to the consultation on the Walking and Cycling Implementation Plan, it makes strong sense for this development to be added to the plan.
• Ordinary citizens have identified this as an opportunity for a big improvement that would be simple to carry out, supporting walkers, cyclists and especially schoolchildren in this part of our crowded, car-dominated city. It wasn’t identified by planners and then consulted on, with criteria for change never identified, but the other way around. Hopefully that carries considerable weight.
And if a plan is consulted on and yet results in no additions or adaptations, what is the point, in democratic terms, of a consultation, with an official’s stance counting for more than councillors and an informed group of citizens?
Here is an example of carefully considered community-led development that has the backing of councillors. It should be considered seriously.
