Sustrans advocate that all off-road paths are for shared use -certainly between cyclists, walkers, those with prams and those in wheelchairs -and in the case of the Wharfedale Trail, with horses as well. All these parties need the same thing, i.e. traffic-free routes, that are carefully designed and well built to encourage their use. Shared use is good value for money and improves the security of all concerned by populating the paths to enhance casual surveillance. Unfortunately it is normal for authorities to react against shared use. Pedestrians are seen as at risk from cyclists and horses, whereas the reality is that all are vulnerable to motor traffic. It is also worth pointing out that the pessimistic views put forward at public meetings are rarely substantiated in practice. It is sometimes forgotten that a very large proportion of the public are discouraged from rough field paths either because the do not have the confidence to use them, the right sort of footwear and clothes, or perhaps even more commonly the energy and strength. Good quality paths on the urban fringe open up the countryside to a wide range of the public, as well as providing some of the few real facilities for wheelchair users. Indeed all these routes should be specifically designed for wheelchairs -ramp gradients should be gentle, and access controls, where used, should be appropriate. Such paths are also suitable for people with visual impairment -grassed path shoulders define the route without the need for expensive tapping rails. Furthermore, these paths are refreshingly stress-free without the ever present noise of motor traffic. The design and construction of the Wharfedale Trail will inevitably require compromise to be reached between three major influences: cost, suitability for purpose and the environment; the latter consideration also including the interests of landowners. Constraints placed upon the design by these factors may also require compromise between the interests of the different user groups. For example, a 2-metre wide tarmac path with adjacent 1.5-metre crushed stone-surfaced bridleway might be an ideal way to facilitate shared use between walkers, cycles, wheelchairs and horses, but whilst it would be suitable for semi-urban or open rural areas, it would probably be considered unacceptably intrusive in remote woodland. At the other extreme, a 0.6-metre loose-surfaced path would be both cheap and unobtrusive, but would be suitable only for use by walkers and not by other groups. The disruption cased by laying a tarmac path may be considered unacceptable by land owners, necessitating the path to be lightly laid in other materials, or the reverse might be true, with the requirement for access by farm vehicles dictating a heavy-duty construction. Perceived risk of misuse by motorcyclists may require additional safeguards to prevent access by unauthorised vehicles. Although it is common for existing bridle paths to pass through fields without any measures deemed necessary to separate livestock from the walkers, horses and cyclists that use them, the perceived popularity of a newly created path is likely to result in Landowners' insistence that the path be securely fenced. Ultimately, the entrenched opposition of a landowner could potentially result in the Wharfedale Trail project being unable to go ahead; however, most opposition can normally be resolved through negotiation, and Sustrans have an excellent track record in achieving this. It goes without saying that if the creation of a new pathway were to have the effect of blighting the very landscape that it was intended to render accessible, then its purpose would already have been defeated. It is fortunate that the proposals for Ilkley-Bolton Abbey require only very short sections to be constructed over "green fields", however there are still areas where particular care and regard for the environment will be required. Of these, the most notable examples are to be found in the Lob Wood, where the former railway trackbed passes through secluded woodland, and close to Bolton Abbey station, where the flooded railway cutting has created a the effect of a miniature wetland. There is much that can be done to minimise the environmental "footprint" of the trail in these places; In woodland, a crushed stone surface of the minimum practicable width may be more appropriate than a standard tarmac path; furthermore, where trees have re-established themselves upon the old trackbed, the line of the path could be designed so as to wind amongst them, thus lessening the visual impact of a long, straight path. (It should be borne in mind that a double track railway formation is in the order of 8 metres wide, so only a small proportion of that width is required for the construction of a path). Where the cutting is flooded, one solution would be to use the established Sustrans practice of constructing the path upon a raised causeway to one side of the cutting, thus minimising disturbance to the remainder. Another solution (albeit more expensive), would be to carry the path upon a raised "catwalk" over the environmentally-sensitive area; this technique has also been used by Sustrans in the past. These are just a few examples of what can be achieved; there exists a wealth of experience and expertise in utilising best practice in design and construction, to minimise the trail's impact on its surroundings. The Wharfedale Trail Forum aim to work closely with Sustrans, landowners and various interest groups, to ensure that all options and interests are considered, in order to achieve the best compromise and the most appropriate solution for each part of the proposed route. |
