Blocking walking and cycling

When transport professionals talk about “barriers to walking and cycling” they can be referring to many different things. Some of the more obvious “barriers” include fear of motorised traffic, poor (or even non-existent) walking and cycling infrastructure, lack of political and other institutional support, and a whole host of other ‘difficult to tackle’ issues such as hills, rain and distance. But when Griet and I did a walking tour of our ethnographic neighbourhood in Lancaster recently, we came across a very major barrier to walking and cycling which I’d not really thought much about before – private land.

We transport types sometimes talk about ‘severances’ to walking and cycling. But by this we’re almost always referring, in my experience, to the ways in which railways, major roads (especially urban dual carriageways and motorways), and big retail developments can block routes which people travelling on foot or by bike might otherwise take. I already knew of this issue in the areas of west Lancaster on which we’re focusing our ethnographic attention, Fairfield and Abraham Heights. The west coast main railway line runs north-south along the eastern side of the neighbourhood, and this really reduces the permeability between it and Lancaster city centre. You can see this very well on a satellite view of the area, which you can look at via Google Map – just type in “Meeting House Lane, Lancaster”, and you’ll get to a view of the general area, and be able to see how there’s no crossing of the railway south of Meeting House Lane until you get to Carr House Lane (and this route is only available to pedestrians and cyclists, which is one of the reasons this neighbourhood is very interesting to us – in many ways it’s more accessible by bike and on foot than it is by car).

The railway is a major severance to walking and cycling in the area. Of course, on a smaller scale, every road is also (rather ironically) a severance to mobility, especially the mobility of certain groups of people, and perhaps most obviously the oldest and youngest members of our communities (who, arguably, may be precisely the groups which need ‘community’ the most). My son Bobby is 8, and we’re currently going through a process of allowing him a growing amount of independence in mobility. This makes us very conscious of roads, and how difficult and dangerous different roads might be for him to cross. But we’re all affected by roads. In his landmark study of residential streets in San Francisco, published in the book Livable Streets (1981, University of California Press, Berkeley), Don Appleyard demonstrated how motorised traffic kills community. Appleyard found, for example, that residents of streets with light traffic had, on average, three more friends and twice as many acquaintances as the people on streets with heavy traffic, and that, as the amount of traffic increases, the space people consider to be their “territory” shrinks.

But I’m digressing … as Griet and I walked around the area, we became much more aware of the very real barrier to walking and cycling through and around our neighbourhood which is created by a block of privatised land separating the two distinct areas of it – Abraham Heights to the west, Fairfield to the east. Go to Google Map and you can see it extraordinarily clearly. From Towneley Close, there are two clear, obvious routes which could link Abraham Heights to Fairfield, but which don’t …

One route goes east out of Towneley Close, via the community orchard and past the allotments to the walking and cycling route which runs north-south through Fairfield; this links to the Millennium Bridge (and so much of the rest of the district) to the north, and Carr House Lane and then the canal (and so also to much of the rest of the district) to the south. Apparently this route was blocked without warning by a landowner a few years ago, but after much local effort it is shortly to be re-opened.

The second route is actually a road. But it’s a private road, patrolled by big and ugly gates. It would make an excellent route from Abraham Heights to the town centre, one which avoids having to use Westbourne Lane. But with this route blocked, and the other not yet re-opened, people must use Westbourne Lane. Westbourne Lane is a relatively pleasant road, full of trees, lined with large properties, almost rural in its feel. But for some of its length there’s a pavement along only one side, and that pavement is skinny and often slippy, so that people often walk in the road. The road also goes up and down a hill, which – when combined with the motorised traffic which can travel very fast and close – means it’s uncomfortable for people who aren’t very confident riding a bike, which includes most kids (and perhaps especially the people who care for those kids).

So from Abraham Heights there is currently no option, when travelling east towards Lancaster city centre, but to use Westbourne Road. Westbourne Road is a very poor route for walking and cycling. There are two alternative routes for walking and cycling, both far superior to the current option. One will shortly, hopefully, be re-opened. The other, to the best of my knowledge, is not even on people’s radars as a route which might potentially be opened up – though it would provide another great route because it is reasonably well surfaced, and so walk-able and cycle-able whatever the weather. But, for reasons I do not profess to understand, it is blocked by big, impenetrable gates. Behind those gates are some very big houses. As Griet and I walked around, trespassing, finding our way blocked, being made to feel very clearly that we oughtn’t to be there, I felt very angry. A stranger in my own community. Treading on land which ought to provide many children with safe, pleasant routes to school; trespassing on land which ought to give the people of Abraham Heights an attractive way of reaching the rest of their district.

To me, anyway, it seems a crime.

Advertisement