A Sustrans dilemma

Mike Sales wrote

There was and perhaps still is, a proposal to use the Llangefni to Amlwch
rail track, recently closed as a freight line, as a cycle route

what happened to the idea to re-open it as a rail route? that would
make far more sense. Using a rail route with all the infrastructure
still in as a cycle route (as opposed to a Beeching era closure where
the formation was deliberately vandalised and breached) is folly. I
believe Sustrans have had run-ins with other preserved railways due to
the inability to co-exist due to safety issues.

In message
audrey wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:09:50 GMT, tom wrote:



Putting so much of the emphasis on off-road gentle scenic tracks,
which many people will arrive at by brining their bikes in their cars,
does absolutely 0 to encourage people to take up utility cycling
around town in place of car journeys.

Around here (SW London) Sustrans routes take you off road and on road and
can well be incorported into utility rides. The problem is often that
Sustrans can only work with the agreement of Highway Authorities etc some
some routes are decidedly compromises. If they were given the powers and
finance of the Motorways section of DTp and could require policing to be a
priority the situation would be different.

Paul Luton


--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

I wrote:
For example, the shortcut through the Avon
Valley taken by the Bath-Bristol path. Thanks to the cyclepath, my
daily commute is 2 miles shorter than the shortest road alternative.

and Mike Sales responded:
So Bath and Bristol are connected by road. I would wager that the road is
quicker.

It depends very much upon which part of Bristol and which part of Bath
you are travelling between. For my commute the time taken by road would
be similar to that taken by the shorter cyclepath route, because I'd be
able to ride faster. I choose the more pleasant route, where I don't
spend the entire journey with the taste of exhaust fumes in my mouth
(the air on the A4 during rush hour is quite revolting).

That bikes are slower is often given as a reason why bike commuting
is less attractive, and if the bike is being used as transport, time is
often a factor.

Yes - from some parts of Bristol I imagine the cyclepath would be
quicker than the road during rush hour simply because it removes the
need to pick your way through the congestion caused by motor vehicles.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

vernon wrote:

not an ounce lighter after LEJOG but acquired thighs like anvils

Muscle is denser than fat so you've lost problematical weight and
replaced it with more engine. A good deal, methinks!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:32:34 +0000, tom wrote:


Access gates are a difficult one. I agree entirely that they are a pain
with panniers, and in some cases may prevent a specific type of bicycle
from getting on to a path. However, they are there for a reason. I'd far
rather spend an extra 10 seconds getting onto and off a path than have to
contend with kids on motorbikes or other similar vehicles, racing up and
down the track.
I'm sorry, but I have to reply to this.

We now have the DDA in force - do you expect people in wheelchairs not to
use these paths?

Metal barriers are simply a short-sighted measure.
There are other ways - police action to confiscate the offender's
motorbikes. I'm sure design of paths and a decent environment can also
discourage motorbike use.

And why should 'we' as a decent. law-abiding majority have to suffer
because of the yobbish behaviour of a few?
Before anyone makes the point, yes bag searches and security measures
aimed at bomb-carrying terrorists, taking motorbike helmets off when in a
bank etc. are well justified.
But we're talking about riding bikes through the woods here.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:10:33 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:

in message , tom
') wrote:

Agreed, this is the only argument against barriers which actually holds
any weight.

Oh, for heaven's sake! Do we have barriers across the motorway every two
miles with signs telling truck drivers to 'dismount' and lift their trucks
over? No, of course we don't. Why not? Because it's a f*cking transport
route. That's 'transport' as in 'sustrans'. Barriers and transport aren't
even remotely compatible.

Absolutely!
And as I've said before on this list,
simply follow any off-road cycle facility, or indeed take a walk along
any local high street. Cross a road at pedestrian lights.
Note how many times you come across a drop of several inches, impossible
to get over in a wheelchair and causing cyclists to stop or risk a bent
wheel.
Even where dropped pavements ARE put in they are a shambles in many cases.

Now drive from Lands End to John O' Groats.
If there was a four inch step in the middle of the M1 there would be
public outcry about the potential damage done to car suspensions.

(Don't say but Ah! Speedbumps! As (a) speedbumps are negotiable by all
cars and (b) I don't much care for the 'speed pillow' types myself)

Al C-F m writes:

tom wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:06:23 +0100, Sandy Morton wrote:
In article
pan.2005.09.05.20.42.21.123202@firstnamelastna me.com.invalid, Mike
Causer wrote:

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking
to the road?

IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

Sustrans has very little to do with transport and as such, its title is
a misnomer.

Sustrans can be credited with providing a few leisure routes, but few of
its routes are any use for a utility cyclist.

I'm a utility cyclist. I've no idea how much or little Sustrans
involvement was in my local cycle paths, but as a means of getting
quickly from A to B they're too indirect and don't support the kind of
speeds I can make on the road, because the paths are narrow, sometimes
have very short sightlines, and are shared with people, dogs,
pushchairs, etc.. However, as a utility cyclist who sometimes wants to
carry so much shopping that my bike is unusually wide and bit wobbly I
find the local paths a much safer way of carrying such loads on my
bike. So I often cycle to the supermarket quickly on the roads, and
return slowly, laden and a bit wobbly, via the cycle paths.

And if I want to cycle somewhere with a friend, the noise and
exigencies or urban traffic make a conversations nearly impossible,
whereas the quiet leafy cycle paths are excellent for chatting while
cycling.

Just because they're not suitable for a fast daily commute or high
speed training run doesn't mean they're no use.

Further, Sustrans, by their actions, promote segregation of cyclists
into substandard ghettoes and undermine the cause of those of us who
prefer to use the extensive network of cycle facilities that are shared
with motor traffic. They do, therefore, more harm than good

That sounds like arguing that busses shouldn't be provided because
they undermine trains. What is needed is flexibility and options.
--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 16:55:39 +0100, Mike K Smith wrote:



MartinM wrote:
And there needs to be a
bit more cohesion, we now have an alternative NCN (the National
Greenway) when they should all be working together.

Do you mean the National Byway? The National Bicycle Greenway seems to be
a US initiative.
We already have a Greenway in London.
Much improved now that the metal barriers have been taken down of course.

I refer to it as the Brownway - for those who don't know it it
is the cycle/walking route on top of the Northern outfall sewer to Barking.

ps. anyone been over to Barking way recently?
There is a path through to the river past the huge Tescos, which has
always been fenced off. Is it open yet?

John Hearns wrote:


Metal barriers are simply a short-sighted measure.
There are other ways - police action to confiscate the offender's
motorbikes. I'm sure design of paths and a decent environment can also
discourage motorbike use.

our local plod have issued a warning about kids using those mini
motorbikes on the routes (which are not gated at all) and will
confiscate them if necessary. I would have no qualms about removing the
keys from any unregistered bike and taking them to the cop shop except
that this would probably involve having his dad come round and beating
seven kinds out of me.

in message , Chris Slade ')
wrote:

Simon Bennett wrote:

wrote:

connection refused......

It's not to do with the non-standard port (no filtering here or at
home), but I haven't been able to see Simon's links for a while now.

I edited the port so it used 80. Saw the image then. Maybe BT are
filtering port 8180?

No hangs head in shame I am. And it wasn't the XSL that was screwing up
the port, it was in the actual data (now fixed). Sorry, everyone. It's
been one of those weekends. However, now it's working the new line is
hugely faster than the old one, so the disruption has been worth it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002