[Closed] Warning - Now they want to tarmac our Muddy Trails

to be fair the Downs Link is supposed to be a Sustrans National Cycle Path. In places it's impassable unless you're on an mtb or quite determined on a cross bike for lots of the year. I can't see making it an all weather surface that will encourage year round use by casual cyclists is a bad thing?

Meh, I live just down the road from Horsham (and work there) and I think they're all valid points.

I used the Downs Link to ride to the LBS in Cranleigh at the weekend, despite the fact that 'proper' trails were fairly dry, the DL was a complete bog. It would be very pleasant if it was tarmaced like the Bristol-Bath railway path.

I'm from Horsham and know the paths he's talking about, if you're worried about losing a bit of fun singletrack you're looking in the wrong place.

I think he's got a point.

EDIT - Cross post high 5

😆

*high 5s*

Generally agree with the author of the article and waswas

The only reason my children can ride bikes properly is because we spend at least 3 weeks a year in the Netherlands. The concrete paths are fantastic (and some built with EU money which hilariously came in a large part from us).

Anyone who thinks that farsighted transport investment like this will end up with anything other than a huge increase in cycle use with all its benefits is an idiot

I agree with the article. It's not high quality technical off-road riding we're talking about here.

Definitely tarmac the god awful downs link.

Any NCN designated route needs a good all weather surface or a safe, signposted alternative route. That or remove the designation.

Yep, tarmac it. Most people aren't going to commute by bike if it involves getting covered in mud.

I'm somewhat alarmed by this outbreak of common sense and consensus!

What have you done with the real forumites?

porous asphalt required

They will have to tarmac over my cold dead body before they tarmac over the Downs link (not that I even know or care where it is)

does that help?

That's the spirit, yunki!

Any NCN designated route needs a good all weather surface or a safe, signposted alternative route. That or remove the designation.

There's one that runs across Salisbury Plain, in the middle of the training area so only accessible when the troops aren't using it. Why would you want to tarmac that? What's wrong with treating each NCN track as an individual track and its surface should be whatever is appropriate for its location?

Tarmac it, and make sure you cut back all that vegetation and all the lovely trees so it doesn't become slippy in the wet with leaves or Moss. You just wanted a road right, not somewhere nice to ride?

Any NCN designated route needs a good all weather surface

Is that the Bradley who got knocked off by the muppet coming out of the garage?

There's one that runs across Salisbury Plain, in the middle of the training area so only accessible when the troops aren't using it. Why would you want to tarmac that? What's wrong with treating each NCN track as an individual track and its surface should be whatever is appropriate for its location?

Nothing wrong with the track being there. You can't really treat each as individual tracks but give them all the same title. To label it as part of the National Cycling Network ought to imply a route you can rely on to get you from one place to another, on any regular bike, at any time. When I head off in my car down a nationally numbered road, I don't have to worry whether I'm going to need a 4x4, why should a National Cycle Network be different?

Ha. Just taking an opposing side ;0)

There are plenty of tracks that should or could be Tarmac but as with most council proposals, no thought is given. There is a good trail near Newcastle that is a prime example, a long trail that someone complained about not being lit and muddy all year. No doubt he will be first to fall off when it's damp due to the fact it's completely under tree cover and always wet on the ground.

A good all weather gravel surface is much more forgiving to weather, leaf litter and damp. So better for rural routes. Tarmac is not always the right option, unless of course your prepared to cut back tree cover and have the council send a sweeper down it regularly (yeah right!). Tarmac paths also seems to attract rubbish and glass for some reason IME.

for people who have bought road bikes to look like Bradley and are to scared to ride them on the road.

Not really, a NCN route should be easily navigable by anybody on any sort of bike, otherwise what's the point?

[edit] cross post. Sorry, didn't realise you were playing devils advocate.

It's described as 'traffic-free' which is actually misleading as Landy's use it as well as MX'ers. Have actually seen a family car using it!

You're trying to simplify it, you can't. It's 'traffic-free' or 'on-road' according to Sustrans.

I ride a lot on the Downs link. Its a long varied trail with a mixture of surfaces.
Personally, i'd be really sad to see it tarmac'd end to end. There are a few places where it can get muddy. The old coach road along the bottom of the South downs got this treatment a while back, and frankly spoilt its character. To be honest, I doubt anyone would want to foot the bill for maintaining it, when Sussex roads are already lousy!

I've been saying for ages that concrete's the logical trailbuilding material. Lasts ages, you can build interesting shapes... And the best bit is, you can take latex molds of really good trails and recreate them elsewhere. Really like the first rock garden at fort william? Well now you can have it on your local trails! Just add cement.

You're trying to simplify it, you can't. It's 'traffic-free' or 'on-road' according to Sustrans.

I know. And while the work Sustrans do is excellent, I think their designation system needs a rethink. Still, it's too many years since I rode the Downs, I must come down again for a pootle.

The Taunton TO Bridgwater canal forms part of route 3 the surface is terrible and I had the misfortune to be on a touring bike .I was surprised how poor it was and thought it needed upgrading so that you didnt either need an MTB or you crawled along it at little more than walking pace

Any NCN designated route needs a good all weather surface or a safe, signposted alternative route. That or remove the designation.

+1

I'll happily lose the pleasure of riding flat muddyi old railway tracks in exchange for high quality off road cycle infra. Would also have the benefit of faster links between more interesting trails.

Tarmac will be more susceptible to black ice. Will they have to grit it as well?
We have hard pack around our way and I'm glad to get on it when we have frost.

NCN Route 45. Froth away chaps. 🙂

[img] [/img]

Well, as far as I'm concerned theres already a ****ing huge network of tarmac routes criss crossing the countryside that they are welcome to use!

their primary issue seems to be they don't want to get a bit muddy! well, put some 'king mudguards on or go and ride somewhere else then. what really pisses me off is the hoity toitey 'we are so much better than the mountain bikers because we are trying to save the planet and they just want to go and get muddy and don't care about the rest of us' attitude! Perhaps even worse is the belief that the only answer to mud is tarmac rather than the well surfaced and well maintained surfaces that we had for hundreds, probably thousands, of years beforehand.

the countryside is already covered in tarmac, you can stick any idea of more of it up your arse!

I also agree with the article and with Winston about good surfaces encouraging youngsters to ride

[img] ?oh=95239c75979a8cb83647258222768d7a&oe=55076404&__gda__=1426998034_d4fd85bc9ed59e1daf621de2764ef303[/img]

This is the cycle from Lourdes to Pierrefitte-Nestalas at the foot of the col de tourmalet. My five year old cycled 24 miles on it in the summer when you'd struggle to get him to do 10 miles on the disused railway in the peaks which have a poorer surface. This is in a slightly more scenic location than Horsham,

To be honest, my impression of riding NCN routes is that who they may be 'easily navigable' in the sense of no major obstacles (apart from road users mistaking them for handy parking places for their HGV's, ramblers mistaking them for footpaths instead of shared use routes etc) is that actually navigating can be near impossible without an OS and something showing the cycle route. The low impact signage (occasional sticker somewhere missable) is a joke and probably goes a long way to the things not being understood or recognised by non sustrans minded people.

I strongly disagree that they should be Road bike friendly, but CX/touring bikes etc obviously should be considered, and generally could get through any section I've seen.

I think the NCN as a scheme has much bigger issues to consider before it begins debating tarmac everywhere.

I have a agree with Vincie, I spend the final week of our holiday in the Vendee primarly for the beaches but they have fantastic signage on their cycle paths and the tourist information had books of suggested routes we ended up cycling everyday. the routes could be followed by anyone it was similar in the il de re. So much so that were going back again this year. The NCN around here drives me mad. It does nothing to encourage cycling. You can often find a post with four or five numbers on and its impossible to follow even for an experienced cyclist a novice would have no chance.

Plus how many cycle routes in the UK come with tyre inflation stations

[img] [/img]

You just wanted a road right, not somewhere nice to ride?

Good bit of frothing there. It's a 10 foot wide, flat path. In summer when it's baked hard it's quite nice to ride. In winter it's a shitty mess, and no fun whatsoever. IMO it would be great if it was surfaced properly. It's full of walkers and doggists and what not, it's not somewhere to take your gnarpoon to shred some roost or whatever!

It's described as 'traffic-free' which is actually misleading as Landy's use it as well as MX'ers. Have actually seen a family car using it!

The Downs Link? Really? I've been using it for more than 20 years and I've never seen a motorbike, or a motor vehicle on it. Virtually all of the junctions with roads are gated. I'm really struggling to think of bits you could get a car onto 😕

njee - no, am referring to Salisbury Plain. That's where my pic is taken. 🙂

Apologies! I did think that was odd.

Having a 'National Cycle Network' which you can't actually use to tour around the country on a touring (or road) bike is utterly bonkers.

We've got bits of 2 and 21 here, it's mostly impassable so we're forced onto some really dangerous bits of trunkroads to link up the nice country lane bits.

[quote=ninfan ]Well, as far as I'm concerned theres already a **** huge network of tarmac routes criss crossing the countryside that they are welcome to use!

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. I'll take my 5yo out for a nice ride on those routes right now.

I'm in a tiny little niche, as I'd like nice smooth tarmac paths without traffic in order to indulge in sports which very few other people do - even rough tarmac is a pain, and I'm not going fast enough to be really comfortable in traffic (unfortunately the roads around here with little traffic also tend to have awful surfaces). However I'm sure lots of kids and less fit people would also like nice smooth paths which are as easy as possible to ride on. Plenty of evidence that people are put off cycling by traffic and cycle more given segregated infrastructure.

You appear to be arguing the case for safer roads rather than the wholesale tarmacing of country paths.

Our effort should go into opening more paths, for example the thousands of miles of perfectly well surfaced tracks and bridleways that have been misrecorded (often delibaretly) as footpaths, rather than tarmacing over the precious few we do have

Typical internet black and white over reaction. No one is really proposing to tarmac all the footpaths and bridleways for those of us that like to ride off road. People are proposing that a National Cycle Network should have weatherproof surfaces so all manner of bikes and riders can use them.

You appear to be arguing the case for safer roads rather than the wholesale tarmacing of country paths.

Nope. Nope. Nope.

I like muddy rocky rooty stony gravelly paths. I ride them on my mountain bike for fun. I like segregated infrastructure round town, it helps me stay alive on the roads and leave the car at home. But when you're going to set yourself up with a name made from the words Sustainable Transport, and call something a National Cycle Network, I expect to be able to use it on an average bicycle, all year round, to get from A to B, without getting lost. That's all. If a route isn't up to that, don't include it.

I think Sustrans likes to trumpet the number of miles it has in it's "network", when lots of those miles just aren't fit for [b][i]that[/i][/b] purpose.

[quote=ninfan ]You appear to be arguing the case for safer roads rather than the wholesale tarmacing of country paths.

You're quite correct, I'm not arguing for the latter. Well done for spotting that.

I expect to be able to use it on an average bicycle, all year round, to get from A to B, without getting lost. That's all. If a route isn't up to that, don't include it.

Agree, but once again well surfaced and well maintained does not need to involve the use of tarmac

as for an 'average' bicycle, I've used an 'average' for example touring bike on all sorts of surfaced tracks for decades - have a look at the RSF for what can be achieved on a normal everyday 'average' bike, go and have a look at the average everyday bikes that people used for years to get around the British countryside before most of the roads got tarmaced.

a [u]road[/u] bike on the other hand... well, the clue is in the name isn't it!

go and have a look at the average everyday bikes that people used for years

You mean like my everyday mooching around getting stuff done bike?
[URL= http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-09-01_18-09-45_796.jp g" target="_blank">http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a177/midlifecrashes/2012-09-01_18-09-45_796.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

I can tell you, it isn't up to the mud on the Transpennine Trail between here and Barnsley, or the solid clay on Route 65 heading north towards Selby, or the deep gravel on the towpath further on. It's not the bike that's not fit for purpose.

it isn't up to the mud on the Transpennine Trail between here and Barnsley, or the solid clay on Route 65 heading north towards Selby, or the deep gravel on the towpath further on

Right, you'd presumably not classify them as being 'well surfaced and well maintained' in that case then would you?

Which part of my comment that "well surfaced and well maintained does not need to involve the use of tarmac" would you disagree with?