https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/13/lake-district-authority-loses-no-confidence-vote-over-path-decision

Is there more behind this story?

The complaints seem a bit mixed. The commercialisation I do see as an issue – recent visits I’ve been aware both of the damage done and the noise and pollution from the 4x4s. Likewise I’m not sure the area really needs more zipwire centres.

As a mountain biker the excessive sanitisation of mountain trails makes the place less attractive as a destination. However, the Keswick complaints seem to have mixed in cycle trails that are for transport. The off road tracks linking Ambleside to Coniston are great but if they’re actually being through of as transport rather than ‘leisure’ then they should be tarmac not gravel. Likewise the Threlkeld path – it’s an old railway line, just surface the thing properly so that it drains and you don’t get filthy riding it in the wet.

Threlkeld path/railway was labelled as “a scarring four-mile-long strip of tarmac beneath Blencathra is deeply concerning.” Not sure what they make of the A66….

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/13/lake-district-authority-loses-no-confidence-vote-over-path-decision

“Accesible to all” is a phrase used as byword for cheap tarmac resurfacing in inappropriate locations.

You ask disabled people whether access to mountainous bridleways in the peak district are a priority for them (rather than access to town centres) then you get a round no – but Derbysire county council don’t give a monkeys about that.

It’s just more of the same – they look at the cost of sympathetic renovation and say hell no.

My preference is to leave them alone. Walkers generally don’t care about the state of paths. MTBers like ’em broken. Roadies want roads. Disabled people have other priorities – and hate to see landscapes scarred in their name.

You ask disabled people whether access to mountainous bridleways

Unless I am missing something what is being talked about isnt a mountainous bridleway but a former railway conversion.
Got a few near me and the one which is tarmacced is the most used by people in general. The other two deteoriate quickly in winter to mudbaths. Not a problem if I am on my mountain bike out for a play but would be more of a pain for using it for commuting/shopping. I certainly wouldnt fancy pushing a baby buggy or something down one of them during winter.

There is a distinct difference in how we should be treating mountain paths and cycle tracks that link towns parallel to roads.

Keeping off road utility paths with ‘natural’ surfaces is ridiculous IMO. The Downs Link in Surrey is one example. Theres also this –

This is a brand-new path that’s been built alongside the A264, a 70mph road carrying 35,000 vehicles a day.
Because of West Sussex’s idiotic policies, it has… a mud and gravel surface pic.twitter.com/nA35PFIEfs

— Mark Treasure (@AsEasyAsRiding) October 7, 2019

“This is a brand-new path that’s been built alongside the A264, a 70mph road carrying 35,000 vehicles a day.Because of West Sussex’s idiotic policies, it has… a mud and gravel surface”

LDNP are the victims of the “retire to the Lakes” set. They want to preserve the chocolate box they bought into and are seriously anti everything. The guardian article must have written by one of them as the picture selection and language used is very one sided.

Keeping off road utility paths with ‘natural’ surfaces is ridiculous IMO. The Downs Link in Surrey is one example. Theres also this –

I would suspect that they have a strong horse lobby in these areas, they prefer natural. The reality is that horses are not a transport solution and as such they need to be resisted where appropriate

The article reads very one-sidedly.  How badly churned can a track get so that is is impassable by farm traffic?  In my experience it is the farm traffic that does most of the damage!

And if its the appearance of this tarmac path that is the problem, why not include a surface dressing of local <10mm stone on it to “blend it in” to the environment.  Or a resin bonded surface of similar colouration.

I think there’s more to this than is being reported….

Would the Keswick-Threlkeld track be a suitable alternative to the A66 for cyclists?

If so, tarmac would make a lot of sense, but why not have an untarmac-ed bit beside it for the horseys?

Creating safe routes for leisure and utility cycling alongside the A66 and A591 should be a big priority in the Lakes, IMO.

Really badly written article with links not relevant to the issue.

“Friends of the Lake District claims that using tarmac along the former railway line will compromise the historic and rural character of the route and make it more dangerous to use in icy weather.”

I use a cycle path for 10miles each way 5 days a week in the North to get to work. The bit about icy weather is really a good point. I’d personally much prefer well made gravel paths to tarmac any day and just put up with a bit of mud. Even just in the wet tarmac can be lethal, when it’s covered in leaves or starts to go green in wooded areas. It can be slippy all year round. A light frost can render untreated tarmac impassable in certain conditions.

90% of the time in cold weather the reason I have a use ice tyres is because of the tarmac sections of my route.

Also, I have no interest in zipwires myself, but when people moan about “turning it into a theme park” I immediately peg them as the kind of character big n daft mentions above.

LDNP is already a theme park, the UNESCO world heritage status was fudged to allow it to get that recognition. The reality is that it is an ecological desert due to overgrazing by sheep and deer. The landscape has been managed into that state and there are too many vested interests to change that

The people objecting to the off road activity are classic NIMBYs. The issues around the creation of usable traffic free routes for people to get around is an important one as the park gets busier. They want the “right” type of tourists which are unsurprisingly just like them

Vinte nails it above – the main issue from my point of view is the tarmacking of a path that never used to be tarmac. It used to be useable in all weathers and didn’t really turn into a dreaded mud bath.

It’s a great idea that the LDNPA are trying to move vulnerable cycle traffic off the A66 onto the path, but people are rightly concerned that if it gets tarmacked then speeds on the path will increase, making it less appealing to walkers and families who used it a heck of a lot before it got damaged in the floods.

I think the other stuff (zip wires, etc) is maybe less important to the residents of Keswick and it’s this path that’s broken the camels back so to speak

didn’t really turn into a dreaded mud bath.

That’s a pretty low bar to set. I can ride on a tarmac path in normal clothes even in damp/wet weather – as soon as it’s a gravel surface the type of bike you need and the amount of filth it collects change significantly. Usually they drain poorly so you also get puddles.

Historically it was a railway track – I’m not sure how tarmac is less in keeping than rails.

If it gets tarmacked then speeds on the path will increase

My memory of it is that its a very wide path for much of it’s length – you could easily have a 3m wide cycle track and another few metres of footpath.

Why do we seem determined to keep cycling as shitty as possible in this country. Make it filthy, make it slow – anything so long as it’s not quick, clean, direct and convenient. Why not keep the A66 as a dirt road? That would keep the speeds down on that as well.

How badly churned can a track get so that is is impassable by farm traffic?

The Nibthwaite track was a real mess the last time I rode it. Fantastic fun on a mountain bike but farm traffic isn’t just tractors and a farmer doesn’t want getting to his fields to be an adventure that’s not viable without a second vehicle with a winch.

How badly churned can a track get so that is is impassable by farm traffic?

They are referring to the Tilberthwaite to Little Langdale BOAT. There were a couple of poorly drained sections involving bedrock steps which were heavily rutted, and probably a PITA if you just want to run a quad or a landy up there, and definitely no-go with a trailer. I suspect it would always have been a challenge, regardless of 4x4s churning it up.

That being said, the LDNP took the nuclear option of completely levelling the entire section, chipping out any bit of bedrock they could find and dumping large amounts of slate on it, rather than just fixing the short damaged sections the farmer actually wanted to use. I very much doubt he wanted access from the Little Langdale side, as that has been a very uneven bedrock track for as long as I can remember, but they spent 50 grand obliterating a nice little descent anyhow.

I punctured twice in 100 yards due to the sharpness of the material they used, haven’t been back since.

When I was a kid, my grandad took me fishing up the river along the Threlkeld railway track, pre-Sustrans. It was still the coarse gravel bed left after the tracks and sleepers were lifted, and the bridges were just bare girders you hopped across…

…but times change, and it’s precisely because the area’s become a theme park that the FotLD want their four miles of f£ck!n hand-laid artisan path. As others have said, it should be made into the well surfaced, sheltered from the weather, level, car-free commuting alternative it could be, so people can get from Threlkeld into Keswick to work without driving – and without getting covered in filth. When I lived in Cheddar it was a source of constant frustration to me that the unsurfaced Strawberry Line, which could’ve been such a good integrated transport link, was effectively rendered unusable in wet conditions if you didn’t have shower facilities and a change of clothes at your destination.

They’re right about banning offroad motorists, though. All the ones I’ve encountered have been groups of Dutch and Germans, guided by home grown quislings trousering their thirty pieces of silver. In this supposedly more enlightened environmental age, should we really be using our National Parks to entice Johnny Foreigner to drive over here in large, thirsty vehicles so they can rip up tracks in an anti-social manner? It’s like an automotive version of sex tourism….

The road in question is a ROAD and has been for a long long time.

The damage is done overwhelmingly by the weather.

Shall we ban rain?

Should it be downgraded or maintained?

Maybe it’s a bit extravagant to maintain access for a few people to go for pleasure drives. We could extend that logic to the A66, most people using it are driving to Keswick to get rained on for pleasure.

Completely agree – big compulsory park’n’ride at Penrith, job’s a good’un. But then, I am one of those annoying cn√ts who rides his bike and takes trains to get to places…

I haven’t walked the full railway path since the bridges got destroyed. I take it they’ve rebuilt them now.

I stay in St john of the Vale campsite a lot below blencathra and walk into Keswick via the stone circles and then jump on the railway line and come out by the leisure centre. Last time I went it was all closed off for maintenance.

I thought the existing path was fine. The problem with tarmac is it will encourage certain cyclists to strava and go as fast as they can and it will be dangerous for kids and prams.

This is why the cinder path at whitby is still a cinder path. They had to fight that being tarmaced too.

I thought the existing path was fine. The problem with tarmac is it will encourage certain cyclists to strava and go as fast as they can and it will be dangerous for kids and prams.

pretty sure that behaviour’s not exclusive to tarmac…

It’s like an automotive version of sex tourism….

top comment – I’m going to use that again.

it will encourage certain cyclists to strava

Really? are enough people really going to really chase strava times on a dead flat path that it’s going to be an issue. Lets leave the roads to get pot holed – if we resurface them it’ll only encourage people to drive too fast said no-one, ever. Keep the pavements uneven and the paving slabs broken as well or those bloody runners will be along in a minute, shoving old ladies out of the way to improve their mapmyrun times.

@simons_nicolai-uk – frankly I detest tarmac. There’s already a perfectly good road if you want to ride your road bike.

If you want to walk / MTB / hybrid / push a pram yadda yadda yadda then yet another tarmac path does indeed ruin the look and feel of the area. The idea of more of it is, frankly, hateful to me – as are the proposals to do more of it.

Separate off bits of roads if transport is the aim – but if utility is the aim then tarmac should be last resort.

Separate off bits of roads if transport is the aim – but if utility is the aim then tarmac should be last resort.

Er, doesn’t utility = transport?

Well drained tarmac will be fine for avoiding puddles, but tarmac and gravel can be badly put down and puddle up horrendously. Give it some frost and both will be totally unrideable without studs.

You can go too fast (to pass small children) on pretty much any surface, it’s such a non-argument it’s unbelievable. Segregate the path to 2 halves if you must (but enforce no pedestrians on the cycle side).

I shouldn’t have to choose between busy roads and traffic free routes that are significantly harder to pedal along, and it’s not surprising nobody chooses to cycle when cycle infrastructure is deliberately kept shitty to avoid people going “too” fast.

frankly I detest tarmac. There’s already a perfectly good road if you want to ride your road bike.

Spoken like a true cyclist*: mud up, or fup off and play with traffic.

Anyway, how do you reconcile a hatred of tarmac with the view that a road (made of tarmac) is “perfectly good”?

MTBers like ’em broken. Roadies want roads. Disabled people have other priorities – and hate to see landscapes scarred in their name.

Setting aside the convenient pigeon holes for a moment, what if someone is all three and wants to be able to ride a bike easily without doing battle with traffic?

* a term which I only ever use in a derogatory manner, you’re welcome 😉

We have started using a new porous rubber/aggregate surface in Lancashire on some of our cycleways seems to keep everyone happy https://vimeo.com/301281499

Jees, people simply can’t read anymore can they.

Setting aside the convenient pigeon holes for a moment, what if someone is all three and wants to be able to ride a bike easily without doing battle with traffic?

I said” Separate off bits of roads if transport is the aim – but if utility is the aim then tarmac should be last resort.”

So – segregated cycle lanes on the tarmac – for roadies and other people seeking easy transport (not that roadies use them, they’d rather use the road than segregated cycle lanes).

Sticking tarmac *everywhere* discounts all other user groups that dislike it. And @philjunior – I italicised utility for a reason – to separate it from purely transportation means. So you’re just being disingenuous.

Local knowledge is handy. The railway path is flat (it was a railway…), sheltered and pretty much straightlines it between T and K. The busy A66 wanders all over the place, is exposed to bad weather and entails a fair bit of hill climbing – the signposted cycling alternative via Castlerigg even more so. Fine from the point of leisure cycling – but not commuting and utility cycling, i.e using bikes as an alternative to cars, promotion of which is the mission brief of Sustrans (sustainable transport, geddit?). The old mining railway from Ennerdale to Whitehaven is a great example of how this can work.

We have started using a new porous rubber/aggregate surface in Lancashire on some of our cycleways seems to keep everyone happy https://vimeo.com/301281499

Awesome. What we need is more liberalised use of petroleum products. Synthetic elastomers at least keep the oil companies quids in.

I bet it’s properly biodegradeable, rather than simply a wide-surface pollutant, right?

🙁

bet it’s properly biodegradeable, rather than simply a wide-surface pollutant, right?

Just goes to show you can’t make everyone happy!