Rushup edge resurfacing

That DCC “Consultation Plan” isn’t a plan, it’s a chuffing ideas board! This is what you produce when you’re thrashing ideas about trying to come up with a solution, not a solution itself!

A plan should show the locations and extent of the propsed surfacing (not just “we’ll do the whole lot however we feel like”) have sections demonstrating the differing surfcing approaches being applied, an overall section showing the elevation change and any key features along the length, lcoation of drainage etc etc etc…

Looking at the “existing” photos on the drawing, I can’t see what’s wrong with it. Also, a “Type 1” surface isn’t really suiatable as it is angluar (ie: sharp, bad for horses) stones at <40mm. It’s not really a suitable surfacing material… It’s meant to go under tarmac roads, and is comparably expensive due to it’s testing/assessment requirements (grading, repose angles, frost/heave characteristics) which aren;t that applicable it it’s not under 150mm of tarmac!

My consultation response is going to be suitably critical….

Also, “Note 1” on the drawing requires that the drawing be read in conjunction with all other relevant documentation, but I can’t see anywhere saying what other documentation is relevant….

[Editied for a large number of typos…]

Keith, have you got expertise in this area? Could you contact Peak District MTB please if so

(info@peakdistrictmtb.org)

Email sent Pook,

cheers,
Keith

Cheers Keith – when i get time I’ll be in touch. Your insight could be very useful! Are you a member of PDMTB?

So the drains, which is now their claimed main reason for doing the works…

Unlike Chapel Gate and Stanage the whole of Rushup is sunk in a ditch on both sides. Stanage Causeway drains off onto one side where the hill drops down. They’ll have to dig a massive long drainage ditch to channel the water somewhere. Where will that be? I would presume (as Keith says) they should have gone and planned where this would be and checked with the landowner to ensure that they are happy with the run off onto their field, and either narrow the track to allow a parallel drain or dig a massive ditch.

All the ditches on Chapel Gate are full of rocks, there are no plans to fund any maintenance on any of these drains.

It’s all bollocks.

Also, I don’t understand why they are so concerned with the rocky bit, when a bit further along where the trail splits into one nicely drained rocky/stony path for the walkers and a field for cyclists which is basically a bog with ruts all over it?

True, in fact, once you start looking at it even deeper from an access point of view… (as they used disability access as an argument so I went up there with the local disability access group)
1) There is no car free way to access the track
2) There is no view when you are in the track (this is important if you are doing a short but slow ramble as if it takes an hour to get to the top you want to be looking at a nice view, not rutted bedrock)
3) There is no possibility of a circular route
4) The top sections are too cambered to take a four wheeler
5) Chapel Gate is way too steep and lose and rocky for a safe descent
6) The group could use the money that DCC will spend far more effectively.

I asked DCC to provide “all other relevant information” as referred to on the consultation plan. They’ve uploaded the pennine bridleway design guidance, which is even higher level than this. Have asked DCC to android that this does constitute all other relevant documents.

Will digest and incorporate into response.

Hey Keith,

That looks good. Did they offer any responses to your specific questions? Did they make claims that the work would be to the spec detailed in this book? That’s a lot to live up to.

Keith: this booklet is ace. Could we persuade you to come to our AGM on Thursday at 8pm in hope to discuss it?

Keith (sorry!) got your messages. Will seek further clarification from DCC and share with the members. Thanks

Righto, I’ve had a further response from DCC confirming that the pennine bridleway guidance does indeed constitute “all other relevant documentation” regrdgin the works.

My worry it that they are applying this bridleway guidance to a BOAT, when the guidance specifically states that it’s not for improving vehicular access (Section 1.2.3) and surely DCC have an obligation if carrying out such extensive maintenance to ensure it is suitable for vehicular use? Even if there is a permanent TRO in place now, surely such extensive maintenance should form part of a plan to enable such a TRo to be lifted?

I’m sorry I can’t make it up to Hope this week, need a bit more planning time! Maybe your next meeting in a couple of weeks?

EDIT: also, if they are using the guidance they are still proposing two of the least preferred options for surfacing (see table in Section 2.1). so it’s not a great start to the use of the guidance, particularly wothout any justfication for those choices (local environment? most suitable for vehicular use? who knows why the decisions are made?)

Initially i think they were working to the premise that it was a highway. We are encouraging them to consider it a bridleway. Much nicer and more sustainable.

Keith, I’m writing to DCC today. If you have any more questions let me know. I will include your comments about surface material. I was going to clarify what gritstone they will use. How should I word it to ensure we get a detailed response about which type is it?

Esther, Keith – suggest you take this conversation offline if possible.

I responded. Warned them of dangers of high speeds going downhill by inconsiderate and/or inexperienced cyclists.

Secretly hoping that they don’t touch the singletrack on the south side of the bank and I’ll use that going down and the main track going up.

To be honest, using the good work at Roych as an example isn’t really going to work on this track because it’s about half the gradient. Don’t flame me for that comment, I love the outcome at Roych, it’ll just be hard to recreate that here.

Presumably DCC read this?

Just in case they do I would just like to reiterate what a fabulous job I think they do and how I love their forward thinking and open minded attitude and their efficient working practices.

Also, I don’t understand why they are so concerned with the rocky bit, when a bit further along where the trail splits into one nicely drained rocky/stony path for the walkers and a field for cyclists which is basically a bog with ruts all over it?

Because that part of the track isn’t a byway, it’s just bridleway and footpath, so DCC has no responsibility for it I think. The irony, of course, is that the Chapel Gate/Ruship trough ‘road’ is closed to mechanised traffic by a TRO (Traffic Regulation Order) anyway… so while it’s a ‘road’ it’s not actually being legally used by vehicles now. You couldn’t make it up really.

Coming to the AGM John?

Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday dear Rushup Debacle,
Happy Birthday to you.

Two years old. Join us for a slice of birthday cake on Rushup Edge on the 23rd?

Peak District MTB

I assume DCC have been asked to attend the birthday bash.

You mean they’re not on Singletrackworld right now?

Well, we could make a pinada

Coming to the AGM John?

Ooops, ,missed this, but I’ll aim to get over on Sunday. Two years eh…

Hi folks = quick reminder, we’re having a little birthday get together on sunday morning on Rushup Edge to celebrate two years since it all kicked off.

People best bloody come, I spent an hour last night cutting out cake toppers!

:o)

Riding the kinder loop this weekend with mildbore pook so aiming to pop up after the ride

I’ll save you some cake

Cake toppers. I thought you’d said poppers. Now i understand.
<no longer confused>

Happy birthday Rushup. I hope you have a lovely day xxx

PS on behalf of Peak District MTB[/url] members who have personally invested ridiculous amounts of time into this Rushup campaign, I do hope some of you can come and show your support.

Oh, I wanted to come, but we’ve got a family obligation in the morning and won’t be free to bike until afternoon. I wanted to meet you all too!

You know me 🙂

All credit to them standing up there, it’s bloody windy! I lasted about 10 minutes before continuing my ride but I’ll stop by again on my way home.

Yeah it was a bit chilly

The DCC consultation for the repairs on Rushup Edge draws to a close 28th November, so still time to let your opinions be known. Peak District MTB have added some more info to their website to help you make an informed contribution to this process.

Peak District MTB – Rushup latest

Awesome stuff 🙂

Some tireless and selfless work going on here. We should be more appreciative of all the work that goes on unpaid and often thankless to a degree. We just ‘expect’ it as we’ve paid thousands for our bicycles and it’s our right.

Thanks guys and gals. I appreciate it and it makes me do good karma in other ways too 🙂

Another view on all this from Keeper of the Peak
https://kofthep.com/2016/11/15/rushup-consultation-kofthep-response/%5B/url%5D

Excellent response

Agree that guy/gal knows his/her onions

I Really hope keeper of the peak submitted all that online. The consultation is clearly stated as being carried out onlineg, with the supplied address for questions about the consultation (not for consultation responses).

Basically DCC could totally ignore that response as it didn’t come through the appropriate0 channel.

Thanks for update and all those working so hard on this.