A3 Hindhead

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

From the AUK mailing list, in case you're interested

Quoted message said:

Only two days are left to save a road that was once described as the cyclist's "favourite route
from London." Write your objection to: [email hidden] . (So that y'all can email
them without all coming with the same Yahoo groups header - looks less like a put-up job - I
repeat that address thus: a3hindhead AT highways.gsi.gov.uk ). Your objection must arrive by the
9th of Jan, so do it TODAY.

Oh I wish I'd read this before. Today IS the 9th of Jan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For the background read on:

Southern cyclists may be dimly aware that plans are afoot to build a tunnel for the A3 under
Hindhead. Great! We'll be able to use the old road again: that well-graded climb (a steady 1 in
20) or whooping descent with fantastic views across the Devil's Punchbowl! (This bit of A3, by
the way, is a vital mising link in the local lanes network.)

That's what normally happens: a bypass is built, saving motorists time and giving the rest of us
our road back. That's what was going to happen here. The old road was to be narrowed to the
width of a country lane so as to blend with the landscape, but keeping the solid foundations and
excellent cycling surface.

Then the National Trust spoilt it. They want rid not only of the traffic but also the road.
Every last trace of it: for a distance of one mile around the rim of the Punchbowl. Since NT
owns the land where the tunnel entrances will be, and since NT land cannot be taken without
their permission or an Act of Parliament, they can hold the country to ransom over it. That is
precisely what they are doing. Despite the Highways Agencies consultants having proved that
whilst it may look a bit prettier to remove every last trace of the road, this was not the best
solution for countryside users, wildlife and the environment, at the very last moment the
Highways Agency caved in to the NT's blackmail.

This saddens me no end. The NT is so political, I joined as a life member 15 years ago to support it
and am totally disillusioned. But then I've never attended an AGM so it's party my own fault.
There's too many crusades to participate in!

Another problem at Hindhead. Fancy removing such an obvious cycling route. There are plenty of paths
for MTB users to use instead provided they don't get caught by the rangers, some are even
bridleways. But no swooping downhill, what a classic that bit of old A3 coucld have been.

Isn't SUSTRANS on the case? SUStrans seems to focus on these fully routes it's planned and other
than that, unless it's a route to a school, they don't seem to get involved. (Hoping that
comment is wrong)

We've been pretty much banned fcrom orienteering on the hindhead areas. The approach to the tunnel
will devastate the best bit of the area but would have allowed us to join up the 2 bits of the area
into a top class area, but with a numbers limit of 75 it's a non starter.

Ah well the new road will make it easier for us to drive to other places further afield where we're
still allowed to ride bikes and run cross country

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The published plans propose an alternative route for cyclists along an old trackway on the ridge
above the section of A3 that is to be buried, before dropping very steeply down to meet the
remaining section. It has been conceded that some kind of surface will have to be provided for
road-bikes. We all know what that means: tyre-chewing gravel or lumpy tarmac at best. This
surface will nevertheless destroy the appeal of that old track for mountain-biking. What a waste
of public money: to destroy one road then build another adjacent that pleases nobody!

Once the barrier of traffic is removed (that presently divides this track from the car park)
this track will become most popular with visitors on foot, since it leads directly to the
interesting Sailor's Stone and the highest point in the area, with the best views. These
pedestrians will, of course, walk on the cycling surface rather than the mucky strip that is to
be left for horses. Even worse than the steep hill and second-rate (if we're lucky) surface,
this scheme is tailor made to cause conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Neither cyclists,
nor horseriders, nor pedestrians really want this, especially since an easy way of minimising
such conflict already exists.

The NT seems hell bent on engineering this sort of conflict. They just want to keep out as many
people as possible. The only answer is BUY A CAR AND PUT YOUR BIKE ON TOP OF IT AND DRIVE SOMEWHERE
REMOTE WHERE BIKES ARE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED (isn't it noticeable how all the money spent on these
bike facilities always seems to be in the areas that are hardest to reach by pub trans)

Simon Beck (with another touch of irony)

Sorry I didn't read this in time to act, keep up the good work Chris

"

The link given in the other msg to the highways agency failed on my system (FTI as they say) so I
wrote to the national trust instead

Here's what I sent

Dear Sir

I haven't much time for what is probably a lost cause but I would like to express my great
disappointment that the NT is apparently in favor of removing the old A3 trunk road round the edge
of the Devil's punch bowl after the tunnel has been opened.

This would be a splended cycling route, far better than having to follow the line of the older route
over the top of the common with its steep hill and other problems (having to share with large
numbers of walkers horses etc.)

The A3 is becoming an excellent long distance cycling route, with the gradual extention of cycle
paths alongside it and existence of bits of country lane here and there to avoid the main road, and
the bit at Hindhead could, for no cost, become one of the highlights, if only the NT would allow it.

Surely the NT should be doing all it can to encourage the use of bikes (and especially the sort of
bikes that can only be ridden on tarmac)? Forcing cyclists to ride up steep hills (and maybe on poor
surfaces, not sure what the design specs are for the proposed alternative to the present ideal
route) will only encourage them to buy MTBs instead, and having bought their MTBs they will then be
tempted to ride them over ancient monuments, old earthbanks, tumuli, and along animal tracks, taking
short cuts destroying heather, plant life, frightening birds (especially during the nesting season)
inadvertently spreading bracken spores, rhododendron seeds etc wherever they go, and generally
trashing the landscape.

So please do think again over whether the proposal to remove the old road is really in the best
interests of the NT or its members or the general public.

Yours sincerely

Simon Beck

Life member # 030 815 700

"Simon Beck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Oh I wish I'd read this before. Today IS the 9th of Jan.

Quick! You've just got time.

Simon Beck said:

Quoted message said:

will only encourage them to buy MTBs instead, and having bought their MTBs they will then be
tempted to ride them over ancient monuments, old earthbanks, tumuli, and along animal tracks,
taking short cuts destroying heather, plant life, frightening birds (especially during the
nesting season) inadvertently spreading bracken spores, rhododendron seeds etc wherever they go,
and generally trashing the landscape.

Ummm, an interesting take by a member of one part of the cycling community on members of
another part.

Personally I'd file a letter showing such intolerant attitudes where it belongs - in the bin! I
certainly would not regard it's special pleading for the author's favoured group as deserving much
of a hearing. pk

"Simon Beck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"

The link given in the other msg to the highways agency failed on my system (FTI as they say) so I
wrote to the national trust instead

Here's what I sent

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

Forcing cyclists to ride up steep hills (and maybe on poor surfaces, not sure what the design
specs are for the proposed alternative to the present ideal route) will only encourage them to
buy MTBs instead, and having bought their MTBs they will then be tempted to ride them over
ancient monuments, old earthbanks, tumuli, and along animal tracks, taking short cuts destroying
heather, plant life, frightening birds (especially during the nesting season) inadvertently
spreading bracken spores, rhododendron seeds etc wherever they go, and generally trashing the
landscape.

WTF did you put that for ? Lets just re-enforce any anti-MTB sentiment within the NT shall
we, jeeez....

Simon Beck said:

Surely the NT should be doing all it can to encourage the use of bikes (and especially the sort of
bikes that can only be ridden on tarmac)? Forcing cyclists to ride up steep hills (and maybe on
poor surfaces, not sure what the design specs are for the proposed alternative to the present
ideal route) will only encourage them to buy MTBs instead, and having bought their MTBs they will
then be tempted to ride them over ancient monuments, old earthbanks, tumuli, and along animal
tracks, taking short cuts destroying heather, plant life, frightening birds (especially during the
nesting season) inadvertently spreading bracken spores, rhododendron seeds etc wherever they go,
and generally trashing the landscape.

With friends like you who needs enemies

Tony

"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh I wish I'd read this before. Today IS the 9th of Jan.

Quick! You've just got time.

I've sent e-mails to a couple of contact addresses I found on the HA website

(The link in the version of your previous msg that was contained in the version of your msg that was
displayed in my version of internet explorer running on the version of windows 98 running on my 5yo
pc produced a 404 error or similar)

FTI, as they say.

Here's a version of what I sent (This is the version I sent to the NT, there was a modified version
that went to the HA)

..............

Dear Sir

I haven't much time for what is probably a lost cause but I would like to express my great
disappointment that the NT is apparently in favor of removing the old A3 trunk road round the edge
of the Devil's punch bowl after the tunnel has been opened.

This would be a splended cycling route, far better than having to follow the line of the older route
over the top of the common with its steep hill and other problems (having to share with large
numbers of walkers horses etc.)

The A3 is becoming an excellent long distance cycling route, with the gradual extention of cycle
paths alongside it and existence of bits of country lane here and there to avoid the main road, and
the bit at Hindhead could, for no cost, become one of the highlights, if only the NT would allow it.

Surely the NT should be doing all it can to encourage the use of bikes (and especially the sort of
bikes that can only be ridden on tarmac)? Forcing cyclists to ride up steep hills (and maybe on poor
surfaces, not sure what the design specs are for the proposed alternative to the present ideal
route) will only encourage them to buy MTBs instead, and having bought their MTBs they will then be
tempted to ride them over ancient monuments, old earthbanks, tumuli, and along animal tracks, taking
short cuts destroying heather, plant life, frightening birds (especially during the nesting season)
inadvertently spreading bracken spores, rhododendron seeds etc wherever they go, and generally
trashing the landscape.

So please do think again over whether the proposal to remove the old road is really in the best
interests of the NT or its members or the general public.

Yours sincerely

Simon Beck

Life member # 030 815 700

"Just zis Guy

As you said, Guy, the alternative to the present A3 (which is a 1920s? style bit of roadbuilding
that replaced the earlier route over the top) is the old route over the top.

Actually I thought they should reinstate this as the southbound carriageway of the A3 and not spend
that GBP110M on the tunnel, but then I'm one of the minority of motorists that actually slows down
for bends instead of acting as if I've got the right to do a steady 70+ mph, ....rant...

<snip>

Once having ridden up the steep hill on whatever surface is provided, most likely a layer of NT
environmentally correct compound, which in practice seems to consist of a mixture of gravel ,horse
and dog manure, with diagonal wooden ridges at 15m intervals, you will have to ride the present
grotty pot-holed track which the general public are /were ( most recent visit, admittedly years ago)
allowed to drive along.

Let's hope they see sense, what is the point of SUSTrans when this is going on, I can't believe
SUSTrans aren't already on the case??????? BUT then I can't believe SUSTrans hasn't got a proposed
route thru Bracknell AFAIK. Sure I've said all this b4 somewhere

Anyway, maybe the msgs I've sent will find their way to the right ppl.

Simon Beck

BTW anyone interested in helping with the development of a pan-UK network of cycling routes to be
disseminated on the internet? Wish I'd got involved with Sustrans at the start, I think their
numbering system is cac and so many problems with their routes........ I bet they must have so many
arguments over all that!

"Just zis Guy

As you said, Guy, the alternative to the present A3 (which is a 1920s? style bit of roadbuilding
that replaced the earlier route over the top) is the old route over the top.

Actually I thought they should reinstate this as the southbound carriageway of the A3 and not spend
that GBP110M on the tunnel, but then I'm one of the minority of motorists that actually slows down
for bends instead of acting as if I've got the right to do a steady 70+ mph, ....rant...

<snip>

Once having ridden up the steep hill on whatever surface is provided, most likely a layer of NT
environmentally correct compound, which in practice seems to consist of a mixture of gravel ,horse
and dog manure, with diagonal wooden ridges at 15m intervals, you will have to ride the present
grotty pot-holed track which the general public are /were ( most recent visit, admittedly years ago)
allowed to drive along.

Let's hope they see sense, what is the point of SUSTrans when this is going on, I can't believe
SUSTrans aren't already on the case??????? BUT then I can't believe SUSTrans hasn't got a proposed
route thru Bracknell AFAIK. Sure I've said all this b4 somewhere

Anyway, maybe the msgs I've sent will find their way to the right ppl.

Simon Beck

BTW anyone interested in helping with the development of a pan-UK network of cycling routes to be
disseminated on the internet? Wish I'd got involved with Sustrans at the start, I think their
numbering system is cac and so many problems with their routes........ I bet they must have so many
arguments over all that!

"PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Simon Beck said:

Quoted message said:

will only encourage them to buy MTBs instead, and having bought their MTBs they will then be
tempted to ride them over ancient monuments, old earthbanks, tumuli, and along animal tracks,
taking short cuts destroying heather, plant life, frightening birds (especially during the
nesting season) inadvertently spreading bracken spores, rhododendron seeds etc wherever they
go, and generally trashing the landscape.

Ummm, an interesting take by a member of one part of the cycling community on members of
another part.

Personally I'd file a letter showing such intolerant attitudes where it belongs - in the bin! I
certainly would not regard it's special pleading for the author's favoured group as deserving much
of a hearing. pk

That bit was meant somewhat tongue in cheek, although I'm not sure whether the NT is intelligent
enough realise that

Actually I think a lot of them are. Most of them. They'd also know that there are few if any tumuli,
hill forts (etc) on Hindhead Common. I can't find any on my version of the OS map and I don't recall
any from when I produced the orienteering map. The problem the NT leadership has is the lobbies
within the NT. And too many will make any excuse to keep other ppl out, and th leadership has to try
to keep everyone happy.

Maybe I'd have made more effort to attend the most recent NT AGM had I known the A3 was finally
reaching the stage of deadlines, had I known of the ludicrous suggestion of totally obliterating the
present road (all this is assuming it's true).... trouble is, the A3 saga has been ongoing so long
now, it's 10 years since 1994 when I was surveying the orientering map at the same time as the
geophysical survey was being carried out. I'd taken my eye off the ball. I couldn't (recently) even
find anything on it on the 'roadie' NGs (the sort of NGs where msgs are posted reading ' I think
it's high time the A329(m) was extended into a complete ring round London crossing the Thames at
Rochester.....'😉

Simon Beck