Connect2



In article <[email protected]>, Simon Brooke wrote:
>in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Although with Connect2 we have a starnge situation. It isn't "you
>> can 50 million for cycling, do the best you can", it's "you have 50
>> million for these specific infrastructure projects, or nothing at
>> all". I'd sooner have a not perfectly spent 50M than nothing.
>
>I'm going to back out of this discussion. I hold to my general opinion that
>Sustrans is a waste of perfectly good oxygen, but in the specific cases of
>the Connect2 schemes those I've looked at do on the whole look sensible.
>
>However, I don't think money spent 'on cycling' which doesn't actually do
>cyclists any good is a good thing in itself.

I'd agree. But if the Connect2 schemes are sensible on the whole, then
they will do cyclists some good.


> On the contrary, the
>politicians and the media will tend to feel that cyclists have had their
>share, and we'll go back to the back of the queue. Which seeing that I
>feel there is an urgent need for quality, free or low cost, road training
>for new and returning adult cyclists, is something that concerns me.

But on the other hand if we effectively turn down the 50M on offer for
infrastructure, they might decide that cycling is a low priority for the
voters as a whole, rather than offering money for better training instead.
 
tam wrote:
>>Most training providers in London work on a ratio of one instructor
>>for every 3 pupils. This is prohibitively expensive for most London
>>Boroughs.
>
> This is prohibitively expensive full stop.
> Public funded schemes will not be viable at this ratio.
> It will have to be increased to above 1 to 10 at least.
> Although many in the treasury would argue it would have to be 1 to 30.

How do you think people are taught to play musical instrumnets?
That seems to get funded somehow.

For on-road child cycle training, there's a rather direct relationship
between the number of hours per child and the number of children per
instructor. In other words, to be effective, several instructor hours
per child are required, regardless of group size. So the only ways to
cut costs are to pay the instructors less or deliver ineffective
training.

The amounts spent on cycle training by London Boroughs are typically
10-20% of what they spend on London Cycle Network plus infrastructure
- which is itself a tiny fraction of overall transport spending.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
 
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:37:30 +0000, Colin McKenzie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>tam wrote:
>>>Most training providers in London work on a ratio of one instructor
>>>for every 3 pupils. This is prohibitively expensive for most London
>>>Boroughs.
>>
>> This is prohibitively expensive full stop.
>> Public funded schemes will not be viable at this ratio.
>> It will have to be increased to above 1 to 10 at least.
>> Although many in the treasury would argue it would have to be 1 to 30.
>
>How do you think people are taught to play musical instrumnets?
>That seems to get funded somehow.

Recorder lessons, where they happen, are very often whole class: one
teacher and thirty pupils. Other instruments, harmonica, violin and
guitar might be in groups of 2 - 6 children. However, it is more
usual for instruments like the piano to be taught one-one. Having
said that, it would be exceptional for a whole class to be learning to
play the piano funded by the local education authority.

>For on-road child cycle training, there's a rather direct relationship
>between the number of hours per child and the number of children per
>instructor. In other words, to be effective, several instructor hours
>per child are required, regardless of group size. So the only ways to
>cut costs are to pay the instructors less or deliver ineffective
>training.

Yes - to a degree. However, much instructor time is taken up with
group management (or discipline). By using school staff in a
partnership with instructors you take the discipline problems away
from the instructor and into the hands of school staff so the
instructor can focus on delivering the training to larger groups.

>The amounts spent on cycle training by London Boroughs are typically
>10-20% of what they spend on London Cycle Network plus infrastructure
>- which is itself a tiny fraction of overall transport spending.

I surprised it's as much as that!

I think that Lewisham's cycle training budget is about £100,000. The
total cycling budget is £1.03m, well over half of which goes on LCN+.
 
wafflycat wrote on 28/11/2007 23:03:
> "Peter Scandrett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote on 28/11/2007 21:40:
>>> tam ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>> >> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
>>>
>>> It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
>>> spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
>>> already have been squandered.
>>
>> I thought this was extra lottery money being talked about? Noone's
>> budget - the council, highways agency or anyone else's...?
>
> Do you think that Joe Public is going to actually notice the difference?
> It is still Joe Public's money being spent.

I like to think that they would, but you're probably right. Annoying,
really; although I disagree that it's 'Joe Public's' money being spent
as the lottery's not even vaguely governmental.

Peter

--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > I came to my "right answer" the same way as I did for helmets - by
> > studying the evidence and finding my original beliefs had no evidential
> > basis. You seem to have come to your answer through anecdote and common
> > sense. If you have the evidence that cycle facilities significantly
> > increases cycling levels and make it safer please share it.
>
> I too started out from the point of view that all cycle facilities were
> necessarily a good thing. Increasingly it's become obvious that most are
> not - a good proportion of them are dangerous, and of those that are not
> dangerous the majority are not useful. So I went through a long period of
> thinking 'no facilities are useful'.
>
some of the ones around kingston can be quite "intresting" to follow,
have to say. though some parts of the "routes" can be useful if only so
you don't have to go all the way around the one way system.

> But I've seen a few counter examples. The East Kilbride cyclepaths, though
> empty, really do make it easy and convenient to reach any part of the
> town, and, at least in the central area, without any at-grade crossings of
> roads and, significantly, without any serious gradients. The swimming pool
> bridge in Dumfries provides a genuinely useful crossing of the river,
> while the Caledonian Cyclepath (also Dumfries) brings people in from the
> northern suburbs with only one at-grade road crossing (and that one is
> unnecessary).
>
> So now I'm of the opinion that new cycle facilities need to have strong
> justification.

the problems on the whole, is on road ones on the whole have a tendecy
to try to push bikes into the gutter onto the path of paint lines and to
the left of left turning traffic. and quite frankly the truely bizarre
way you get a few feet then it stops only reappear a bit later, on the
other side of the road..

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Nov 30, 7:36 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > David, I've possibly overstated my case here. Where a cycle route provides
> > > a genuine saving of distance or of gradient or an alternative to a busy
> > > and complex junction, /and/ is well surfaced and lit and swept to the same
> > > standard as nearby roads, and there is a strategic reason for putting a
> > > link there (i.e. a substantial population who could use the link if it
> > > were built, whether or not they currently cycle), and where the link
> > > crosses any existing roads at grade, there are traffic lights giving at
> > > least equal priority to cycle traffic, then I'm happy to support it.
> >
> > You forgot to include the gritting in winter when its icy. Cambridge
> > spent millions on a cyclist bridge but have said they cannot afford the
> > costs of gritting it in winter. So in winter its left icy.
>
> This is a recurring issue. They stick up silly gates and then use them
> as an argument against gritting as it costs much more to have to hand
> grit them.
> We have ongoing battles at the local council to get the key commuter
> routes gritted (and even pavements - the response I got last time I
> complained was that they found it better to let the sun take the frost
> off. I did point out that when most people were heading to school or
> work, the sun was barely up. The roads are gritted early, the
> pavements too late.
>
> ..d

council's do tend to differ greatly in road clearing, where i grew up
you could see where the boundry stops.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
In message <1i8i9zt.qmhknp172o9zjN%[email protected]>
[email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:

> the truely bizarre
> way you get a few feet then it stops only reappear a bit later, on the
> other side of the road..

So abrupt you can't believe it is unsigned.

( and you might be referring to the farcility you can discern part way
beteeen FW Evans and The Odeon, Kingston-upon-Thames?)
--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.
 
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 1, 2:32 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
>
> > If the bits which are unusable were removed from the network until such
> > time as they were made usable, then the network would be greatly
> > improved. As it stands, I don't trust the signs to take me anywhere
> > off-road safely and sensibly.
>
> If you removed all the non-ideal bits from the network you would not
> have a network. It would be series of disjointed cycle paths and bits
> of road.

I'm not suggesting the removal of non-ideal bits. I'm suggesting the
removal of unusable bits.

> So to go from A to B you would have to do the 'find a map and plan the
> whole thing' game every time.

Whereas right now cyclists have to consider quite how far they might go
before they have to turn around as the route may be blocked by narrow
gates over which they would need to lift a bike or it may be underwater.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:24:43 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>I'm not suggesting the removal of non-ideal bits. I'm suggesting the
>removal of unusable bits.

Again you catagorise all bikes and cyclists in the same packet. What
might be unusabe for a road bike may well be usable for a mountain
bike. And a busy road that might be unusable for a new cyclist might
be usable for an experienced cyclist.

>> So to go from A to B you would have to do the 'find a map and plan the
>> whole thing' game every time.
>
>Whereas right now cyclists have to consider quite how far they might go
>before they have to turn around as the route may be blocked by narrow
>gates over which they would need to lift a bike or it may be underwater.
 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <1i8i9zt.qmhknp172o9zjN%[email protected]>
> [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>
> > the truely bizarre
> > way you get a few feet then it stops only reappear a bit later, on the
> > other side of the road..
>
> So abrupt you can't believe it is unsigned.
>
> ( and you might be referring to the farcility you can discern part way
> beteeen FW Evans and The Odeon, Kingston-upon-Thames?)

heh yes, it's quite something is it not.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
On Dec 2, 7:25 pm, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> > ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > > I came to my "right answer" the same way as I did for helmets - by
> > > studying the evidence and finding my original beliefs had no evidential
> > > basis. You seem to have come to your answer through anecdote and common
> > > sense. If you have the evidence that cycle facilities significantly
> > > increases cycling levels and make it safer please share it.
>
> > I too started out from the point of view that all cycle facilities were
> > necessarily a good thing. Increasingly it's become obvious that most are
> > not - a good proportion of them are dangerous, and of those that are not
> > dangerous the majority are not useful. So I went through a long period of
> > thinking 'no facilities are useful'.
>
> some of the ones around kingston can be quite "intresting" to follow,
> have to say. though some parts of the "routes" can be useful if only so
> you don't have to go all the way around the one way system.
>
> > But I've seen a few counter examples. The East Kilbride cyclepaths, though
> > empty, really do make it easy and convenient to reach any part of the
> > town, and, at least in the central area, without any at-grade crossings of
> > roads and, significantly, without any serious gradients. The swimming pool
> > bridge in Dumfries provides a genuinely useful crossing of the river,
> > while the Caledonian Cyclepath (also Dumfries) brings people in from the
> > northern suburbs with only one at-grade road crossing (and that one is
> > unnecessary).
>
> > So now I'm of the opinion that new cycle facilities need to have strong
> > justification.
>
> the problems on the whole, is on road ones on the whole have a tendecy
> to try to push bikes into the gutter onto the path of paint lines and to
> the left of left turning traffic. and quite frankly the truely bizarre
> way you get a few feet then it stops only reappear a bit later, on the
> other side of the road..

Most of Kingston's cycle facilities went in during the mid eighties
when the one way system was rerouted. They come straight out of the
'**** cycle farcilities 101' handbook. In fact, an urban archaeologist
could probably date a cycle facility purely by it's design. FWIW I
grew up in Kingston (OK, New Malden) but was cycling to school in
Kingston and to the playing fields in Hampton Court in the bad old
days of the old one way system, so I am quite familiar with how it
used to be and how it is now (my parents still live there). There are
some useful facilities in Kingston, for example by the station there
are some cut throughs that run contraflow to the one way system. There
are the usual cut throughs onto otherwise cul-de-sac roads (the old
London Road by the red telephone boxes being a case in point.)

Now, most of these facilities are ill thought out and not used - the
stupid jug handles by the crossings and so on, but there are good
facilities - the many bike racks (compared to the desert it used to
be), the contraflow in Fife Road and other examples.

What is remarkable is the huge increase in cycling in Kingston. From a
few daft buggers like me pedalling through many lanes of rush hour
traffic, to the place being quite packed with bikes. Some of that is
down to the infrastructure being more friendly. Now, as a competent
cyclist I don't need that infrastructure. I am relatively happy on the
road. But I do accept that there are many other cyclists out there,
perhaps the majority, who do perceive that infrastructure as
necessary, however misguided that may be, and will not cycle without
it.

...d
 
On Dec 2, 10:59 pm, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In message <1i8i9zt.qmhknp172o9zjN%[email protected]>
> > [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>
> > > the truely bizarre
> > > way you get a few feet then it stops only reappear a bit later, on the
> > > other side of the road..
>
> > So abrupt you can't believe it is unsigned.
>
> > ( and you might be referring to the farcility you can discern part way
> > beteeen FW Evans and The Odeon, Kingston-upon-Thames?)
>
> heh yes, it's quite something is it not.

By that time I am on the road so I have never really noticed it. It is
a case of poor impelmentation though, and of the early days of the
london cycle network where to get anything done at all was difficult.

It's not very clear on google maps, but I think the reason it crosses
the road there is to take the road on the right as one of the
recommended routes through Norbiton to New Malden. Not a route I would
ever have put together myself being somewhat junction filled, though
reasonably direct.

The sad thing is that whilst cycling in Kingston as a whole is
massively up, cycling amongst the youth is still way down.

...d

...d
 
Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:24:43 GMT,
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> >I'm not suggesting the removal of non-ideal bits. I'm suggesting the
> >removal of unusable bits.
>
> Again you catagorise all bikes and cyclists in the same packet. What
> might be unusabe for a road bike may well be usable for a mountain
> bike. And a busy road that might be unusable for a new cyclist might
> be usable for an experienced cyclist.

Do you honestly think that a stretch of route that is frequently
submerged beneath a river is usable? When it's not submerged, non-expert
cyclists risk falling into the river where the path becomes bog.

I'm not categorising 'all bikes and cyclists in the same packet' at all,
unless that packet is 'not boat'.

What is the point of the NCN? You seem to have ignored my description of
my local Sustrans farcility. It's flipping dangerous.

If the word 'again' is to be used in this discussion then please let me
use it to suggest that again you ignore my concerns that perhaps
Sustrans ought to ensure that their paths are at least usable by
non-expert non-mountain bikers.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 7:25 pm, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
> > > ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> > > > I came to my "right answer" the same way as I did for helmets - by
> > > > studying the evidence and finding my original beliefs had no evidential
> > > > basis. You seem to have come to your answer through anecdote and common
> > > > sense. If you have the evidence that cycle facilities significantly
> > > > increases cycling levels and make it safer please share it.
> >
> > > I too started out from the point of view that all cycle facilities were
> > > necessarily a good thing. Increasingly it's become obvious that most are
> > > not - a good proportion of them are dangerous, and of those that are not
> > > dangerous the majority are not useful. So I went through a long period of
> > > thinking 'no facilities are useful'.
> >
> > some of the ones around kingston can be quite "intresting" to follow,
> > have to say. though some parts of the "routes" can be useful if only so
> > you don't have to go all the way around the one way system.
> >
> > > But I've seen a few counter examples. The East Kilbride cyclepaths, though
> > > empty, really do make it easy and convenient to reach any part of the
> > > town, and, at least in the central area, without any at-grade crossings of
> > > roads and, significantly, without any serious gradients. The swimming pool
> > > bridge in Dumfries provides a genuinely useful crossing of the river,
> > > while the Caledonian Cyclepath (also Dumfries) brings people in from the
> > > northern suburbs with only one at-grade road crossing (and that one is
> > > unnecessary).
> >
> > > So now I'm of the opinion that new cycle facilities need to have strong
> > > justification.
> >
> > the problems on the whole, is on road ones on the whole have a tendecy
> > to try to push bikes into the gutter onto the path of paint lines and to
> > the left of left turning traffic. and quite frankly the truely bizarre
> > way you get a few feet then it stops only reappear a bit later, on the
> > other side of the road..
>
> Most of Kingston's cycle facilities went in during the mid eighties
> when the one way system was rerouted. They come straight out of the
> '**** cycle farcilities 101' handbook. In fact, an urban archaeologist
> could probably date a cycle facility purely by it's design. FWIW I
> grew up in Kingston (OK, New Malden) but was cycling to school in
> Kingston and to the playing fields in Hampton Court in the bad old
> days of the old one way system, so I am quite familiar with how it
> used to be and how it is now (my parents still live there). There are
> some useful facilities in Kingston, for example by the station there
> are some cut throughs that run contraflow to the one way system. There
> are the usual cut throughs onto otherwise cul-de-sac roads (the old
> London Road by the red telephone boxes being a case in point.)
>
the bridge i think is attaully the most dangerous. ie coming into
kingston your placed onto the double yellows which may be wet etc.

going away you join the road just after the hampton wick roundabout just
before a zerbra crossing, trying to turn to see any traffic...

> Now, most of these facilities are ill thought out and not used - the
> stupid jug handles by the crossings and so on, but there are good
> facilities - the many bike racks (compared to the desert it used to
> be), the contraflow in Fife Road and other examples.

lots of bike parking and such, which is good but yes not thought out as
a whole.
>
> What is remarkable is the huge increase in cycling in Kingston. From a
> few daft buggers like me pedalling through many lanes of rush hour
> traffic, to the place being quite packed with bikes. Some of that is
> down to the infrastructure being more friendly. Now, as a competent
> cyclist I don't need that infrastructure. I am relatively happy on the
> road. But I do accept that there are many other cyclists out there,
> perhaps the majority, who do perceive that infrastructure as
> necessary, however misguided that may be, and will not cycle without
> it.
>
think it rather shows that cycling at least in built up areas is up,
with or with out the pleasures of the cycle lanes, to be honest bushy
park and richmound park are also crowded with bikes.

> ..d

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Dec 2, 10:59 pm, [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In message <1i8i9zt.qmhknp172o9zjN%[email protected]>
> > > [email protected] (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> >
> > > > the truely bizarre
> > > > way you get a few feet then it stops only reappear a bit later, on the
> > > > other side of the road..
> >
> > > So abrupt you can't believe it is unsigned.
> >
> > > ( and you might be referring to the farcility you can discern part way
> > > beteeen FW Evans and The Odeon, Kingston-upon-Thames?)
> >
> > heh yes, it's quite something is it not.
>
> By that time I am on the road so I have never really noticed it. It is
> a case of poor impelmentation though, and of the early days of the
> london cycle network where to get anything done at all was difficult.
>
it took me a few goes to work out what on earth it was doing...

> It's not very clear on google maps, but I think the reason it crosses
> the road there is to take the road on the right as one of the
> recommended routes through Norbiton to New Malden. Not a route I would
> ever have put together myself being somewhat junction filled, though
> reasonably direct.
>
from evans to oden on the richmound road.

you take the bus lane then, not the cycle lane as thats one
way...(though most do) and then pull off to the left, either using the
crossing and to join up with the two way cycle lane past the station.

or follow the cycle lane into candbury park road.
> The sad thing is that whilst cycling in Kingston as a whole is
> massively up, cycling amongst the youth is still way down.
>
> ..d
>
> ..d

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:02:50 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>What is the point of the NCN? You seem to have ignored my description of
>my local Sustrans farcility. It's flipping dangerous.

OK My apologies. I cannot comment on specific sections of the NCN
about which I have no knowledge. My comments are more general.
 
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:22:58 -0800 (PST), David Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What is remarkable is the huge increase in cycling in Kingston. From a
>few daft buggers like me pedalling through many lanes of rush hour
>traffic, to the place being quite packed with bikes. Some of that is
>down to the infrastructure being more friendly. Now, as a competent
>cyclist I don't need that infrastructure. I am relatively happy on the
>road. But I do accept that there are many other cyclists out there,
>perhaps the majority, who do perceive that infrastructure as
>necessary, however misguided that may be, and will not cycle without
>it.

Kingston also has one of the best child cycle training programmes in
the London Boroughs.

http://www.kingston.gov.uk/cyclist_training
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> Do you honestly think that a stretch of route that is frequently
> submerged beneath a river is usable? When it's not submerged, non-expert
> cyclists risk falling into the river where the path becomes bog.

Have alook at one of the Sustrans route maps and it point sout
obstacles like this, and access gates etc., so you can tell in advance
what's coming.

> What is the point of the NCN?

There's a clue in the name.

> If the word 'again' is to be used in this discussion then please let me
> use it to suggest that again you ignore my concerns that perhaps
> Sustrans ought to ensure that their paths are at least usable by
> non-expert non-mountain bikers.

I complained to them about an alternative bit of NCN1 we tried just N of
Queensferry, taking a "scenic route" rather than the other, more direct
branch alternative, so clearly I don't think everything is all right.
However, one should bear in mind that it takes a remarkably big set of
leaks to really sink a ship, and the actuality is that non-expert
mountain bikers can and do use rather large amounts on it.

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
In news:[email protected],
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

> So the numpties in Camden are wrong /and therefore/, by
> association, the punters on Tayside /must/ be wrong too.
>
> Or not...


Could be dangerous...

"Beautiful Cycleway Bridge of the Silvery Tay!
With your numerous arches and pillars in so grand array,
And your central girders, which seem to the eye
To be almost towering to the sky"

Me -> Coat

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
It is impossible to eat a banana without looking like a tw*t.
 
Dave Larrington wrote:

> Could be dangerous...
>
> "Beautiful Cycleway Bridge of the Silvery Tay!
> With your numerous arches and pillars in so grand array,
> And your central girders, which seem to the eye
> To be almost towering to the sky"

Though we have now hopefully learned the Bard of Patons Lane's lesson
that buttresses are in order. Viz:

"your central girders would not have given way,
At least many sensible men do say,
Had they been supported on each side with buttresses,
At least many sensible men confesses,
For the stronger we our houses do build,
The less chance we have of being killed"

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Connect2 phone voting
Replies
37
Views
785
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
M
Sustrans Connect2 projects, vote early vote often!
Replies
7
Views
482
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
Top Bottom Back