NCN Design Criteria

Graham Harrison said:

I've just ridden a very short section of NCN 50 from Cookham to
Maidenhead for the first time. In many ways, it's brilliant;
totally off road, lovely day etc.

However, the "road" surface leaves much to be desired (IMHO).

What do you expect from an 'off-road' route?

--
Paul - [censored]

"Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Graham Harrison said:

I've just ridden a very short section of NCN 50 from Cookham to
Maidenhead for the first time. In many ways, it's brilliant;
totally off road, lovely day etc.

However, the "road" surface leaves much to be desired (IMHO).

What do you expect from an 'off-road' route?

--
Paul - [censored]

But, as far as I know, there is nothing in the NCN that is inherently "off
road". Surely, the whole point of an NCN is to provide an alternative to
the NRN (National Road Network) (and yes, I know that some of the NCN is on
road). So, should I always assume NCN is off road? That seems wrong.

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:24:12 +0100 someone who may be "Graham
Harrison" <[email hidden]> wrote
this:-

Quoted message said:

My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
designating an NCN.

The last time I checked they were still on their web site. However,
they and councils will ignore them whenever it suits.

Cycle paths in the countryside should be unlit, just like roads in
the countryside. Lighting them increases greenhouse gas emissions
for little or no gain. Those who use bikes in the countryside in the
dark take suitable lights with them.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Quoting Graham Harrison <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
designating an NCN. Do they make assumptions about the type of bike that
will be used? If so what are those assumptions?

If Sustrans make any promises about the surface on the NCN, they don't
keep them. Assume any or all of them might be mud and boulders.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Second Aponoia, July.

Graham Harrison said:

My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
designating an NCN. Do they make assumptions about the type of bike that
will be used? If so what are those assumptions?

I have to assume that they are designing for the "family leisure" market.

My nearest section of the NCN is on the Ribble Valley flood plain just
at the bottom of the hill from my house. For much of the year a five
metre long stretch of the route is either underwater or bog.

I have very nearly come to grief taking my hybrid along that route and
would not dream of letting my daughter anywhere near until she has
demonstrated that she can swim.

God knows what criteria Sustrans actually use but if they want to
encourage people to cycle then they've got an interesting approach.

Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Paul - censored said:

Just 'cos you don't want it doesn't mean it's not a valid point for other
cyclists to make. I assume that they were in the majority for the tarmacing
not to go ahead?. Maybe the other cyclists ride a different type of bike to
you and can cope through the winter.

Lack of a sealed surface is unlikely to be due to cyclists' opinions.
More likely reasons include aesthetics, land drainage, better for
horses, lack of money.

Colin McKensie

--
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.

iarocu said:

Other than where cycle "facilities" folow old routes like towpaths or
railways I hvae yet to see a well built cycle facility. Things which
are basic design considerations on the road like gentle gradients,
good sightlines, and good surfaces are ignored. Other than some towath/
railway routes the road is almost always the best option.

NCN 6 from Tonge to Swarkestone is quite good - old railway line with
compacted dust surface and didn't get too mushy in the wet although I
never tried it after weeks of rain.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to get maintained because at bridges
there's a sharp bump where the dust has worn away but the concrete of
the bridge has not.
When I last rode along there some contractors were building a ramp
from an overbridge to the cycle route and had raised the cycle path to
meet their ramp with well graded stone (so it was like riding on sand
and pretty dangerous) and a short section had been trashed by them
driving excavators and dumper trucks up and down a surface more used
to light bikes and pedestrians.

peter

On Jul 30, 11:27 am, "Graham Harrison"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But, as far as I know, there is nothing in the NCN that is inherently "off
road".

On the Sustrans maps "off road" routes include those on pavements
shared with pedestrians as well as those that don't follow the same
route as a road. "On road" routes seem to be those where you have to
ride in traffic.

peter

Colin McKenzie said:

Paul - censored said:

Just 'cos you don't want it doesn't mean it's not a valid point for other
cyclists to make. I assume that they were in the majority for the tarmacing
not to go ahead?. Maybe the other cyclists ride a different type of bike to
you and can cope through the winter.

Lack of a sealed surface is unlikely to be due to cyclists' opinions.
More likely reasons include aesthetics, land drainage, better for
horses, lack of money.

Colin McKensie

it does make it look like a road, and is rather jarring to look at.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

David Damerell said:

Quoting Graham Harrison <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
designating an NCN. Do they make assumptions about the type of bike that
will be used? If so what are those assumptions?

If Sustrans make any promises about the surface on the NCN, they don't
keep them. Assume any or all of them might be mud and boulders.

quite, the cycle track nr my folks wasn't going to be tarmack as that
would incourage motorbike use etc and would allow horse use. as most of
the gates are bloody hard work to get the bike though thats rather
fallen to the side.

the gates are stock proof which means that any larger bike is a tight
squeeze my old bike fits (just) though othr bikes would not. i suspect
there is some serious sucking up going on. as they rather put peoples
backs up so lot of the land owners have said "over my dead body"
attaully they didn't say that but trying to keep it familly friendly...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Ekul Namsob said:

Graham Harrison said:

My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
designating an NCN. Do they make assumptions about the type of bike that
will be used? If so what are those assumptions?

I have to assume that they are designing for the "family leisure" market.

My nearest section of the NCN is on the Ribble Valley flood plain just
at the bottom of the hill from my house. For much of the year a five
metre long stretch of the route is either underwater or bog.

I have very nearly come to grief taking my hybrid along that route and
would not dream of letting my daughter anywhere near until she has
demonstrated that she can swim.

God knows what criteria Sustrans actually use but if they want to
encourage people to cycle then they've got an interesting approach.

Cheers,
Luke

i don't think they know what they want. the cydach gorge one has parts
that are tarmack parts that are red gravel, parts that have horse gates
parts that are a tight fit for a bike, no recumbant or trailers or any
bike that is even slightly longer.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Paul - censored said:

Just 'cos you don't want it doesn't mean it's not a valid point for other
cyclists to make. I assume that they were in the majority for the tarmacing
not to go ahead?. Maybe the other cyclists ride a different type of bike to
you and can cope through the winter.

My commuter with 26.175 Marathons couldn't handle it, or rather it was
like riding through treacle and the wheels get caked in mud. I
wouldn't expect to ride a 25mm tyres on a towpath all year round. In
fact people just stop using the towpath to cycle when it goes boggy.
The point I made on that group was that another local
path in Dumbarton has a tarmac surface, is usable all year round and
the surface needs no maintainance. other than cutting the bushes on
each side back a couple of tmes a year .
As to the reason for not going ahead with tarmacing
i suspect the fact that would have meant investing cash has more to do
with it.

Iain

Graham Harrison said:

I've just ridden a very short section of NCN 50 from Cookham to Maidenhead
for the first time. In many ways, it's brilliant; totally off road, lovely
day etc.

However, the "road" surface leaves much to be desired (IMHO). It comes off
a metalled road through a metal stile with a shaped section to allow the
bike through onto a farm track. Grass up the middle; compacted earth where
the tractor wheels go, lots of stones. Then it takes a sharp left and the
surface is treacherous; stones, gravel, slippy to cross a stream. The
surface here is small concrete blocks with grass growing through a
(deliberate) hole in the middle of each block. The blocks are maybe 3
inches square. If you try to ride over the blocks the drop into each hole
is uncomfortable to say the least and the solid concrete at the joins is to
thin to ride along. There's another section of this a little further on
where the path turns south again. Then more slippy gravel.

Now, had I been riding a mountain bike, or even a hybrid it would probably
have been OK. However, I was on my Brompton.

My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
designating an NCN. Do they make assumptions about the type of bike that
will be used? If so what are those assumptions?

I have to assume that they are designing for the "family leisure" market.
I say that because as well as the surface I'd say the route is useless for
year round commuting for most people. As you may have gathered from the
description this is not an urban route. It goes across fields. It is
unlit. It took me about 15 minutes (riding slowly) to get between the two
towns; a brilliant commute time. However, I would be reluctant to use it
other than in daylight, mainly because of (my perceived) inefficiency of
cycle lighting. But then I'm not sure I'd want the route lit because it
goes through fields so I'm arguing against myself!

family leisure would seem it's target. they do normally make a point of
claiming kids can go to school etc via them, but the routes at least
ones i've seen are family leisure targeted some is location.

also sustrans are very disorgnised. a few years back one of my mums
friends was on the phone to them and they where going on about it being
good thing kids could ride to school along it, which the friend was
pointing out this was very unlikely. even though as sustrans lady where
correct in that it's all quite close. she hadn't looked at a map with
contors.

but that is location to be fair, it was never going to be a commute etc
only leisure. i used it yesturday to get to my folks which is probably
the closest it's ever going to get!

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Roger Merriman said:

family leisure would seem it's target. they do normally make a point of
claiming kids can go to school etc via them, but the routes at least
ones i've seen are family leisure targeted some is location.

So they should be called Susleis ;-) I agree what they do has nothing
to do with sustainable transport.

Tony

Roger Merriman said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Graham Harrison said:

My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
designating an NCN. Do they make assumptions about the type of bike that
will be used? If so what are those assumptions?

I have to assume that they are designing for the "family leisure" market.

My nearest section of the NCN is on the Ribble Valley flood plain just
at the bottom of the hill from my house. For much of the year a five
metre long stretch of the route is either underwater or bog.

I have very nearly come to grief taking my hybrid along that route and
would not dream of letting my daughter anywhere near until she has
demonstrated that she can swim.

God knows what criteria Sustrans actually use but if they want to
encourage people to cycle then they've got an interesting approach.

Cheers,
Luke

i don't think they know what they want. the cydach gorge one has parts
that are tarmack parts that are red gravel, parts that have horse gates
parts that are a tight fit for a bike, no recumbant or trailers or any
bike that is even slightly longer.

roger

I did the bottom bit from Govilon up to where it stops on the old
railway track - all tarmacked, but 2 mini cattle-grids might make it
tricky to get a recumbent through.

Tony Raven said:

Roger Merriman said:

family leisure would seem it's target. they do normally make a point of
claiming kids can go to school etc via them, but the routes at least
ones i've seen are family leisure targeted some is location.

So they should be called Susleis ;-) I agree what they do has nothing
to do with sustainable transport.

Tony

the bit that really anoyes is they quite rightly point out how lovely
the area is and how nice it is to ride though the area, and then do
there upmost to try to make it into suburban park drive.

lovely mulchy path, widened with a jcb and tarmacked, etc.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Marcus Red said:

Roger Merriman said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Graham Harrison <[email hidden]> wrote:

> My question is therefore what design criteria do Sustrans use when
> designating an NCN. Do they make assumptions about the type of bike that
> will be used? If so what are those assumptions?
>
> I have to assume that they are designing for the "family leisure" market.
My nearest section of the NCN is on the Ribble Valley flood plain just
at the bottom of the hill from my house. For much of the year a five
metre long stretch of the route is either underwater or bog.

I have very nearly come to grief taking my hybrid along that route and
would not dream of letting my daughter anywhere near until she has
demonstrated that she can swim.

God knows what criteria Sustrans actually use but if they want to
encourage people to cycle then they've got an interesting approach.

Cheers,
Luke

i don't think they know what they want. the cydach gorge one has parts
that are tarmack parts that are red gravel, parts that have horse gates
parts that are a tight fit for a bike, no recumbant or trailers or any
bike that is even slightly longer.

roger

I did the bottom bit from Govilon up to where it stops on the old
railway track - all tarmacked, but 2 mini cattle-grids might make it
tricky to get a recumbent through.

the bits further on up would require standing for quite a number of
bikes, ie bigger framed mounatin bikes or tourers.

the two bits are not likely to meet up. they only got the section after
the 2nd lot of tunnels as the old boy died.

ie after sending letter and gernrall trying to sugest that they might
beable to compulsry purchest etc. the land owners who just own land not
houses. have not unsuprisingly refused. which is effectivlty the end of
it.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Marcus Red said:

I did the bottom bit from Govilon up to where it stops on the old
railway track - all tarmacked, but 2 mini cattle-grids might make it
tricky to get a recumbent through.

Why?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, it's just that I've never had a
problem riding a recumbent over a cattle grid.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

Danny Colyer said:

Marcus Red said:

I did the bottom bit from Govilon up to where it stops on the old
railway track - all tarmacked, but 2 mini cattle-grids might make it
tricky to get a recumbent through.

Why?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, it's just that I've never had a
problem riding a recumbent over a cattle grid.

i wouldn't of thought there would be any problem as that bit is supossed
to allow hourses though.

but i've not been there for a while now.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com