Connect2

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

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

<snip><snip>
People seem to be talking about different things. I think there is a
distinction to be drawn between on-road and next-to-road cycle provision on
the one hand and completely-somewhere-else provision such as the
Bath-Bristol path or the Avenue Vert in France on the other.

Quoted message said:

-dan

On my 2007 summer tour down the Saone and Rhone, I travelled some 70 kms on
the Voie Verte -- south of Beanie to Macon. The route was well maintained,
easy cycling and fast. I killed hundreds of slugs. It was also empty of
cyclists -- I think I saw not more then about a dozen in all. So where were
they all?

I know where and probably why!

They were cycling on road.

Why -- because it was the most boring and featureless route I have travelled
on in a very long time. It also bypassed every village and town and on the
whole length I cycled it was only when I left the "voie" that I found a
refreshment spot. I suspect the many French cyclists decided they preferred,
as do I, the varied scenery, gradients, facilities and people that you meet on
road. I would not use it again if I travelled the same route ( which I will
not since I avoid repeating route on my summer tour)

I know also that in the area south of the Gironde passing through the forests
of Landes there a similar long stretches of cycle paths which are totally
divorced from the real world of roads and similarly devoid of facilities. I
travelled through there in 2004 but stuck to the roads -- where al least the
endless, monotonous Napoleonic avenues are lightened with the odd village and
town

Mind you it can be done properly! Try the Donau Radweg in Germany and Austria
in particular. My 2005 trip was excellent in every way and I cycled mainly on
the cycle way the whole time; but it goes through towns and villages and it
has kiosks and rest area all along the way -- and it is clean and well
maintained on a regular basis. I remember one spot where there had been some
minor vandalism and broken glass which I saw one evening. The next morning, as
I left the area and passed the same spot, it had already been cleaned and
repaired. It also has rights of way -- especially in urban areas where every
driveway and entrance/exit alongside and crossing the path, has to give way
the the Rad Weg.

So it can be done --- but not in England -- glass and other detritus on
cycle paths remains there for months and slowly gets ground into dust ( and
presumably into tyres too).

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Simon Brooke said:

There's certainly a lot of really nice riding on roads which have been
decorated with NCN stickers. But those roads were just as nice to ride
before the NCN stickers were added. Sustrans have done nothing to add
value to those roads, for cyclists.

is the wrong answer: ride from Aberdeen to Thurso without the signs and
you'll spend one helluva lot more time staring at maps. And compared to
the maps Sustrans make themselves, you'll need more of them and you'll
need to do more work with them, and you'll have less information of
direct relevance to you. All of that is of direct value and is the work
of Sustrans. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing by a long
way, is their work, and deserves due credit.

Quoted message said:

But, for example, following NCN7 from Creetown into Gatehouse of Fleet, you
get routed off a wide, quiet village street with a 30mph speed limit which
takes you past all the cafes and shops, and instead taken through a maze
of footpaths and back alleys and pedestrian bridges, with a number of 90
degree turns you simply would not be able to ride a tandem through.

That's not adding value. That's removing value - actively detracting from
the cycling experience.

Agreed, but again we're in the business of saying "well, that's [censored], so
by extension it's all [censored]!". Well, it isn't all [censored], and the bits of
it that are can be corrected without scuttling the whole ship.

Quoted message said:

descent from the old railway to the road at Creetown is too steep, is
under trees and is inadequately maintained, with leaves and mud on the
surface most of the time, leading to very hazardous braking.

There was a section on the Tayport -> Tay Bridge track that sounds just
like that. I remember one occasion when I cycled up it, put the brakes
on at the top... and slid back down the gravel with the wheels locked!
How [censored] is that? *Deeply* [censored], but go back now and it's good tarmac
at a much more sensible gradient. Moral of the story: broken things can
often be fixed, it is not always necessary to throw them away.
Around my immediate locality I've lambasted the council for an absurd
"facility" with mucho paint that adds to danger and riding time, but the
last cycle route they put in goes up a road suggested to them by
cyclists and it does it with signs but no paint, again just like we
suggested. We need to get away from the mentality that's it bound to be
[censored] and must be written off, it really doesn't help anyone.

Quoted message said:

One thing about their policy militates against them being able to produce
good routes: an NCN route may not cross a 'major road' at grade, but
there's no funding for underpasses or flyovers.

No money for bottleneck removal. Cyclists being encouraged to vote
against just the sort of scheme that can pay for strategic bottleneck
removal. I wonder, are they in any way related?

Quoted message said:

The consequence is that
NCNs often take bizarrely convoluted routes to take advantage of
existing 'not at grade' crossings, and in my experience these convoluted
routes often involve dangers at least equivalent to the 'at grade'
crossing.

Which is why Roos and I are happy to follow NCN routes /for the most
part/ on tours, but aren't married to using them the whole way. We use
them where it suits. We use "traffic free" /where it suits/, we use
busy roads /where it suits/. The key is to build on the positive, not
tear everything down because some of it's negative. I'm not really
interested in a personal nosectomy for face-spiting purposes

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Response to Peter Clinch

Quoted message said:

I'm not really
interested in a personal nosectomy for face-spiting purposes

<pedantic etymologist>

Cutting out a disease? Rhinectomy, shirley.

</pedantic etymologist>

Other than that you're not wrong.

--
Mark, UK
"Where it is a duty to worship the sun, it is pretty sure to be a crime
to examine the laws of heat."

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

Quoted message said:

In Dumfries there is a new and very
beautiful cycle-route bridge over the river, exactly where it's needed:

http://www.purpleboxproductions.com/?p=41

But there are no links going southwest from the southwestern end. Instead
you have to go back up north to join the same road as you would have used
if you'd used the St Michael bridge, so the new bridge just introduces a
one-mile detour to no benefit.

Is that the bridge I mentioned? Is it a couple of years old?

Where is it? (grid ref might work - unfortunately the aerial photos for
Dumfries I could find are all old [censored] low-res ones, so annotating one of
those won't work :-( )

I think I remember having what appeared to be a sensible ride involving that
bridge. Or could it have been another one?

cheers,
clive

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

There's certainly a lot of really nice riding on roads which have been
decorated with NCN stickers. But those roads were just as nice to ride
before the NCN stickers were added. Sustrans have done nothing to add
value to those roads, for cyclists.

is the wrong answer: ride from Aberdeen to Thurso without the signs and
you'll spend one helluva lot more time staring at maps. And compared to
the maps Sustrans make themselves, you'll need more of them and you'll
need to do more work with them, and you'll have less information of
direct relevance to you. All of that is of direct value and is the work
of Sustrans. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing by a long
way, is their work, and deserves due credit.

You'll need the maps anyway, since the NCN signing is neither consistent
nor continuous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, for example, following NCN7 from Creetown into Gatehouse of Fleet,
you get routed off a wide, quiet village street with a 30mph speed limit
which takes you past all the cafes and shops, and instead taken through
a maze of footpaths and back alleys and pedestrian bridges, with a
number of 90 degree turns you simply would not be able to ride a tandem
through.

That's not adding value. That's removing value - actively detracting
from the cycling experience.

Agreed, but again we're in the business of saying "well, that's [censored], so
by extension it's all [censored]!". Well, it isn't all [censored], and the bits of
it that are can be corrected without scuttling the whole ship.

I'm not saying 'it's all [censored]'. But I am saying that it is mainly [censored] and
going in the wrong direction; and until they've shown some willingness to
listen and to change, they won't have my support. That's all. If you want
to support them, that's fine.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

On Nov 30, 10:23 am, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
In Dumfries there is a new and very

Quoted message said:

beautiful cycle-route bridge over the river, exactly where it's needed:

http://www.purpleboxproductions.com/?p=41

But there are no links going southwest from the southwestern end. Instead
you have to go back up north to join the same road as you would have used
if you'd used the St Michael bridge, so the new bridge just introduces a
one-mile detour to no benefit.

That is a bit disingenious. If it is the bridge on the extreme
southern edge of Dumfries, then the only purpose of putting
southwestern links in (which would be a major new path) would be to
enable people passing south of the city to pass through. As it is, it
joins the two banks of the river providing an alternative route to
main road travel up to the St Michaels bridge. It does add value and
utility for the majority of journeys which would use it (even with the
extra southwestern link past the works to the main road).

There is probably a good case for a riverside path on the western bank
that would provide such a link, but that doesn't detract from the
utility of the bridge.

We, as experienced enthusiasts often fall into the trap of thinking
that because we do not find a benefit in a particular facility for the
kind of riding and routes that we prefer, there is no utility for
anyone. After all, facilites aren't created for existing cyclists, but
to enable people to take the step of becoming cyclists. And these
newcomers are not necessarily persuaded that cycling is possible for
them unless the major frustrations and worries are removed. That might
be a psychological barrier where a bike buddy can help, or a physical
barrier where infrastructure can help.

...d

On Nov 29, 5:14 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Namsob) said:

No facilities are proposed anywhere near me. I suppose that means
Preston isn't divided by a railway line or three, three motorways and a
river.

No, it probably means that no-one in Preston took Sustrans up on their
invitation to make suggestions for Connect2 projects.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/general/Invitation%20to%20submit%20projects%20to%20Connect2.pdf

"I hope that you are able to help us by suggesting a winning Connect2
project... Describe your project: what is the problem; why is it a
problem; what is the solution that you are suggesting; how many people
are affected?... Please send your project, its material and this
information by 30th October 2006 to: Robin Lapworth at Sustrans, 2
Cathedral Square, College Green, Bristol, BS1 5DD.

"Sustrans will make every effort to include your proposal. Where we
cannot because we are not sure that it best fits the criteria, or
because we are overwhelmed with the number of applications, we will
let you know why and do our best to find another way for you to
realise your project and your hopes."

Bit late now, of course. But, you know, you could still contact them
and put your case for how you think they can help cycling in Preston
to develop. It's got to be better than sniping from the sidelines.

Richard

Simon Brooke said:

You'll need the maps anyway, since the NCN signing is neither consistent
nor continuous.

moan moan grumble grumble grumble. How many long distance cycle
tourists do you know that don't carry maps? And do they prefer carrying
as many as they need, or far more than they need, with detail aimed at
different users?
And again the signing can be improved.

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying 'it's all [censored]'.

But you are going further than it's reasonable to go, IMHO. For
example, your immediately recent dismissal of any on-road NCN not having
/any/ added value.

Quoted message said:

But I am saying that it is mainly [censored] and
going in the wrong direction; and until they've shown some willingness to
listen and to change, they won't have my support.

So here's a project that looks to primarily put holes through
bottlenecks, somewhat different to the original NCN setup, and what
happens? Do you think, "hey, that's a bit better?", or do you grumble
that everything they do is in the wrong direction and they never learn,
despite the very project you're dismissing being evidence that they are
changing and learning?

Quoted message said:

That's all. If you want to support them, that's fine.

My support or otherwise for Sustrans tends to be on a project by project
basis, and I've sent them moaning letters in the past and will almost
certainly do so again. But to dismiss all of Connect2 on the basis of
something /else/ they didn't do is something of a self inflicted wound.

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Indeed. That's why I've asked the council to give details of their
proposed Guild Wheel. I am not campaigning against cycle facilities, I
just will not vote for one's designed by an organisation with, in my
experience, a consistent record of outputting [censored].

if Sustrans /consistently/ produced [censored] then everything on the NCN
would be awful, but there's a lot of really nice riding to be done on
it, including on-road. Therefore their record is not consistent, which
may be an argument in itself but it isn't the one you're making.

That then begs the question, *Why are the routes so often
inconsistent?*

I would say that the reason is this.

Sustrans hobbled together a network of cycle routes using very limited
resources, I think £10 million was the original amount. To make such
a large network quickly is was necessary to use existing roads and
tracks and sign them as a cycle route. Now that stage has gone and
Sustrans is now upgrading existing routes and building new links.

It will be a great many decades until the network is at a satisfactory
level.

In the meantime, enjoy the bits which are useful, and avoid the bits
which are unusable.

Peter Clinch said:

And again the signing can be improved.

IIRC NCN signage is by volunteer Sustrans rangers. Each ranger has a
section of NCN and monitors the signage and puts stickers on lamp
posts etc.

Tom Crispin said:

IIRC NCN signage is by volunteer Sustrans rangers. Each ranger has a
section of NCN and monitors the signage and puts stickers on lamp
posts etc.

Both rangers and local authorities. The former tend to use stickers,
the latter tend to put proper signposts up. I prefer the stickers as
they're harder for the local in-breds to turn round!

And if you see a wrong sign, the second item on Sustrans' "Contact Us"
page tells you what to do about it:

"National Cycle Network missing signs and route blockages
"Most of the National Cycle Network is signed and maintained by local
authorities. However, if you come across missing or vandalised signs
or a blockage on route please report these and we will notify the
relevant authorities. If you are interested in helping us maintain our
routes, find out about becoming a Volunteer Ranger.
"Tel: 0845 113 00 65
"Email: [email hidden]"

Richard

Tom Crispin said:

Sustrans hobbled together a network of cycle routes using very limited
resources, I think £10 million was the original amount. To make such
a large network quickly is was necessary to use existing roads and
tracks and sign them as a cycle route.

the above doesn't actually /say/, but certainly *suggests*, that using
existing roads is Bad. It isn't, it's very good /in a lot of places/,
and is exactly what should be done /in a lot of places/.

http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/pix/ddbb3-3.jpg shows you a
normal road in NL, complete with normal cyclist going about his normal
business. Nobody seems to be clamouring to supplement this sort of road
in NL with a separate cycle track, why should we bother in the UK?

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard Fairhurst said:

... it probably means that no-one in Preston took Sustrans up on their
invitation to make suggestions for Connect2 projects.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/general/Invitation%20to%20submit%...

"I hope that you are able to help us by suggesting a winning Connect2
project... ... we will
let you know why and do our best to find another way for you to
realise your project and your hopes."

I suggested a link accross the River Teith at Deanston:

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=56.1915&lon=-4.0729&scale=25000&icon=x

Which would have allowed people to avoid the narrow old bridge that
carries the A84(T) (and a lot of traffic). Sadly, it wasn't accepted.

Anyone have a million quid lying around for a deserving cause?

Cheers,
W.

In article said:

My support or otherwise for Sustrans tends to be on a project by project
basis, and I've sent them moaning letters in the past and will almost
certainly do so again. But to dismiss all of Connect2 on the basis of
something /else/ they didn't do is something of a self inflicted wound.

On the other hand to conclude that since Sustrans have a consistent
pattern of not doing very much good, someone else could probably make
better use of the money for a not-cycling-related project isn't entirely
unreasonable.
As it happens I think the bits of Connect2 local to me will be useful,
and a friend and sometime urc poster has put a lot of work into the
proposal, so I almost certainly will vote for it (if the site registration
works next time I try).
But there are limits to how far "but it isn't _all_ [censored], we mustn't throw
out the good parts" works as an argument - stretch it too far, and you end
up with "at least Mussolini made the trains run on time".

Alan Braggins said:

On the other hand to conclude that since Sustrans have a consistent
pattern of not doing very much good, someone else could probably make
better use of the money for a not-cycling-related project isn't entirely
unreasonable.

Not a very safe assumption, because you don't have anyone else with a
pattern of doing a lot of good working at the same scale, or of even
trying to do anything at all working for cycling at this scale.

Quoted message said:

But there are limits to how far "but it isn't _all_ [censored], we mustn't throw
out the good parts" works as an argument - stretch it too far, and you end
up with "at least Mussolini made the trains run on time".

I don't think it's anything like that bad though. I also think that
people that /do/ think it's that bad are going out of their way to
accentuate the problems. Round here most of the NCN is signs on rural
roads. It actually works remarkably well, unlike Mussolini who,
contrary to the common claim, /didn't/ make the trains run on time...

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Tom Crispin said:

Sustrans hobbled together a network of cycle routes using very limited
resources, I think £10 million was the original amount. To make such
a large network quickly is was necessary to use existing roads and
tracks and sign them as a cycle route.

the above doesn't actually /say/, but certainly *suggests*, that using
existing roads is Bad. It isn't, it's very good /in a lot of places/,
and is exactly what should be done /in a lot of places/.

Yes, what I said was a little misleading. There is nothing wrong with
a Sustrans route sharing space with motor traffic in a great many
places.

The problem often comes whan a leafy lane joins a dual carriagway for
a short distance before turning off again. This is a prime candidate
for a Sustrans upgrade.

Connect2 is different. Many roads divide communities. The Connect2
project is largely about rejoining those divided communities: allowing
a park to connect to a town, a station to a village, a village to a
town, recreational fields to suburban areas, industrial zones to
habitation, and so on. And it's certainly not just about cyclists -
it's about walkers, or just about anything that provides a viable
alternative to the motor car.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

I've certainly ridden some that are. But my understanding is they are
universally hated by cyclists who would like to get somewhere quickly as
they could do on the road but are stuck on the fietspad in amongst what
are known as "rolling pedestrians" because that is where the motorists
expect them to be.

Are yes, the good old "let's tar a huge range of things with the same
brush" tactic...

Fact is that without the fietspad all the "rolling pedestrians" would be
on the road along with you, and you'd be just as stuck amongst them
quite a lot of the time as you are over on the fietspad. Most of the
reason why it's so much quicker on the roads /here/ is there are very
few other bikes getting in your way *on the road*.

I cycle in Cambridge which has narrow streets, not many facilities and a
cycling level every bit as high as the Dutch. Yet I don't seem to
suffer the problem you suggest. Also, as I am sure you have, I have
cycled in the Netherlands and not all roads have fietspads alongside
them so you do cycle on the road. I was considerably less held up on
those sections than I was on the fietspad sections. So a nice straw man
but one that fails the real life test.

Bike builder Marin Gerritsen's site on cycle touring in the Netherlands
gives a good insight into the Dutch cycling nirvana for keen cyclists as
opposed to rolling pedestrians.
http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

in message
<[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

On Nov 30, 10:23 am, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:
In Dumfries there is a new and very

Quoted message said:

beautiful cycle-route bridge over the river, exactly where it's needed:

http://www.purpleboxproductions.com/?p=41

But there are no links going southwest from the southwestern end.
Instead you have to go back up north to join the same road as you would
have used if you'd used the St Michael bridge, so the new bridge just
introduces a one-mile detour to no benefit.

That is a bit disingenious. If it is the bridge on the extreme
southern edge of Dumfries, then the only purpose of putting
southwestern links in (which would be a major new path) would be to
enable people passing south of the city to pass through.

That is the only reason for putting it there, yes.

Quoted message said:

As it is, it
joins the two banks of the river providing an alternative route to
main road travel up to the St Michaels bridge. It does add value and
utility for the majority of journeys which would use it (even with the
extra southwestern link past the works to the main road).

But the majority of bicycle journeys southwest from Dumfries are to Mabie
and New Abbey, and you can't get to them from the new bridge except by
going back upriver to the St Michael bridge. Going west from Dumfries,
cyclists have the choice of the other new cycle bridge up by the swimming
pool, the Bucceleuch Bridge, Devorgilla's bridge, the suspension
bridge[1], and the St Michael bridge. Oh - and the proposed new Connect2
bridge north of the Swimming Pool bridge, and the bypass bridge north of
that.

Quoted message said:

There is probably a good case for a riverside path on the western bank
that would provide such a link, but that doesn't detract from the
utility of the bridge.

Except that it doesn't get you to where you're going any more directly than
five other existing bridges, one of which is already cycle-only. And that
the provision of less than a mile of path would make it exceedingly
useful.

[1] the suspension bridge is pedestrian only, but people who are too timid
to use the road bridges are probably not going to mind walking their bike
across

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; killing [afghan|iraqi] civilians is not 'justice'

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

You'll need the maps anyway, since the NCN signing is neither consistent
nor continuous.

moan moan grumble grumble grumble. How many long distance cycle
tourists do you know that don't carry maps?

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

And do they prefer carrying
as many as they need, or far more than they need, with detail aimed at
different users?

I carry one Michelin map that covers the whole of Scotland in sufficient
detail. In future, I may not even carry that, since Google Maps for Mobile
is now so good (http://www.google.com/gmm - highly recommended).

Quoted message said:

And again the signing can be improved.

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying 'it's all [censored]'.

But you are going further than it's reasonable to go, IMHO. For
example, your immediately recent dismissal of any on-road NCN not having
/any/ added value.

OK, if it has added value, what is that added value? Better surface?
reduced speed of motor traffic? What have Sustrans added to those roads
which makes them any /different/ - let alone any /better/ - for cycling
than they would have been anyway? OK, let's admit those over-elaborate
cast iron signposts that give distance information in the most obscure
places (the nearest one to here is in the middle of a carpark, which
no-one in their right minds would cycle through and isn't on the NCN
anyway). But apart from them, what?

The roads were there. As you have agreed, anyone going cycling in an
unfamiliar area has to take a map anyway, so you cannot argue the signing
is a 'benefit'. The condition of the roads is unchanged.

Quoted message said:

So here's a project that looks to primarily put holes through
bottlenecks, somewhat different to the original NCN setup, and what
happens? Do you think, "hey, that's a bit better?", or do you grumble
that everything they do is in the wrong direction and they never learn,
despite the very project you're dismissing being evidence that they are
changing and learning?

I've said - and I say again - that on a case-by-case basis, I'll support
useful strategic links. But I won't support Sustrans, since they seem in
my experience to be a Bad Thing, actively harmful to my and other
cyclists' interests.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive George

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

In Dumfries there is a new and very
beautiful cycle-route bridge over the river, exactly where it's needed:

http://www.purpleboxproductions.com/?p=41

But there are no links going southwest from the southwestern end.
Instead you have to go back up north to join the same road as you would
have used if you'd used the St Michael bridge, so the new bridge just
introduces a one-mile detour to no benefit.

Is that the bridge I mentioned? Is it a couple of years old?

Where is it? (grid ref might work - unfortunately the aerial photos for
Dumfries I could find are all old [censored] low-res ones, so annotating one of
those won't work :-( )

I think I remember having what appeared to be a sensible ride involving
that bridge. Or could it have been another one?

There are two newish cyclepath bridges across the Nith in Dumfries, one on
a direct line between the high school and several major housing estates
and then linking onto an abandoned railway which has been turned into a
high quality cycle path and takes you clear of the town westbound. That's
just by the swimming pool, north of the Buccleuch Bridge, and is an
example of what should be being done.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=296830&y=576430&z=3

A further Connect2 bridge is planned north of that, which may also be
useful.

The Kirkpatrick Macmillan bridge, which is the one I'm complaining
about, /should/ be useful too - if it wasn't so half arsed. Dumfries has
really serious traffic congestion to the south of the town, where a single
grossly congested road serves the only accident and emergency hospital in
the region. The bridge should be exceedingly handy for people living on
the Galloway bank to get to the hospital and the Crichton Campus. Except
that you cannot get to the bridge from the places where people actually
are. As it is at present, it effectively serves about fifteen or twenty
households.

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=297660&y=574970&z=3

Getting just /some/ of the commuters out of cars on St Michael Street and
onto cycles on the new bridge would be of immense advantage to the town.
but... Come on, guys, a mile of path is all that's needed. Oh, and better
bike parking up at the hospital!

In addition to the road bridges there's also the suspension bridge, here:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=297245&y=575690&z=3

and Devorgilla's bridge, here:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=296860&y=576020&z=3

- these are both pedestrian only, and the suspension bridge is narrow; and
as I understand it the planned Connect2 bridge is here:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=297115&y=577325&z=3

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.