Route 74 has gone

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by mjr »

Richard Fairhurst wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 9:44am This bit of NCN 74 is quite an interesting case. The original route isn't, as far as I can tell, very NCN-like - fast traffic and quite a lot of it, even despite the motorway running alongside. It seems an odd candidate ever to have been designated as an NCN route.
Parts of it have roadside cycleway which makes me wonder if there was some expression of intent to replace the crap gutter lanes with more cycleway over time which persuaded Sustrans to designate it NCN 74 during the early "miles rush" but was never completed. It's also a key part of the Sustrans LEJOG route and I suspect meandering around the coast would have been a hard sell.
But there is a parallel route, the Caledonian Cycleway aka Regional Route 10. It goes south from Moffat to join NCN 7 at Dumfries, and is expressly signposted as a 7-74 link. I'm not quite sure why it doesn't appear on the online NCN map, or indeed why it hasn't been redesignated NCN 74.
Almost double the distance and treble the climbing, plus 20% on gravel forest roads, makes me think redesignation would be embarrassing.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2030
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

Maybe - that's getting back to the question of "what's the NCN for?" really. There's a couple of quiet off-road possibilities too - https://cycle.travel/map/journey/267667 maybe, or https://cycle.travel/map/journey/267713. First one longer but flat, second one actually shorter but hillier, both less traffic and more scenic. I'd probably ride the second one.
cycle.travel - maps, journey-planner, route guides and city guides
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by thirdcrank »

The risk is that the National Cycle Network is used by highwaymen and the like to take the line that other roads are not for cyclists, who can be ignored in plans.

If it is to serve any useful purpose, then it has to take its cue from the name ie to form a national network of routes suitable for cyclists. A hotch-potch of leisure routes which may or may not link by chance to form routes which may or may not be ok is not a national cycle network in any useful sense

All we seem to be seeing now is that the people living atop the ivory tower are displaying their displeasure by withdrawing their endorsement of bits of the NCN. One thing seems sure to me: the highwaymen couldn't care less.
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by prestavalve »

mjr wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 12:01pm ...green political views and the disabled...
I am as green as the guy on the sweetcorn tin: lived car free my whole life. Currently do a 50km daily commute, most often using a busy A road over an NCR because the latter is indirect and slow, making it impractical for transport.

I am not disabled, but, I do cart my daughter around in a Burly and appreciate some of the issues experienced by people with mobility problems - when she's hooked up, my options of where I can go and how fast I can get there shrink massively.

Neither of these things cause me to agree with the prevailing attitude, which seems to be gathering weight, that bespoke cycling infrastructure is somehow a necessary precondition for cycling to occur. Neither do they stop me from poking fun at the moist vision of the "ideal new cyclist" which saturates campaigns to the point where it has become a parody of itself.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by mjr »

prestavalve wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 1:59pm I am as green as the guy on the sweetcorn tin: lived car free my whole life. Currently do a 50km daily commute, most often using a busy A road over an NCR because the latter is indirect and slow, making it impractical for transport.

I am not disabled, but, I do cart my daughter around in a Burly and appreciate some of the issues experienced by people with mobility problems - when she's hooked up, my options of where I can go and how fast I can get there shrink massively.
And do you think that any of that cycling is a good situation? (well, maybe except the part of the reduction in how fast which isn't due to bad design or implementation) Is that really how cycling should be in a country trying to get to grips with pollution, climate change and a multifaceted health crisis?

Why do you think anyone else would switch to cycling in that situation?
Neither of these things cause me to agree with the prevailing attitude, which seems to be gathering weight, that bespoke cycling infrastructure is somehow a necessary precondition for cycling to occur.
I think that is a false impression. Of course it's not a necessary precondition, else no-one would be cycling now. You wouldn't be riding the old A74. I wouldn't have grown up riding along the A5. And so on. There will always be a few die-hards who keep riding in even very hostile roadscapes. Probably even if we were legally prohibited from them and there was no reasonable alternative.

The problem is that we are a minority. We are not sufficient.

The argument (as I understand it) is that some accommodations in road design and network management are required to enable majority cycling, and there are also some which would encourage more cycling. Who says that any of it is a prerequisite for any cycling, except as hyperbole?
Neither do they stop me from poking fun at the moist vision of the "ideal new cyclist" which saturates campaigns to the point where it has become a parody of itself.
I don't recognise that vision, so it just looks like an attack on the characteristics mentioned, some of which seems discriminatory.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by prestavalve »

mjr wrote: I think that is a false impression.
When on-road sections of the NCN are being de-listed for no obvious reason, other than that they are "on a road", why is this a false impression?
mjr wrote: [...] it just looks like an attack on the characteristics mentioned, some of which seems discriminatory.
Cyclists are allowed to use the "w-" word. Nobody else is.

You're right about the cruelty free almond milk thing though, I do believe that people who buy almond milk but claim to care about green issues are superficial hypocrites and I struggle to tolerate their company.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by mjr »

prestavalve wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 3:38pm
mjr wrote: I think that is a false impression.
When on-road sections of the NCN are being de-listed for no obvious reason, other than that they are "on a road", why is this a false impression?
Because other on-road sections have remained, so clearly "on a road" wasn't the criteria for delisting... or if it is, they've really messed up on an easily-verifiable fact. Some of the remaining roads are nastier or busier than some of what's been delisted or downgraded.

As far as I've been able to find out from them, other campaigners and highways officers, Sustrans didn't consult or even warn anyone before breaking up the NCN and now they refuse to explain, so it's very difficult for anyone to figure out if their actions make any sense, if they're justified or not, what errors they made and how the heck we best move forwards.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by prestavalve »

mjr wrote: As far as I've been able to find out from them, other campaigners and highways officers, Sustrans didn't consult or even warn anyone before breaking up the NCN and now they refuse to explain, so it's very difficult for anyone to figure out if their actions make any sense, if they're justified or not, what errors they made and how the heck we best move forwards.
Well we can certainly both agree that this is absurd and thankyou for taking the time to send some emails.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by thirdcrank »

I'll suggest that the best move forwards would be for the government to recognise that Tony Blair's wheeze of outsourcing to Sustrans has failed.

IMO Pete Owens is correct here in the Golden Age of Cycling thread

viewtopic.php?p=1646153#p1646153

eg
The thing that needs to change is to focus on outcomes rather than outputs - ie to fund local highway authorities by results.
On a minor point, I'd say "focus on outcomes rather than inputs," but that's probably nitpicking.

Put another way, it's not so much how much steam is raised but how far you move the train.
Psamathe
Posts: 17647
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by Psamathe »

In a way I feel that organisations/charities that receive significant public funding should be subject to FOI requests. But I appreciate there is a cost to handling FOI requests and it would become counter productive for such organisations to spend significant sums handling FOIs rather than getting on with charitable/public good works.

Can one put in FOI requests to the Gov. departments with regard to what has been done with money they sent to Sustrans? e.g. "Dept X paid Sustrans £x million to maintain a cycle network which has been cut back so please provide details as to exactly what has been cut." - would that work if (phrased better and) sent to major Sustrans funding Gov. departments & Councils?

Ian
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by Oldjohnw »

Does it need a FOI request? As a charity, Sustrans accounts should be available to the public.
John
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by prestavalve »

Psamathe wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 6:05pm In a way I feel that organisations/charities that receive significant public funding should be subject to FOI requests. But I appreciate there is a cost to handling FOI requests and it would become counter productive for such organisations to spend significant sums handling FOIs rather than getting on with charitable/public good works.
There should be two types of FOI request: one that takes time and one that doesn't. I hardly think that "show me the minutes of the meeting that decided this" is placing an egregious burden on the people who receive my tax money.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by Pete Owens »

Richard Fairhurst wrote: 14 Oct 2021, 9:44am But there is a parallel route, the Caledonian Cycleway aka Regional Route 10. It goes south from Moffat to join NCN 7 at Dumfries, and is expressly signposted as a 7-74 link. I'm not quite sure why it doesn't appear on the online NCN map, or indeed why it hasn't been redesignated NCN 74.
And this sort of attitude to route recommendation really encapsulates why Sustrans are completely unsuitable to be put in charge of cycle signage. (while you may not be a spokesman for Sustrans it is entirely typical of their thinking).

Imagine you are cycling south towards Gretna. You stop for a cake in Moffat to stoke up for the last 30 mile stretch. The weather looks like it might be closing in, but if you keep a move on you should be there in 2 1/2 hours or so. Then after a couple of miles you cross the M74 and pick up signs for route 74 you ride up a steep hill then find youself in a remote upland forest trying to make progress through this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.2752281 ... 312!8i6656
After several hours struggle, with the Scottish rain now in full swing you emerge from the forest a few miles north of Dumfries; further away from your destination than when you started.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by Pete Owens »

Another weird feature is that that if you want to go beyond Gretna towards Carlisle, the Sustrans signage directs you north. Is there a Scottish Nationalist version of Sustrans seeking to protect cyclists from encountering England?
mattheus
Posts: 5043
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Route 74 has gone

Post by mattheus »

Pete Owens wrote: 15 Oct 2021, 12:24pm ...

Imagine you are cycling south towards Gretna. You stop for a cake in Moffat to stoke up for the last 30 mile stretch. The weather looks like it might be closing in, but if you keep a move on you should be there in 2 1/2 hours or so. Then after a couple of miles you cross the M74 and pick up signs for route 74 you ride up a steep hill then find youself in a remote upland forest trying to make progress through this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.2752281 ... 312!8i6656
After several hours struggle, with the Scottish rain now in full swing you emerge from the forest a few miles north of Dumfries; further away from your destination than when you started.
I have to thank you for posting that. After reading earlier posts, I decided that would be a nice route to incorporate into my impending trip; I'd looked at a couple of bits on Streetview and it looked like a very rideable hard surface, and utterly scenic!

I shall stick with my standard strategy - proper tarmac, plus previously reccéd "cycle routes".
Post Reply