--- In [email protected], "Glen Peckett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To be fair to BW I seem to recall the NCR status was forced on them. > Sustrans included it in their lottery bid without even asking BW in advance. > It was then presented as a fait accompli.
I don't think it's that simple. The history of the National Cycle Network wot I has kicking around at home somewhere states, IIRC, that Sustrans organised work-parties on the K&A towpath in the early 1980s. > > I would challenge anyone from BW to state exactly how much the > > receive from Sustran etc. as ANNUAL contributions to path > > MAINTENANCE. I think the answer is a very round figure. > > I suspect the same. Well, it depends on what you mean by the "etc.". The upkeep of all parts of the NCN, not just those on towpaths, generally falls on councils or other Governmental bodies. Sustrans, not being a membership organisation nor receiving any statutory Government funding, does not have the money for it and has (as far as I know) never claimed to. So the "etc." should really be "local councils". And I thought, though I might be wrong, that it was pretty well-known that much towpath maintenance on the K&A was funded by local councils expressly to replace a direct contribution from cyclists - that's why the K&A paid-for cycle permit was dropped. About 5 seconds' Google searching found this on the Kennet District Council website: "...This fits nicely with the council's support which encourages people to cycle along the canal by providing maintenance funding so that users don't have to buy a permit to cycle." Now there are, of course, plenty of places where irresponsible cycling has caused problems, and this is not to justify it - nor irresponsible behaviour by any group of users. But as the South Oxford currently shows (which IME has virtually no cycling), you don't need cyclists to make a towpath impassable - bad management can do that on its own. Richard
