--- In [email protected], "rb999sb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Richard Fairhurst" > <richardf@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Glen Peckett" <lists@> 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 > > > The charges for cyclists on the k &A were dropped because the > cyclists were organised and went out mob handed. There was no way > that one or possibly two BW operatives could collect any money or > even collect names and addresses. The cyclists made sure that any > rules were unworkable > Sue >
I bet if boaters went "mob handed" to "honey pot" sites and prevented pedestrian and cycling access a way would be found to enforce the rules. Think about the effect of bow hauling a number of "broken down" boats along those London tow paths in the rush hour - especially if the hauler kept very well clear of the water's edge. Then there is the need to use ropes to pull the boat in to the bank for mooring. The rules were unworkable because BW could not impound the bikes and the police declined to get involved. That and the high profile "green" movement riding roughshod over opposition to their plans. If a bunch of Lycra louts got their £500 bikes impounded with storage fees clocking up at (say) £20 a day with an auction looming I bet they would find a £50 or £100 license well worth paying. Tony Brooks
