|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
andy92
Posts:28
 |
| 27 Oct 2008 17:00:47 |
 Alert
|
Out of interest, how many of the 118 voters on the above subject,
1. Own a bike.
2. Use it.
As an almost daily cyclist, the proposed route No 2 makes the most sense. It has less of a climb and appears shorter. Just my view. |
|
|
|
|
Tafari
Posts:3
|
| 27 Oct 2008 17:52:07 |
Alert
|
I agree although I can see the KCC point about it not being that safe for kids being out of sight.
Even if route 1 were to be implemented, I would continue to ride (occasionally) to Dyce on route 2 despite the muddiness.
Route 1 is totally unappealing due to the climbs and lack of protection from the elements. |
|
|
|
|
Kingswells Sommelier
Posts:13
|
| 28 Oct 2008 04:07:00 |
Alert
|
Route 2, as a person who uses the bike for exercising the dog on weekends. I would have no interest in following the path of the main road. Again just my view.
My main view on it is if the council is £50MM in the red, this seems like a project that should be cut. |
|
|
|
|
JB
Posts:5
|
| 28 Oct 2008 05:44:51 |
Alert
|
Andy and Tafari,
What do you think of the check on the distance and climb made by KCC. It assumes that you are actually start a journey from the centre of Kingswells and finish at the Beacon going via each of the two routes. This is different from the ACC assessment which only considered the tracks themselves.
The finding were much closer than the ACC results.
Distance Route 1 = 3.73 km (2.33 miles) Distance Route 2 = 3.54 km (2.21 miles) i.e. Route 1 is 5% longer than Route 2
Ascent Route 1 = 81 m (267 feet) Ascent Route 2 = 69 m (228 feet) i.e. Route 1 is 17% more Route 2 - but remember these are descents on the return journey.
Overall I think the consultation was very poor. |
|
|
|
|
Tafari
Posts:3
|
| 28 Oct 2008 09:47:59 |
Alert
|
I made a similar point on the ACC consultation website.
Route 1 begins at Webster Park which is at the top of a hill. So, for most of us, the ride starts with a road climb.
Route 2 begins in the Bucks burn which is topographically probably the lowest point of Kingswells. So, for most of us, that ride starts with a bit of freewheeling down a path.
I know what my choice would be on a wet Monday morning at 7am.
Route 1 return means going up that long, exposed road past the church.
Route 2 return means going through some farmland.
I am directly opposed to KCC's opinion on the choice of route. |
|
|
|
|
andy92
Posts:28
|
| 28 Oct 2008 16:35:58 |
Alert
|
| Appreciate that safety has to come into the final decision when it comes to children cycling to school. That said, if the route is longer with bigger climbs, its not really going to encourage kids to cycle in the first place. Best case scenario would be a totally flat path, this is never going to be the case so the less climbing the better. |
|
|
|
|
andy92
Posts:28
|
| 28 Oct 2008 16:40:52 |
Alert
|
Tafari,
Can you post up KCCs opinion on the route, cant seem to find it.
Thanks Andy |
|
|
|
|
JB
Posts:5
|
| 29 Oct 2008 02:56:09 |
Alert
|
The proposed alternative to route 1 suggested by Ian Cox of KCC gets around the climb at the church. The cross country section at the bend can be clearly seen from the road as the fields are flat. The use of the farm track is probably not a good idea from a safety point of view, but a new section of cycle track running by the farm track keeps it close to passing traffic.
http://kwells.org/kwells3/node/442
Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|