Mill Lane

[CTCREP]

Re Marveld's comment.  The subject was Mill Lane, but I am glad Marveld looked at the Cycle Stockport's Routes Page. Marveld says Take a look at:  http://www.waterscape.com/canals-and-rivers/peak-forest-canal/cycling

It says: "Cycling along the Peak Forest Canal - The towpath is not open to cyclists.

For clarification you were reading our proposed route from Chadkirk to Marple, not the Halls Route which includes Mill Lane. However re the Chadkirk Route, yes we do suggest using the canal towpath, and although in the past the Waterways were opposed to cyclists using canal paths, this was because of the fear of being sued because some person hit their head on a bridge or fell in the water. They are now beginning to see reason and, for example, the Regents Canal in London is part of their recommended cycle routes.

Of course it would also be helpful if people who know nothing about cycling didn't put out statements such as "There is excellent cycling nearby on the Middlewood Way, a railway path which runs south from Marple to Macclesfield.". Local cyclists have been complaining about this for years, and during a survey I did a few years ago of who were using the Middlewood Way I met up with a father and daughter whose hobby was to ride all the cycle routes in Britain. They had come from Essex to ride the Tissington Trail, heard of the Middlewood Way and decided to try it. When I asked their opinion of the Middlewood Way, it was that it was probably the worst cycle route they had ridden. In Stockport's defense they have improved a few hundred yards from Rose Hill to the outskirts of Marple and are now doing some work on the overgrown shrubbery etc. It will improve but it is never going to be of great use until Stockport recognise cyclists and others using wheeled vehicles such childrens bikes and pushchairs,  and of course the disabled are also part of the community.

[Barbara]

Hey - I may be retired, but I don't class myself as 'old' yet!!  Would like a word with this so-called friend of yours!  Barbara

[nbt]

I don't mind cyclists using the towpaths - but some of them seem to think they are the only rightful users of them.  People walking along have to take avoiding action often without any prior warning of their approach (what happened to bicycle bells?) and no acknowledgement!  I agree that a lot of cyclists are more careful, but it is the usual thing of the selfish ones spoiling it for all the others. 
I think I will change my name to Victor Meldrew!!  I sound like a right moaner, and I don't mean to be!  Goodnight -   

I use my bell, and still people jump out of the way  as though I'd just pointed a gun at them - as a friend of mine once said, the majority of walkers are too old or to engrossed in conversation to hear a bell going "ding", and when they do will often look around in wonder as though a celestial microwave is about to deliver their pasty for a snack...

but yes, ignorant people on bikes, on foot and in cars are annoying

[Barbara]

I don't mind cyclists using the towpaths - but some of them seem to think they are the only rightful users of them.  People walking along have to take avoiding action often without any prior warning of their approach (what happened to bicycle bells?) and no acknowledgement!  I agree that a lot of cyclists are more careful, but it is the usual thing of the selfish ones spoiling it for all the others. 
I think I will change my name to Victor Meldrew!!  I sound like a right moaner, and I don't mean to be!  Goodnight -   

[nbt]

I have followed your link on cycle routes - e.g.

http://www.cyclestockport.org.uk/Chadkirk%20to%20Marple.htm

You are encouraging people to cycle on the canal towpath!

Take a look at:  http://www.waterscape.com/canals-and-rivers/peak-forest-canal/cycling

It says: "Cycling along the Peak Forest Canal - The towpath is not open to cyclists. There is excellent cycling nearby on the Middlewood Way, a railway path which runs south from Marple to Macclesfield."

Please can you clarify!

Hmmm, so If I want to cycle from Marple to Romiley, I have to take the Middlewood way to Macclesfied? I htink not, somehow.

[Dave]

"Cycling along the Peak Forest Canal - The towpath is not open to cyclists'.

Well that's news to me - and presumably to the many cyclists who pass me when I'm walking the dog along there!  And I must say it does seem ridiculous - many other canal towpaths are open to cyclists, so why not this one?   

[marveld]

I have followed your link on cycle routes - e.g.

http://www.cyclestockport.org.uk/Chadkirk%20to%20Marple.htm

You are encouraging people to cycle on the canal towpath!

Take a look at:  http://www.waterscape.com/canals-and-rivers/peak-forest-canal/cycling

It says: "Cycling along the Peak Forest Canal - The towpath is not open to cyclists. There is excellent cycling nearby on the Middlewood Way, a railway path which runs south from Marple to Macclesfield."

Please can you clarify!

[CTCREP]

Whilst we are on the subject. Mill Lane is part of the Halls Route. This is a circular route surveyed by a member of Cycle Stockport that passes several of the Black & White buildings in the borough - you can read more by visiting http://www.cyclestockport.org.uk/Routes.htm.   Initially it is a walking route but can also be used by cyclists although at times they will have to take to the roads until Rights of Way are established.  It has several benefits providing parts of Safe Routes to Schools and useful short sections such as linking Bruntwood Park with Bramall Park - what better way of introducing a child to walking and cycling than being able to walk from one park to another - and of course linking Marple to Stockport. It was accepted as part of Stockport's LDP several years ago but taken no further, it should be part of Stockports Core Strategy when it becomes official.

For those who may be interested to see how the Continent caters for their non-motorists have a look at the Travel page on the Cycle Stockport Web Site.

[CTCREP]

Mill Lane is a small part of the Connect2 project that will link Stockport to Marple and the Middlewood Way. This section runs from Otterspool Bridge to Bredbury Hall where, at present it is then necessary to take to the roads. It will enable Stockport residents to access the countryside without having to use motorised road transport, and Marple residents to access Stockport by bicycle etc.  The problem we have in this country, Stockport and even Marple is that we do not recognise the potential of our off-road routes. For example, in Germany & Austria there is the Danube route, a Multi User trail that thousands use. During the holiday season it is said that if you haven't organised your accommodation by 2pm it is time to start looking. With industry declining tourism must be one of the alternatives to generate income. In Britain and Stockport we have the Trans Pennine Trail, it passes through some spectacular countryside and has some tremendous places of industrial archeological interest. Stockport and Marple could be the point of divergence for travelers who, instead of traveling from Liverpool to Hull, may wish to branch off into Derbyshire. The Connect 2 route would be part to that scheme. I know this may seem like fantasy but it is something that could be achieved if Britain followed the Continental way of doing things. Wasting money on short sections of Bridleway in a manner that proves to be of inconvenience to all apart from a few local motorists, if that was the intention, shows a marked lack of foresight on the part of the Council. Perhaps someone knows why the opinions of cyclists, and no doubt horse riders, were ignored.

[marveld]

I did get the point. I simply didn't agree with some of your comments and observations. I thought you diluted your argument by going OTT on a few issues. What I would like to know is where you want a decent cycle track to continue to? If you keep walking along the path alongside the river you eventually get to another farm from where you can fork right up a steep hill to get to Bredbury Green. Do you want the path to be resurfaced to this farm? If so, I think this will cost an arm and a leg. I also think it's way down on the priority list. I think the recent Middlewood Way tarmac stretch caters for far more people and is one that I welcome.

[CTCREP]

I am afraid Newbie misses the point.  Having been told on innumerable occasions the Council cannot put a hard surface, preferably tarmac, on a Bridleway, they have not only done so, but having done so added features that are unnecessary.  Newbie may consider all these features of little importance, but firstly they cost money, of which the Council says it has very little, so why was it done this way?  Secondly. Stockport calls this area a Country Park. Well we could argue this, but I suggest that if it is a Park for everyone to use then it should be surfaced the same as,say, Vernon Park - not everyone wants to wear walking boots, and although there is a fashion for mountain bikes at the moment, commuting cyclists, such as you see on the Continent, ride road bikes which, if Stockport is serious in trying to encourage more people to cycle to work etc, eventually the British cyclists of today will want to ride safely and in comfort and without excessive wear.

[marveld]

I can't shed any light on this subject. However, after reading your post I had a quick look the other day. Here's my reply on a few of your points -

"The Council immediately had that section replaced with cobbles, a surface disliked and potentially dangerous for cyclists, and uncomfortable for walkers".

I have to laugh at your statement. You are referring to a ~20-30 foot section at the start of the lane by the bridge. No problem for bikes or walkers.

"However it does mean that if you are walking down there with a friend and you wish to walk side by side one of you has to walk on the anti-skid surface which is uncomfortable."

Come on! This is a very thin surface in the middle of the road. I disagree with your view on this.

"Similarly as the side areas are often strewn with debris cyclists also have to use this anti -skid surface which is uncomfortable and increases the  wear on tyres.  If you take a child down there who then falls over the resultant grazes will be far worse if they fall onto this anti-skid surface."

I suggest you stick to a velodrome if you think the anti-skid surface will wear out your tyres! There is no problem cycling their side of this strip if you are paranoid about it. Children falling? You make this strip sound like a real heath and safety issue. I believe you are giving people misleading information.

[CTCREP]

Can anyone shed any light on the debacle of Mill Lane. Mill Lane is part of the bridleway that runs from Otterspool Bridge through to Bredbury and was re-surfaced some months ago. It has come to our knowledge that the reason for this re-surfacing is being blamed on cyclists. Whilst it cannot be denied that we would like the whole of the bridleway re-surfaced as it should be a cycle commuter route between Marple and Stockport and be  suitable for use by others with small wheeled vehicles such as push-chairs, children’s junior cycles and mobility scooters, we are aware of the Council’s usual marked reluctance to do anything that could be construed as failing to observe the hierarchy of horses first when it comes to bridleways.

So when the Cycle User Group was told that some money was available to upgrade the bridleway we suggested a strip of tarmac - not the whole width - to be laid from Otterspool to Bredbury, but if money was insufficient then doing something about the drainage on the track that was frequently flooded. The Council’s representative told us they intended to tarmac the whole width of the track from Otterspool Bridge as far as the first farm. We pointed out that in reality this would only benefit the few motorists who visit the kennels - farm vehicles are designed for tracks so it wasn’t necessary for them, and only surfacing that short section did little to benefit cyclists and others as the rest of the track was in poor condition.

The Council surfaced the track and within days, so we are told, a horse rider was unseated and said the road surface on the incline near the bridge made the horse lose its footing. The Council immediately had that section replaced with cobbles, a surface disliked and potentially dangerous for cyclists, and uncomfortable for walkers. Since then several thousand pounds more has been spent on laying a central strip of anti-skid surface the length of the newly surfaced track. What purpose it has is unknown as the track is flat in this area and of no problem to horses. However it does mean that if you are walking down there with a friend and you wish to walk side by side one of you has to walk on the anti-skid surface which is uncomfortable. Similarly as the side areas are often strewn with debris cyclists also have to use this anti -skid surface which is uncomfortable and increases the  wear on tyres.  If you take a child down there who then falls over the resultant grazes will be far worse if they fall onto this anti-skid surface.

Shortly after the resurfacing, the bridleway beyond this point developed a hole over a foot deep across practically the whole width of the track due to water erosion caused by a field drain emptying directly onto the track. Although after complaints this drain appears to have been blocked up water still seeps into the area and causes flooding. There are other drains that will cause further erosion making the route useable only by those willing to put up with the appalling conditions.

So who was responsible for this totally ridiculous waste of money. Had the cyclists’ proposal for a strip of tarmac been accepted, though not ideal, it would have satisfied everyone apart perhaps for the few motorists who visit the kennels and even that could have been dealt with by laying two strips in that area, and it would have cost considerably less.  We are going into an era when the Council will be saying they have no money available. It is time they stopped wasting money and started catering for the majority of Council Tax payers instead of a few with their own agenda. Perhaps someone knows why and for whom this work was done.