Cycle routes for the Broads plan

[Boaters]

Plan for better access for cyclists to enjoy the Norfolk Broads and the Broads Authority appears to be putting up part of the cost ? Is the idea to go through land near the river ? Or using the existing path that runs from Horning to Wroxham which may be widened to accommodate cyclists?

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/cycle_route_will_open_up_the_broads_to_all_1_3945813

[Guest]

Cycling and walking access routes around the Broads area could stand a great deal of improvement, so the basic idea is of benefit to many people.

 

The basic concept of the "Three Rivers Way" is a good one IMHO and has been around for quite a few years, but it keeps stalling because their plan is over-ambitious, budget wise.

 

They aim to Link Hoveton with Potter Heigham (via Horning and Ludham), with an off-road cycle way for the use of pedestrians and wheelchair users as well.

 

If the plans are the still the same, they intend to create new rights of way for almost the whole of that distance and lay the new surfaces, quite an expensive concept, being around 10 miles or so.

 

It's therefore never really got off the ground.

 

If however, they'd looked at the task more objectively, quiet byways already exist over 90% of that route, and they only need short linking sections to make them a practical alternative.

 

• There's already a surfaced pedestrian footway between Hoveton and Horning, alongside the A1062,  separated by a grass verge along most of it's length.
• The A1062 footpath then stops, but walkers can then go through quieter roads and paths through the village itself, till they emerge at Upper Street, back on the A1062.
• That section of road, about half a mile to Ludham Bridge, is extremely dangerous for pedestrians, with blind bends and no footways, or even grassy areas where they can jump out of the road quickly.
• Once they reach Ludham Bridge, the footpath restarts and then gives almost uninterrupted quiet byway access all the way to Potter, via Ludham's Hall Road and Staithe Road, the village centre, then the lane past the old airfield.

 

So the only section that is essential is the half mile between Upper Street and Ludham Bridge.

 

Having said that though, it's still a pipe dream.

 

Even the long awaited short footpath link from Ludham Bridge bypassing the boatyard to re-enable the access to the existing riverside walk to St Benets has been promised for three years now, and we have been continuously fobbed off with delays. It still hasn't been started yet, despite all the permissions being negotiated already. That just requires a couple of hundred yards of fencing and surfacing alongside a field.  Manyana, manyana.... 

 

 

 

 

[Boaters]

Thanks for that Stowy,much rmore detail than published.I did not know some of the things like Ludham that could be an easy fix at little cost could be done for a benefit to all walkers along that path.

[Guest]

There's even more detail on the Three Rivers Way website

 

http://www.threeriversway.org.uk/

 

Unfortunately though, the map, (which is perhaps the most crucial part of it), is of low resolution and difficult to follow in detail, even when zoomed in.

 

It is very vague and blurry with regard to what exists now and what is proposed. Many of the path routes are quite impractical, both legally and physically.

[Bonzo]

Personally I think it is a good idea to have cycle routes along the riversides. Cycling is a good healthy way of enjoying the countryside. there are a few provisos that I am going to add. Please note that I am a person who likes a good plod on a cycle around anywhere off the roads and not too fast at that.

 

     1/ The Local Authorities should fund the project.

         Cycling has nothing to do with navigation so

         why should any funds come from boaters?

 

     2/ Priority should be given to walkers on the paths .On

         many river and canal towpaths and indeed in

         some country parks some cyclists have a definite

         attitude problem of superiority which needs to be

         curbed for safety reasons.

 

     3/ Racing should not be permitted.

 

 

Having cycled many river and canal side paths and Country Parks seen what goes on I do know what I am talking about and we definitely do not want this in Norfolk. 

[Guest]

I'm a good cycle "plodder" too Bonzo.

 

The basic problem with waterside cycling on the Broads is the lack of towpaths, unlike the canals.  Most of the rivers are fringed by reedbeds and marsh, so even  footpaths for walkers are sporadic.

 

Having said that, I find the area very well suited to leisure cycling, because it's so flat, not unlike Holland.

 

Even though I'm far too short for my weight, (putting it nicely), I can easily manage regular 25 mile rides around the Broads, whereas that sort of distance nearly kills me in hillier areas.

 

There are some excellent cycle routes already, like the one alongside the Bure Valley Railway, from Hoveton to Aylsham, alongside the track bed.

 

Many byways off the main roads are also very safe and picturesque, with open views and no blind bends and very little traffic. The only riverside track that I sometimes use is up the Thurne, from Potter to Candle Dyke, but it's quite bumpy, so you need a good quality mountain bike with really effective full suspension.

 

The BA also has responsibility for tourism and access as well as boating, so I guess the question is whether any funding comes from the nav account or the National Park one. Although even that is clouded by the fact that new riverside paths could be used by boaters too.

[Guest]

Here's the riverside grass footpath alongside Candle Dyke, looking back at the River Thurne junction.