The adult cycling groups want a direct route between Kingswells and Bucksburn.
Bankhead want to encourage the kids to cycle to school.
Farmers would obviously prefer that any route follow the field boundaries.
Some walkers would prefer not to walk on tarmac in the countryside.
Cyclists prefer a tarmac surface and a lighting.
Cycling on a hardcore surface leads to increased maintenance costs
Cycling on 'mud' causes rutting, and a surface that is not suitable for walking.
Some of the routes are remote and may be problematic with regards to safety of young people, and also in terms of picking up people who have had a puncture or other breakdown.
Remote tarmac surfaces are likely to attract mini motos and motor cycles / quad bikes.
If the AWPR is built the existing back road will be much quieter, and will provide a safer cycling route.
Are there any other points that should be considered when assessing a route?
i think they should build a path because it is really hard to cycle over the existant mud track during the wet months!i have had plenty of experiance because i cycle every day to Bankhead academy in the summer but not winter due to the marshy conditions!at least with hardcore it wouldnt be non accesable. also we dont really need lights on the path aslong as a path is laid out!
this would certainly be a step forward for kingswells as a whole, because just now unless you have a car it is quite hard to access bucksburn unless you want to get black with mud and cow excrement!
the walkers shouldnt also complain about there being a path there because i do alot of walking and i certainly know what i would preffer to be walking on!
could there also not be someway of funding the path to get built?
Can you please clarify what you want to walk on. Is it a tarred surface, or a hardcore surface?
From my point of view I prefer to walk on a hardcore type surface that winds its way through the countryside.
Cyclists on the other hand want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible and this would be best achieved in a straight tarmac surface.
Walking on this type of 'road' is psychologically bad for a walker as it lets you see how far you have still to walk, and is somehow less interesting. The whole experience is supposed to be a walk in the country, and the tarmac is just not right. Consider any existing country walk - they are not tarmac.
There will be a public consultation in the next few weeks, and the route and type of surface, and issues like lighting will be taken into consideration. We need to identify a solution that suites all and not just one aspect of the community.
My preference is for a dedicated cycle track / route and general upgrade to the existing path network for walkers. I don't think the two are compatible on the same path.
Path 43
The route of the proposed core path 43 is too direct and needs to take account of ground and features between.
This is likely to be a 3.0m + wide cycle track.
What are the views of walkers? Cyclists have strong views - so your views are important to provide a more balanced view.
Alternative Routes
WHAT ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS
The adult cycling groups want a direct route between Kingswells and Bucksburn.
Bankhead want to encourage the kids to cycle to school.
Farmers would obviously prefer that any route follow the field boundaries.
Some walkers would prefer not to walk on tarmac in the countryside.
Cyclists prefer a tarmac surface and a lighting.
Cycling on a hardcore surface leads to increased maintenance costs
Cycling on 'mud' causes rutting, and a surface that is not suitable for walking.
Some of the routes are remote and may be problematic with regards to safety of young people, and also in terms of picking up people who have had a puncture or other breakdown.
Remote tarmac surfaces are likely to attract mini motos and motor cycles / quad bikes.
If the AWPR is built the existing back road will be much quieter, and will provide a safer cycling route.
Are there any other points that should be considered when assessing a route?
cycling path to bucksburn
i think they should build a path because it is really hard to cycle over the existant mud track during the wet months!i have had plenty of experiance because i cycle every day to Bankhead academy in the summer but not winter due to the marshy conditions!at least with hardcore it wouldnt be non accesable. also we dont really need lights on the path aslong as a path is laid out!
this would certainly be a step forward for kingswells as a whole, because just now unless you have a car it is quite hard to access bucksburn unless you want to get black with mud and cow excrement!
the walkers shouldnt also complain about there being a path there because i do alot of walking and i certainly know what i would preffer to be walking on!
could there also not be someway of funding the path to get built?
greatful for feedback
thankyou
Cycling path to Bucksburn
Hi Sam,
Good to see your input into this debate.
Can you please clarify what you want to walk on. Is it a tarred surface, or a hardcore surface?
From my point of view I prefer to walk on a hardcore type surface that winds its way through the countryside.
Cyclists on the other hand want to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible and this would be best achieved in a straight tarmac surface.
Walking on this type of 'road' is psychologically bad for a walker as it lets you see how far you have still to walk, and is somehow less interesting. The whole experience is supposed to be a walk in the country, and the tarmac is just not right. Consider any existing country walk - they are not tarmac.
There will be a public consultation in the next few weeks, and the route and type of surface, and issues like lighting will be taken into consideration. We need to identify a solution that suites all and not just one aspect of the community.
My preference is for a dedicated cycle track / route and general upgrade to the existing path network for walkers. I don't think the two are compatible on the same path.