[Closed] sustrans not very popular ?

They're not very popular with me 😉

I do value the creation of the cycle network, but where they stand opposed to rail reinstatement they are actually blocking sustainable transport - which needs to include a mix of travel modes

I love them for touring, well marked and easy gravel style off road. But if you read many post by bike tourists they seem not to as the routes are not all tarmaced.

I use one on my commute and I am now accustomed to it but while i am happy to tour on it the unsurfaced nature does make the commute tougher, I expect I. The winter it would put people off, it definitely reduces my commuting range.

They are stuck for funding unfortunately, lots of the routes unfortunately have missing links and negotiation to join them up probably take priority.

Over the weekend we only met one other group doing the route

Its October

Are they the ones that surface cycle routes with sharp stones the size of golf balls?

the PBW/MTL is an excellent example of money thrown at projects in staggering quantities and now several years on neglect and apathy have taken their toll on the infrastructure. much of the hard surface has had undergrowth encroach to the extant that its covered in places and virtually all the wooden signposting has rotted to the point of boards etc missing or illegible at best..no point paying a lot of money for something if its not looked after..

Yeah, not very popular with me either.

To be useful they either need to make sure they are clean, smooth tarmac [b]OR[/b] clearly mark which sections are in what condition.

I'd have no confidence at all setting off to follow an unknown sustrans route on anything other less than a CX bike with beefy tyres on.

Only really used them with the family (touring doesn't light my fire), down in the south west annoyingly anti MX gates made it a nightmare with the kids trailer in tow!
Seemed well used in the summer tho

We've used hundreds and hundreds of miles of Sustrans routes for touring and found them almost without exception to be very good indeed. I can't see how a signed route on minor roads and cycle paths can be blocking sustainable transport either..?

Sustrans seem to have adopted a 'well it's better than nothing' approach to approval of proposed cycle routes and infrastructure.

Bez of this Parish has waxed lyrical about it;

e.g.

[img] [/img]

see also;

[url= https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/tag/sustrans/ ]https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/tag/sustrans/[/url]

Personally, I think Sustrans are too willing to compromise on both surface and safety just to be able to say 'look we've linked X and Y'.

I read somewhere (many years ago) that something like 40% of the sustrans cycle paths i.e. not the way marked minor roads bits, were ex rail routes.

Thats why they are blocking sustainable transport, well, not sustainable, integrated is probably a better word.

Admittedly a lot of the ex rail routes can't be reclaimed, but i'm sure many of them can.......

Personally, I think Sustrans are too willing to compromise on both surface and safety just to be able to say 'look we've linked X and Y'.

Other than that, it was safer, easier and more pleasant to ride on the road.

but i'm sure many of them can......

I agree but don't hold your breath.

They won't even open up old statins on existing lines.

A few years ago I was looking at house options in Gloucestershire, for a job in Bristol. There was pressure to reopen an old station at Charfield, that would make a massive difference to the area and allow a lot of people to commute by train. 7 years later still nothing.

Car is King.

agghhhh
[img] [/img]
& agghhhhh
[img] [/img]

despite these horrors it is a great set of cycle routes. When we did the C2C a few years ago in the summer there was loads of people. I use them all the time, virtually every ride as there's plenty of Canals round here.

I think a lot of people are ready to criticise something they don't completely understand.

The majority of routes on old railway lines (nowhere near 40% of the ncn btw) include covenants which mean Sustrans have to allow it to be used as a railway if the government desire in the future. I've never actually heard of Sustrans blocking such a scheme. They did object to parts of the Bristol to Bath railway path being used for a bus rapid transit route, but that's because it was ill thought out and badly planned rather than removing the use of the path (in fact the plans would have allowed cyclists/peds to still use a segregated section).

As for maintenance of routes, that's almost always the responsibility of the local highways department. Cf. potholes and the general state of the roads.

Wrt to access issues, sustrans don't actively support motor cycle barriers but take a pragmatic approach - is it preferable that no path is built rather than one with reduced access?

Anyway, given the state of funding I'm not sure Sustrans will be about in their current form for much longer.

(Disclosure: I used to work for them as one of the few engineers in the organisation. Imo they get a lot of ire which should instead be directed to council highway departments and generally do a pretty good job given the lack of money they have)

it was safer, easier and more pleasant to ride on the road.

Easier maybe. But safer? How?

I really like using Sustans traffic free routes when they are available. They can be variable mind.

There was one that went through Port Glasgow that was a nightmare, broken glass everywhere, 3 punctures in one commute, even with "armoured" tyres. Schwalbe marathon Plus and carrying through some sections, was the only option.

I commute along a Sustran route every morning. It's a cycle path which existed long before Sustran did, yet they now claim credit for it and are endlessly hanging around on it trying to get people to join them. The irony is they hang around next to a bridge (which is part of 'their' route) on which cycling is banned.

Pretty much sums up what I think of them..

I've used some Sustrans routes - in fact the route from home in Balerno to office in Livingston had one pretty much door to door. The problem with that route was that it was quite indirect and used some really rough tracks so wasn't suitable for a road bike. That meant I occasionally used it when I wasn't in a hurry but didn't use any of it when commuting on the road bike.

I used to volunteer at Sustrans , did my Masters thesis with them and then worked with them a lot after entering the 'real word'

When they started they did absolutely wonderful work with raising the profile of cycling in uk when it was at its lowest ebb I think. But over the last few years I think they have lost a fair deal of relevance , particularly when it comes to actually building infrastructure . They have also suffered greatly from cuts. Their education programme is very good still (safer routes to schools , walking bus, cycle training and so on)

Edit : what pjt201 said

Easier maybe. But safer? How?

Easier maybe. But safer? How?

Fewer pedestrians and dogs wandering haphazardly all over the road, usually 🙂

(nowhere near 40% of the ncn btw)

Easier maybe. But safer? How?

By comparison the 8 or 10 miles of fairly well surfaced and illuminated, moderately quiet B roads between work and home with minimal junctions and street furniture was pleasant and far less likely to result in me skating down the road on my face.

Anyway, given the state of funding I'm not sure Sustrans will be about in their current form for much longer.

Yes, things have changed. Feels to me like its a critical time for Sustrans - the original driver (The £40M lottery funding) has been spent and the NCN as a whole is a mature network now. Malcolm Shepherd (former Sustrans CEO) has retired and I get the sense that there's some head scratching now about exactly what Sustrans is aiming to do. We've got a new CEO formerly of TfL (Xavier Brice) who I'm sure will want to make a difference and develop a new direction. Funding will be a massive challenge - there have been some shake ups internally already and my guess is there's more to come. Its anyone's guess what the new steady state will look like.

TM

I read somewhere (many years ago) that something like 40% of the sustrans cycle paths i.e. not the way marked minor roads bits, were ex rail routes.

Thats why they are blocking sustainable transport, well, not sustainable, integrated is probably a better word.

Admittedly a lot of the ex rail routes can't be reclaimed, but i'm sure many of them can.......

You only need one house built across what used to be lines 50 years ago and the whole route is all pretty much banjaxed. Between towns and villages you've got a relic of the the old line which is a fairly level grade and you might be lucky and still have some bridges over roads and waterways - ideal for a cycle path between towns. But in most instances when those old route reach the towns they link the route has pretty much been built over. So while 95% of the route might be clear to reinstate its the 5% actually in the towns the routes link that makes the whole route unfeasible to reinstate as rail.

I have not heard of them blocking reinstalling railway lines, probably because i have only heard of one line ever being reinstated!

I also think getting the connectionsions in is important as one of the major problems with bike infrastructure is the number of deAd ends and missing links. Got to have the routes to be able to improve the surface. To be fair the surface is usually fine in the summer but I agree not great on a 23 mm tyres road bike, but I don't think they are the place for fast training and definitely not for chain gangs.

Some of the infrastructure is very good indeed, but most of it is complete toss: indirect, poorly-surfaced and littered with obstacles.

jekkyl - Member

agghhhh

& agghhhhh

despite these horrors it is a great set of cycle routes. When we did the C2C a few years ago in the summer there was loads of people. I use them all the time, virtually every ride as there's plenty of Canals round here.

Are they just there to stop motorcycling? Not much of a deterrent really, seems like the type of whopper who wants to teararse around sustrans trails will find a way to do so - like lifting the motorbike over the horsey box thing.

They do waste a lot of cash though.

Very near me they spent months last year and lots of cash improving an old rail bridge on the old Helmshore line. They've cut back the trees and raised the parapet for safety, and resurfaced. Great.

But they've got to the other side of the bridge and stopped. So you can ride across, turn around at the eyesore temporary fence and come back.

Why go to the bother of doing half a job? What's the benefit?

Those restrictor gates pretty much block any utility bike from the whole network.

Fun fact: Sustrans' first major route, the Bristol-Bath Railway Path, now carries more people on foot or bike than it ever did as a railway.

I like Sustrans, in general. They've achieved a lot in a country that simply doesn't throw the same amount of funding at cycling and walking as, say, HS2, or converting A-roads to dual carriageway.

In the UK, they're the organisation that successfully presents cycling as a transport and recreation option for everyone. Women and children riding. No special clothing. If cycling's ever going to be taken up widely, it can't be represented by helmets and hi-viz, or people in skinsuits holding up Olympic medals.

Their main failing seems to have been failure to introduce decent minimum design standards for new infrastructure. My feeling is that they're holding off doing this, as it would mean much less new infrastructure getting built.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/sustrans-cycle-friendly-design-manual-part-1/

I used to use Route 6 to get from Sheffield to Rovrum every day. It was much better than the road route, went along the canal and the river, and even through a wild flower reserve. It wasn't perfect but it was good

[i]simply doesn't throw the same amount of funding at cycling and walking as, say, HS2[/i]

HS2 is costing £150 million per mile.

You'd get a fairly decent cycle path for that sort of spend per mile.

But they've got to the other side of the bridge and stopped. So you can ride across, turn around at the eyesore temporary fence and come back.
Why go to the bother of doing half a job? What's the benefit?

Lack of money. Donate. I do.

Lack of money. Donate. I do.

I did donate. But I'm feeling a bit jaded about what they piddle money away on at the moment.

Why spend money to no benefit? If they pushed on the extra 600m it'd be a job well done, money well spent. Currently it isn't. It's a white elephant.

[img] [/img]

It's pretty enough, but pointless. That money could have had a better use elsewhere.

So for each mile of HS2, we could build 27 Hovenrings.

[img] ?w=547[/img]

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/spectacular-new-floating-cycle-roundabout/

So while 95% of the route might be clear to reinstate its the 5% actually in the towns the routes link that makes the whole route unfeasible to reinstate as rail.

They could compulsorily purchase those - they aren't afraid of doing it for HS2 are they?

I want them to reinstate the Merthyr-Brecon route. They could even send the Taff trail up the Bryn Ore tramway, and it'd be better. Win/win.

I don't really get the moaning about the surfaces. Yes, they make the going a bit slower, but if they're cheaper to build/maintain then that's got to be a good compromise. Even the worst are easily traversable on an MTB/cross bike/hybrid which covers just about everyone who's going to be using them as who's going to buy a skinny-tyred bike except a serious roadie (who will quite rightly be staying as far away from Sustrans routes as possible!)

I don't really get the moaning about the surfaces. Yes, they make the going a bit slower, but if they're cheaper to build/maintain then that's got to be a good compromise.

Yes, when I'm out riding with the kids or commuting to work what I want to do is get covered in filthy water. Having said that, there's little danger of me riding them with the kids as the stupid gates mean I can't get the trailer through.

where they stand opposed to rail reinstatement they are actually blocking sustainable transport

They build stuff that's not bad for cycle touring. But it's not really about sustainable transport if the 'route' just ends any time it reaches a built up area, which is exactly where they should be focusing. 66% of journeys in the UK are under 5 miles in distance, which means they're mostly within towns rather than between them. Putting some gravel down on an abandoned railway might make for a reasonable route for an Sunday afternoon potter to nowhere in particular, but if I want to get from a busy place where I live to a busy place where I work, Sustrans only provide any infrastructure where I don't really need it. And provide nothing where it would be most useful.

Round here the "NCN" is a loose gravel track with needless curves added at the bottom of hills. Then you ride along the edge of a field full of cows. The cows like standing on the path rather than the boggy field, so a couple of times I've had to turn back and ride a mile and a half in the wrong direction to get onto a road to get around the cows. Then you reach a town and the NCN kind of fizzles out. It's on the map but I can't figure out where it actually is on the ground. Then you get out of town to a 50mph road. The "National Cycle Network" here is just a dashed line at the edge of the road, except where there's nothing at all.

The footnote to all of that, of course, is that safe cycling infrastructure shouldn't be provided by a charity, it should be built as a matter of course by the same people who build the rest of our transport infrastructure.

Yes, when I'm out riding with the kids or commuting to work what I want to do is get covered in filthy water. Having said that, there's little danger of me riding them with the kids as the stupid gates mean I can't get the trailer through.

Agree with you about the gates, they are a real pain for some bikes & I've had to help loads of people carry their trailers over them! Thinking positively though, the "trailer stage" is only going to be for a few years, then they're on their own bikes so it's not a problem any more.

About those MX gates. It's not Sustrans putting them up.

The use of physical barriers should be avoided wherever possible and should never be introduced where such barriers would discriminate unlawfully against people with disabilities, or where barriers would prevent rightful access or passage.

From

I got stopped by one of their chuggers the other day on the A33 cycle path in Reading (which to be fair is mostly great), so I went on their online map to see what else there was locally with the intention of stringing together some decent length evening rides for the winter.

Probably 50% of sections locally were impassible on a mountainbike or required a degree of pushing through mud and/or brambles, and the bulk would have been impassible on a CX/hybrid/tourer.

It's a shame, because sometimes they do a brilliant job, especially where there's an old railway line linking villages into towns but the rest let's them down horribly

And as for MX gates, surely there are better solutions than those?

I think that too many of the routes on the NCN are 'neither man nor beast' - in that the surfaces are often too poor for road bikes, but with far too much road to appeal to off-road cyclists.

Their original urban link routes remain brilliant, I think that they lost their way though by sticking to an unrealistic formula. I have consulted on a number of issues recently where their message that 'multi user trail must be X metres wide and resurfaced to the following standard' has actively held back access improvements due to cost implications.

This is like on of those threads where folk complain about their local trail centre but aren't willing to help pay for, or assist with, trail repairs. The situation in this country is that every pound spent on cycling infrastructure has to be won from central/local government. How many of the haterz have gone out and campaigned for more funding, put this near the top of their list whilst choosing political parties or gone out and helped look after the current routes?

Do you really think the folk at Sustrans look at the network and think "[i]well, that's the best we could ever have come up with[/i]"? Bits of path start and end in strange places but that's how a network is created. It's organic. Show there's a demand and the authorities are more likely to do something to satisfy it. NCN78 is a great example. It was signed on minor roads but there are a few bits where the only option was the trunk road. Slowly, this is being bypassed by purpose-built cycle track. It's not going to happen tomorrow, especially if there's no pressure to have it built. And those strange bits through town that seem to detour for no reason are often built with things like local schools, shops etc in mind.

PS - I should really admit I'm a volunteer ranger for Sustrans. That means I do get involved in some path maintenance, shrub clearance, litter picking, local advocacy, campaigning and so on.

mudguards? slow down for puddles? I commute virtually every weekday all year round along a pretty damn ropey Sustrans off-road route which gets extremely muddy/waterlogged at times but never really have a problem.

I agree that using them is not impossible, but if it puts me off (as a keen cyclist) then what do you think it does to casual leisure or commuting riders? I'm of the view that unless they're prepared to install a properly-surfaced route suitable for year-round riding, then it should not be part of the national network.

They're a bloody nightmare!

With a child seat on the back of the bike I've got to pick the bike and child up to lift them both over some of those sill y gate things.

My mate has a boxbike, the only place she can ride off road with it is the fallowfield loop at the moment because they've opened all the gates. She'd love to head down the transpennine but it's completely impossible for her to lift the bike up with her son in the front

This is like on of those threads where folk complain about their local trail centre but aren't willing to help pay for, or assist with, trail repairs.

Ah right. So I imagined the monthly donations I made to Sustrans for ten years?

[quote=ransos ]

This is like on of those threads where folk complain about their local trail centre but aren't willing to help pay for, or assist with, trail repairs.

I'm no a fan. Some good bits but other sections where huge detours are taken to avoid short bits of road which aren't too bad. When the distance via Sustrans can be more than double the road route something is wrong.

[img] ?w=500[/img]

I think Sustrans were at least partially behind the "boardwalk" pathway that runs along the Itchen between Priory Road and Northam Bridge...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Northam+Bridge,+Southampton/ @50.9159939,-1.3883807,986m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4874715a0f5266a3:0xde6af452766425d3!8m2!3d50.9147092!4d-1.3860634

It's pleasant enough to cycle along for ~2mins, but I can't help but wonder how much it cost and how that money could have been used better on section of Southampton city centre that gets a lot more bike traffic. The "all-time" list is not exactly huge on Strava...
https://www.strava.com/segments/2501512?filter=overall&gender=both

Only 596 Strava users for that section and just 129 if you continue on after the "boardwalk" to the dirt track that goes under Northam Bridge.

I think the issue is that people have an expectation of a 'Sustrans Approved' route. Often these expectations are not met, even from the outset.

If there were a minimum set of standards that applied people would be able to start a ride knowing they'd be able to finish it on the signposted route.

It's not about funding, it's about standards.

And do you think all the other contributors to this thread have the same story?

Like you, I've no idea what the contributors to this thread have or haven't done. But I wouldn't criticise anyone for not wishing to donate to schemes that are unfit for purpose.

mudguards? slow down for puddles? I commute virtually every weekday all year round along a pretty damn ropey Sustrans off-road route which gets extremely muddy/waterlogged at times but never really have a problem.

Agree with you about the gates, they look a real pain with trailers & I've had to help loads of people carry their trailers over them! Thinking positively though, the "trailer stage" is only going to be for a few years, then they're on their own bikes so it's not a problem any more.

Classic "I'm alright Jack" so everyone else should be able to cope or should MTFU. 🙄

Misses the point by a country mile that for [b]Sustainable Transport[/b], you need to cater for everybody. People with kiddie trailers, laden touring cyclists, cargo bikes, recumbents, trikes, handcycles.

And it needs to be on a surface that doesn't coat you/the bike in crap. That's like calling a track across some marshland a "pavement" cos you can wear wellies.

Utility cycling, which is what this country desperately needs, has to be the same as walking or driving or getting the bus - something that virtually anyone can do without thinking about it and that takes you from A to B via the quickest easiet route, not following the meanders of a river for 12 miles instead of 4 miles of direct road. Not something that you can only do if you get dressed up in all your walking gear, hi-viz and a helmet!

[quote=n0b0dy0ftheg0at ]Only 596 Strava users for that section and just 129 if you continue on after the "boardwalk" to the dirt track that goes under Northam Bridge.Not sure if being ironic or not....

like the idea but dont like the idea that we are treated as second class citizens on a cycle path with little education to help both sides (pedestrians and cyclists) to get along together.

Having said that ive seen come graffiti on the brighouse canal which i liked last night which was smile and say hi.

No one seems to have appointed my ring twice pass nice motto though.

I'm in the 'not sure' camp.

They seem to go with trails they can afford to do, which isn't necessarily what we need. For example, IMO Cardiff badly needs a way to get into town from the East. There's a path along the river all the way to the beginning of the awful four lane chockablock retail park mess of Newport road, then you're thrown to the lions. Most casual cyclists wouldn't dream of cycling along there.

But Sustrans haven't got the money or power to put anything in - only the council could, because there's really no land on which to do it. It'd have to be part of a huge replan.

So they put cyclepaths in places like the Usk Valley which is only opf recreational use to most (lovely though it is) and fully of quiet lanes anyway.

I think they've set back cycling in this country not improved it. They forced us onto muddy gravel paths well away from other transport, rather than spend the money on things that would improve cycling for all. They've made it acceptable for government and councils to chuck some token money at something pretty useless and then say it was supported by the cycling community.

There was a section of the NCN1 route that was the scariest road I've ever cycled on. It must have been picked by someone looking at a map and not cycling it, un-excusable imo. Thankfully in the last year or two the route has been re-jigged.

fDeep swamps if it rained, broken surfaces all the time, random people wandering about on it, people who couldn't work out whether to ride on the left, the right, the middle or just randomly switch between them, dog walkers (mostly with the dog off the lead as we were "in the countryside") all made for an "exciting" experience. Even on a cross bike.

Other than the surface most of your issues seem to be with sharing this path

This is like on of those threads where folk complain about their local trail centre but aren't willing to help pay for, or assist with, trail repairs. The situation in this country is that every pound spent on cycling infrastructure has to be won from central/local government. How many of the haterz have gone out and campaigned for more funding, put this near the top of their list whilst choosing political parties or gone out and helped look after the current routes?

Fair point to be honest.
Problem is as a country we don't actually have any money for anything right now.
I'd far rather in the short term we got in a position to not spend £43bn/yr interest payments. Then all of a sudden we have plenty of cash to re-invest in path networks etc.

Classic "I'm alright Jack" so everyone else should be able to cope or should MTFU.

I think it was Bez that summed up how I feel about their work, it was something along the lines of "we need to stop pretending we've got a national cycle network and realise that what we've got it some blue signs".

[quote="thebrick"]Other than the surface most of your issues seem to be with sharing this pathNot in the slightest. I've no objection to sharing a transport link with other people using it for transport. Randomly/aimlessly roaming dog walkers/dogs who are blissfully unaware of anyone else around them and endless swampy shit does not sound like a transport link to me.

Edit: what Edlong said.

It's not about funding, it's about standards.

Actually it's about both, and other things, as always things are grey and complicated, not black and white.

I spend a fair bit of my time volunteering for a local cycling charity, who also work with the bigger ones, and local councils and the hoops, barriers and obstacles to progress are insane. Nobody wants to produce something substandard, believe me, [b]nobody[/b].

I support and donate to Sustrans (and CTC/Cycling UK and BC FWIW), I'm not 100% happy with everything they do and I do think there is scope for improvement, but as always with these things I'd rather support something and work towards improving it, than have a hissy fit, walk away from it saying it's not fit for purpose.

Someone made a very valid point earlier:

Cycling infrastructure should not really be left to a charity to provide. If you want to get angry and grumpy, get angry and grumpy at the fact that it's being left to an imperfect, struggling charity, who face many more barriers to their work than you see from the outside.

Look at the big picture, your complaint isn't really that Sustrans do a poor job, it's that the job is left to Sustrans in the first place, and then to make matters worse, they've not got the resources or authority to do it properly anyway, occasionally they get thrown a bone and can produce a little nugget of gold, but mostly they get given some glitter and a turd and told to get creative.

It's impossible to get the result you want from this setup, especially when a lot of their funding is reliant on being able to show they've made shiny things, if they stop rolling the turds in glitter then they don't get any more glitter.

Don't underestimate the importance of just having a existing route sign posted. When you are in a strange area (or sometimes your local area) frequently don't know the quite route even if it is all on back roads when all "normal" sign posts for e you onto the local bypass!

Randomly/aimlessly roaming dog walkers/dogs who are blissfully unaware of anyone else around them and endless swampy shit does not sound like a transport link to me

that is the nature of sharing a path! Most people are idiots so you will have to deal with idiotic behaviour!

[i]the job is left to Sustrans in the first place, and then to make matters worse, they've not got the resources or authority to do it properly anyway, occasionally they get thrown a bone and can produce a little nugget of gold, but mostly they get given some glitter and a turd and told to get creative. [/i]

The thing is by approving by association a substandard route Sustrans allow those with the resources to get away with providing rubbish infrastructure. Sustrans accept mediocrity and that becomes the defacto standard that councils work to.

I agree Sustrans do a good job in some areas but they should be setting a 'gold' standard in all the work they do.

Yeah. So I'll stick to using the road thanks.

If you want to see proper cycle tracks done properly, you need to get out of the UK.

FWIW I can get from where I live to the centre of Göteborg on a dedicated tarmac cycle path. Where it is shared with pedestrians it is clearly posted and marked. Where it shares the road (not much) there is a kerb and railing/posts separating the two. That's about 60km.

I can then carry on south to Malmo.

scotroutes - Member
n0b0dy0ftheg0at » Only 596 Strava users for that section and just 129 if you continue on after the "boardwalk" to the dirt track that goes under Northam Bridge.
Not sure if being ironic or not..

I appreciate not everyone uses Strava, but some us of us like me use it to monitor our own riding, I don't seriously expect to challenge segment KOMs on a fatbike. 😆

It simply gives an illustration of how little use that path gets in that Strava segment, very few cyclists need to travel between Bitterne Triangle and Northam.

I used it last Thursday to come home from buying bike bits at Aldi, first time since joining Strava ~2 weeks ago (for fun), maybe fifth time this year and <25th time since it was opened. But there are several quiet back-street routes I could have used instead.

Purely as an example, there are bike filter lanes near traffic lights on Hill Lane that need re-painting, a road that gets masses more cyclists using it everyday. Where these lines have faded, cars are now regularly blocking the filter lanes that lead to Advanced Signal Boxes (which still have decent demarcation by paint).

Personally, I think Sustrans are too willing to compromise on both surface and safety just to be able to say 'look we've linked X and Y'.

this right here.

sustrans route 33 runs right by me.. i've done the section from brean down to burnham-on-sea both on the road and the beach, and in both directions.

the road is very busy and bloody dangerous during tourist season and there are regularly car crashes, let alone this recent story : http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2014/brean-crash-27-05-14.php

the beach is awful to ride down, i'm sure it killed off a set of forks on my old bike. riding 7 miles on damp sand? great idea? not!

in short. sustrans, not fit for purpose and deceptive in my area. YMMV.

and.. coast wise, following around south of where i live.. there's a 50 mile gap with no sustrans route at all. (however, supposed updates to the south west coast path don't appear to have materialised yet)

I support and donate to Sustrans (and CTC/Cycling UK and BC FWIW), I'm not 100% happy with everything they do and I do think there is scope for improvement, but as always with these things I'd rather support something and work towards improving it, than have a hissy fit, walk away from it saying it's not fit for purpose.

After ten years of donating, I took the view that the standard of infrastructure had not improved. I'm now of the opinion that they should do it properly or not at all.

I'm now of the opinion that they should do it properly or not at all.

How should they 'do it properly', assuming that they can't just call on a large reserve of cash? Genuine q.

I think Sustrans is great, commute in on one if their routes to avoid traffic. Yeah, motorbike gates can be a hindrance, but so is a bunch of hooligans on unlicensed and uninsured mopeds, so I bought a CX bike for commuting to squeeze through the gates.

Re surfaces, well every sustrans route I've ridden is passable on 32mm tyres, so that covers most touring bikes, hybrids and mountain bikes. So unless you are on a pure roadie tyre, it's a non issue.

Also, Sustrans routes are not solely about bikes, they are often intended for walkers and horses as well.

Finally, yes, some of their involvement may not be to everyone's approval. They are limited to what their staff, funding and volunteers can realistically achieve. If you don't like it, make sure you have tried putting in a similar amount of time and effort before getting on your high horses.

The thing is by approving by association a substandard route Sustrans allow those with the resources to get away with providing rubbish infrastructure. Sustrans accept mediocrity and that becomes the defacto standard that councils work to.

I agree Sustrans do a good job in some areas but they should be setting a 'gold' standard in all the work they do.

Personally, I think Sustrans are too willing to compromise on both surface and safety just to be able to say 'look we've linked X and Y'.

Valid points, but ask [i]why [/i]that is, why do they accept things less than gold standard, why do they prioritise linking...

The sad answer is normally that they're being pragmatic and working within the bounds of the possible. If they dug their heels in and demanded more/better then the reality is what you would get is 'nothing' while they sit there having a standoff with local authorities and government. Either that or they would blow the entire budget making a small section of perfect route, which then ends abruptly as the money runs out.

And as for linking, pragmatically, linking A+B with a less than ideal surface 'now' with a longer term goal of improving the surface is often better than not linking A with B at all.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to give some more explanation.

Not Sustrans related but currently there is a bit of work going on in our city to get a new route designated, it's gone through many many revisions while trying to work within the bounds of the possible, and all of them are sub-optimal, we're over 18 months down the line now and the current state of play is that we're going to either end up with sub-optimal, or nothing. I'm not sure which I want :-s

Not Sustrans related but currently there is a bit of work going on in our city to get a new route designated, it's gone through many many revisions while trying to work within the bounds of the possible, and all of them are sub-optimal, we're over 18 months down the line now and the current state of play is that [b]we're going to either end up with sub-optimal, or nothing. I'm not sure which I want [/b]

indeed. And I suspect many on this thread would prefer nothing. But these people are mainly confident cyclists who don't baulk at mixing it with traffic if necessary.

There's probably a much larger group who would rather plump for 'sub optimal' if it meant being able to ride on a quiet path away from cars, even if it was a bit bumpy...

Yeah. So I'll stick to using the road thanks.

If you want to see proper cycle tracks done properly, you need to get out of the UK

I do but thanks for making the assumption that I don't. All the sustrans routes I know are shared use rather than bike lanes.

I am aware that they have a lot to improve on but for many routes just having a alternative to a duel carriageway is good. The idot factor is always there on shared use path even if it was wonderfully smoothed!

I've just completed Edinburgh to Chesterfield completely on NCN routes. Overall I think they're great but in hindsight I should have researched the route a lot more. For starters, my mileage was higher than expected - from a Google maps route using cycle option, its obvious that NCN do take a sometimes contrived route, eg 2 miles extra round a bridleway to avoid one section of B road. This oversight meant my route was 20% more on one day (127 instead of 106 miles - the latter already more than I'd ridden in a day so wasn't a pleasant surprise). That said, gravel paths still get my vote over roads when they're direct and scenic.

What I do like about them when time is no pressure is the scenic nature of the routes - I went through Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham - reputably less attractive areas. The sun was shining on a beautiful Autumnal day, but it was quite simply beautiful. If I'd have looked at a map and taken a more obvious road route I think I'd have been very disappointed. That could be a broad generalisation of those areas and applies to many other places in this country.

Co-wee, escalation of the thread already?

maccruiskeen - Member
Over the weekend we only met one other group doing the route
...
Its October

I did NCN72 in June, bit windy and rained a bit on and off too... I saw 3 people only and they were coming the other way. I did West/East.
And as said, that was June.

But I like the NCN routes, they've brought me a lot of enjoyment and taken me to places I'd never have normally gone.

The catch-22 here is that Sustrans are putting their name to infrastructure on the proviso that anything is better than nothing.

The problem is that it's then not used by many people because it's shit / doesn't go where it's needed / is not well known about and the council then use that as an excuse to carry on providing sub-standard facilities because "hardly anyone uses it".

The tragedy of it all is that transport infrastructure is funded by a charity with limited legal powers - it needs to be funded in the same way as road, rail & bus and incorporated into every new road scheme and every road repair/renovation.

I want them to reinstate the Merthyr-Brecon route. They could even send the Taff trail up the Bryn Ore tramway

Exactly. And Brecon Mountain Railway wanted to reopen Torpantau tunnel through the Brecon Beacons (historically the highest on the UK rail network) and extend the railway to Talybont. Not sure it was Sustrans who objected, but there was a generally negative response to the idea of replacing a recreational route with a rail route.

Same score, IIRC, for the Camel Trail, Plym Trail and Granite Trail 😡

I commute along a Sustran route every morning. It's a cycle path which existed long before Sustran did, yet they now claim credit for it and are endlessly hanging around on it trying to get people to join them. The irony is they hang around next to a bridge (which is part of 'their' route) on which cycling is banned.

sounds like Blackweir in Cardiff.....although cycling in the bridge isn't banned...it's not a No Cycling sign 😉

There was a discussion on a roadie forum about what the steepest road climb in Wales was - one likley suspect was a bitch of a climb round the back of pontypridd that makes roadies cry. Turns out it was part of the NCN. You can't take NCN branding/signposting as a guarantee of anything so it makes planning impossibe. If I went to a part of the UK I don't know I'd have to recce the route before deciding if it was safe to take kids on, or physically possible for my wife to ride. It's utterly unacceptable. The "its local authority fault" is weasel responsibility dodging horsecrap.

In wales new guidance has been drawn up about Active Travel routes - every cycle route that meets the minimum guidance has to be mapped - The vast majority of Sustrans National Cycle Network has failed to meet the standard and is excluded from the official mapping.

In London TFL have built new cycleways which are getting a lot of love...Sustrans have been responsible for delivering the secondary "Quietways" - from what I've heard from the people I know up in London the quietways are crap too.

TRue enough a national cycle network shouldnt be delivered by a charity, it needs to be done properly, but the reality is Sustrans have given their seal of approval for a huge amount of unacceptable dross, and that has become the defacto standard Councils aim for.