[Closed] sustrans not very popular ?

Graig to Penycoedcae???

Utter bitch

Sustrans Route 4 - up Gelliwion Road from Sardis Rd

Opposite side of the valley then... Not cycled up that one

I've worked as a volunteer building both Sustrans paths and trails in Swinley.

Folk complain that the Sustrans paths are too muddy and aren't artificial enough (not enough tarmac) and that the Swinley trails aren't muddy enough and are too artificial. You just can't win....

If you think that you can do better, get out there and show us. Otherwise quit whingeing 8)

Matrix +1

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

Do less. I'm of the view that "something is better than nothing" is actually counter-productive.

Do less

Awesome idea, lets do more of this, that'll get us exactly what we need!

I'm of the view that "something is better than nothing" is actually counter-productive.

I'm of the view that something IS better than nothing, even when something isn't perfect and can be improved.

I prefer some trails over no trails
I prefer signoposting over nothing
I prefer variable surfaces over no route at all
I prefer half completed routes to not-started routes

Obviously I'd prefer somethign better than all of that, but I'll take 'sub-standard and can be improved' over nothing any day of the week.

Obviously this is purely opinion and we differ in that regard, I'm OK with that, and I'd love to have 'everything' but I'm struggling to see how we get there, and I think a lot of the grump is pointed in the wrong direction.

All of the point's and complaints people have made are valid problems, but not a single one of you has offered any hint of a workable idea on how to fix those problems, I'd also be curious how many of the biggest complainers have ever tried to get involved in any way even locally.

Do it properly => how? when you don't have the money, authority or resources?

Don't endorse it = > awesome, so now we have nothing, and a charity that LA's won't engage with because they know there's no point as they can;t meet their standards. And now you also have a charity that can't demonstrate that they've achieved anything, funding? -> poof!

Do less => great if you happen to be in the location where they do something, assuming of course the funding/project *can* be allocated to a small area, there's often conditions meaning it has to do A->B, or over area X, or it's off the cards completely.

Do more => great, again, how does that happen?

So, what to do?

as for this:

It's utterly unacceptable. The "its local authority fault" is weasel responsibility dodging horsecrap.

unacceptable, yes definitely it is unacceptable when Sustrans go to a LA and say X, Y, Z need fixing or this bit isn't acceptable and nothing gets done.

But it [b]IS [/b]the LA responsibility to maintain, Sustrans can't do it (other than tiny bits of work by Volunteer rangers, but even they mostly have to report rather than fix issues).

Sustrans and volunteers and rangers can be screaming hopping mad about things but if the LA won't/can't sort it then how is that "weasel responsibility dodging horsecrap"?

The gates/posts problem is a common one, they get put up by LA to deal with an 'issue', Sustrans don't want to put them in, don't support them, and actively fight against them being put in and trying to get them removed, but ultimately all they can do is keep asking nicely, they have no authority or power to remove them.

Sustrans seem to have done a lot of good work they also seem to have done a lot of stupid stuff on trails purportedly done by them. I appreciate they may not be the ones instlling motorbike gates and insisting on shitty gravel surfaces, in which case it's a image problem. If sustrans wanna keep us onside they need to get their version of events across, "look fellas, we did the best we could but parish council insisting on the crap gates, council highway dep insisted on the shoddy surface and bolshy landowner X made us take a 3 mile detour round his duck house" But I guess that wouldn't do them any favours with The Powers That Be.

It's a fine line they are walking but if they are pissing off cyclists en masse (I don't think STW are a typical representative of cyclists as a whole) then they are failing I'm afraid.

Folk complain that the Sustrans paths are too muddy and aren't artificial enough (not enough tarmac) and that the Swinley trails aren't muddy enough and are too artificial.

*I'm assuming "swinley trails" are mtb trails

I'm of the view that something IS better than nothing, even when something isn't perfect and can be improved.

I prefer some trails over no trails
I prefer signoposting over nothing
I prefer variable surfaces over no route at all
I prefer half completed routes to not-started routes

Obviously I'd prefer somethign better than all of that, but I'll take 'sub-standard and can be improved' over nothing any day of the week.

What you have there is a recipe for putting people off cycling. And we don't have "nothing", we have the road network which is generally accessible, well-surfaced, direct, sign-posted, not littered with obstacles, gritted and swept, and not requiring me to stop and give way every 100 sodding yards.

we don't have "nothing", we have the road network which is generally accessible, [b]well-surfaced[/b], direct, sign-posted, [b]not littered with obstacles[/b], [b]gritted[/b] and [b]swept[/b]

What sort of utopian part of the country do you live in to find these conditions? Would love some of that round here - sometimes hard to tell the difference between road/forest road.

The "do less" philosophy presumably means doing fewer projects, but doing them right, rather than doing less but in exactly the same way as it's done now.

So rather than have two or three poorly surfaced routes that squiggle about and end somewhere on the outskirts of any built up areas, do one route that forms a high-quality, direct, complete route all the way into a town centre from the suburb that produces the most 'into-town' traffic.

The problem with saying "we've got the road instead" is that the road clearly isn't the right solution for about 98% of people, or we'd have a higher level of cycling in this country. London has shown with the most recent CSHs that high quality cycle routes, oddly enough, get people on their bikes. Everywhere else, we can see the evidence that rubbish cycle routes don't really get people cycling.

What you have there is a recipe for putting people off cycling. And we don't have "nothing", we have the road network which is generally accessible, well-surfaced, direct, sign-posted, not littered with obstacles, gritted and swept, and not requiring me to stop and give way every 100 sodding yards.

😯 sorry just had to do a double take that you actually wrote that!

New cyclists are not more than happy to use the (actually often badly surfaced, often not direct if you're cycling, often confusingly signposted and often littered) roads.

Please, get your head out of lala land and remember that as a confident cyclist who (presumably?) already rides on and offroad you are NOT typical of the general public.

If you're anywhere near Devon/Exeter then by all means drop me a mail and we you can come down to our charity HQ and I'll make you a cup of Coffee/Tea and we can have a proper caht about what puts new cyclists off riding, I'll explain about the work we do, what barriers are in the way for both organisations like ours and people who want to cycle but can't for whatever reason.

A lot of the work we do is aimed at trying to get people riding, keeping them riding and enabling them to enjoy cycling as both a leisure and utility activity, and the biggest obstacle to cycling uptake in this country is.... traffic, and the perceived danger of it.

The number one question we hear from new riders, or people wanting to ride is "how do I get from X to Y without going on the roads?"

Sustrans (and other) off-road and shared use paths are a massively useful resource, they are NOT perfect, and nobody is saying they are, but they are 100% better than nothing (or just 'the roads' as you put it).

I understand a lot of the grump and disappointment that gets targeted at Sustrans, and I even share a lot of it, but you need to keep looking at the bigger picture...

You're sitting here getting grumpy that a charity with limited money, limited resource and little authority are not providing good enough resources and getting grumpy at them.

Well boo-****ing-hoo, why are you not getting grumpy that it is left to a charity to do this? and if you're happy for a charity to do this work instead of LA/government why are you not grumpy that they're not given the resources or authority to do it properly?

What sort of utopian part of the country do you live in to find these conditions? Would love some of that round here - sometimes hard to tell the difference between road/forest road.

The "do less" philosophy presumably means doing fewer projects, but doing them right, rather than doing less but in exactly the same way as it's done now.

So rather than have two or three poorly surfaced routes that squiggle about and end somewhere on the outskirts of any built up areas, do one route that forms a high-quality, direct, complete route all the way into a town centre from the suburb that produces the most 'into-town' traffic.

The "do less" philosophy presumably means doing fewer projects, but doing them right, rather than doing less but in exactly the same way as it's done now.

So rather than have two or three poorly surfaced routes that squiggle about and end somewhere on the outskirts of any built up areas, do one route that forms a high-quality, direct, complete route all the way into a town centre from the suburb that produces the most 'into-town' traffic.

I know that's what was meant, but the reality is that you often can't get approval or funding for that kind of thing. It's tossed out as too expensive for the size of outcome, or not hitting the criteria of linking XtoY etc.

If you get a situation where there is £? availble, and you rock up with you plan to build X miles of excellent gold-standard path for a single route that will benefit Z number of people, you'll get told to jog on, X needs to be longer, Z needs to be bigger or you can have £?/3 for your 'little' section.

And so you end up back at not doing anything, or being forced to do the sub-optimal.

Even the really good stuff (e.g. the Bristol-Bath railway path) isn't gritted in winter, so it becomes a skating rink at times. We wouldn't deem this to be acceptable on main roads, so why is it ok for far more vulnerable cyclists?

So why isn't it being gritted? who do you moan at to get it gritted?

I agree. Build a really good route and people will use it en-masse, then you have the justification for doing more of the same.

Sadly it doesn't like that in the real world, the justification may be there, but the money wont because it was all blown on the one route.

sorry just had to do a double take that you actually wrote that!

New cyclists are not more than happy to use the (actually often badly surfaced, often not direct if you're cycling, often confusingly signposted and often littered) roads.

Please, get your head out of lala land and remember that as a confident cyclist who (presumably?) already rides on and offroad you are NOT typical of the general public.

If you're anywhere near Devon/Exeter then by all means drop me a mail and we you can come down to our charity HQ and I'll make you a cup of Coffee/Tea and we can have a proper caht about what puts new cyclists off riding, I'll explain about the work we do, what barriers are in the way for both organisations like ours and people who want to cycle but can't for whatever reason.

A lot of the work we do is aimed at trying to get people riding, keeping them riding and enabling them to enjoy cycling as both a leisure and utility activity, and the biggest obstacle to cycling uptake in this country is.... traffic, and the perceived danger of it.

The number one question we hear from new riders, or people wanting to ride is "how do I get from X to Y without going on the roads?"

Sustrans (and other) off-road and shared use paths are a massively useful resource, they are NOT perfect, and nobody is saying they are, but they are 100% better than nothing (or just 'the roads' as you put it).

I understand a lot of the grump and disappointment that gets targeted at Sustrans, and I even share a lot of it, but you need to keep looking at the bigger picture...

You're sitting here getting grumpy that a charity with limited money, limited resource and little authority are not providing good enough resources and getting grumpy at them.

Well boo-****-hoo, why are you not getting grumpy that it is left to a charity to do this? and if you're happy for a charity to do this work instead of LA/government why are you not grumpy that they're not given the resources or authority to do it properly?

So why isn't it being gritted? who do you moan at to get it gritted?

Sadly it doesn't like that in the real world, the justification may be there, but the money wont because it was all blown on the one route.

The number one question we hear from new riders, or people wanting to ride is "how do I get from X to Y without going on the roads?"

Sustrans (and other) off-road and shared use paths are a massively useful resource, they are NOT perfect, and nobody is saying they are, but they are 100% better than nothing

The other solution is to make roads better so new riders don't say 'without going on roads'. London is your example there. Just went through Parliament square yesterday. A bit of paint, a few new traffic lights, reorganisation of priority and some clear thinking has made a white knuckle ride into a breeze, and it probably doesn't even cost drivers much time.

Because it has to be done by hand and the [b]council won't spend the money[/b]. Yes I have complained, many times. No, it's not going to change, which brings us back to using the road network.

^ so not Sustrans fault then, I bet you're not the only one who has complained either, but you hit the nail on the head. it's because its not seen as worthwile use of time or money by the LA, yet it clearly is a well used and well liked route.

That reads as one long rant defending the status quo. You want to carry on with substandard guff

I am not defending it. and I absolutely do not, I want improvement as much as anyone.

I just do not agree that battering Sustrans/other charities over the head who is the way to achieve progress, and I think a lot of the animosity is focussed in the wrong direction.

hopelessly naïve belief that it encourages people to cycle, whereas I dearly wish that you wouldn't bother

I know first hand than viable offroad, safe, well signposted and direct routes DO encourage people to cycle, and fortunately for the people that do benefit from them people do bother, whether you want them to or not.

Frankly, you'd achieve far more by focussing on making the roads safer.

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can make the roads safer AND offer viable offroad/segregated paths.

The other solution is to make roads better so new riders don't say 'without going on roads'. London is your example there.

London's an interesting case, I think. The very large cycling increase we've seen in the central area over the last 15 years has not come about because of dedicated infrastructure (the CSH schemes are following demand, not leading it). So what are the reasons? I suggest the congestion charge, 7/7 and bus lanes have had far more effect than blue paint...

^ so not Sustrans fault then, I bet you're not the only one who has complained either, but you hit the nail on the head. it's because its not seen as worthwile use of time or money by the LA, yet it clearly is a well used and well liked route.

I am not defending it. and I absolutely do not, I want improvement as much as anyone.

I just do not agree that battering Sustrans/other charities over the head who is the way to achieve progress, and I think a lot of the animosity is focussed in the wrong direction.

I know first hand than viable offroad, safe, well signposted and direct routes DO encourage people to cycle, and fortunately for the people that do benefit from them people do bother, whether you want them to or not.

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can make the roads safer AND offer viable offroad/segregated paths.

New cyclists are not more than happy to use the (actually often badly surfaced, often not direct if you're cycling, often confusingly signposted and often littered) roads

I 100% agree that many cyclists and certainly beginners are scared of the roads but to compare the road network to the cycle one is silly.

Ultimately any cycle "network" has to be usable, it it isn't then there's almost no point in it being there.

While their flagship "national cycle network" is laudable it is to some extent as much about grabbing headlines and therefore funding as it is about actually providing usable routes and spreads the jam far too thinly. Targeting networks within individual towns and cities is much more achievable and would give demonstrable results to allow them to pull in more funding.

There's a proposal locally to reinstate/upgrade a length of canal towpath, it's about 8Km but the LA need matching funding from "somewhere" for it to go ahead. Bizarrely it's not a legal BW (wonder how the horses pulled the boats along?) and there are signs around some sections saying "no biking" but the local council have it as one of their promoted family bike rides!

The other solution is to make roads better so new riders don't say 'without going on roads'. London is your example there

Yes in an ideal world that is where you'd want to end up, but it's a very very slow process, and also doesn't preclude having viable offroad routes too.

London IS a special case, and every town and city could put the level of effort and funding (and more!) into such schemes it would be ideal, but they can't and don't (yet), but you're just reinforcing the point that cycling infrastructure should not be provided by an under-resourced and funded charity, and getting grumpy at the charity is missing the point.

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.

I believe there is another project that will do the work, there is another viaduct further north that also needs work

http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/news/details.aspx?Id=PR15/0267

Bizarrely it's not a legal BW (wonder how the horses pulled the boats along?)

Canals were privately owned so it was private land. Bridleway means public right of acccess by horse - canal towpaths were a place of work so not a highway or anything else.

but you're just reinforcing the point that cycling infrastructure should not be provided by an under-resourced and funded charity, and getting grumpy at the charity is missing the point.

Well yes, I agree with it that's why 🙂

I'm anti-segregation except in special circumstances.

I didn't say it was Sustrans' fault!

I didn't mean to imply you had, sorry if it came across that way, but it's a good example of a situation where the LA are to blame for something (like gates) which often gets wrongly attributed.

That depends on whether you think Sustrans' current strategy is the right way to achieve progress. I don't.

I think aspects of their strategy are lacking and can be massively improved, but I also think in a world where the LA and government won't put the work in that it's better to work with them and try to improve than to be too negative towards them at the risk of gettign even less in the long run. It's a fine line though I'll grant you that...

The problem with segregation is that it makes motorists believe we shouldn't be on the road. I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of it...

Segregation is a concept I [i]still [/i]struggle with, we all know it has pros and cons, and Bez has some strong thoughts on it too, and to some degree I think we get too hung up on it but it can have its place under the right circumstances.

I sometimes wish that all the passion in threads like this could be harnessed and put to good use, and this is one of those situations where I bet if you could get everyone in a room over coffee and biscuits then some really good ideas would come of it.

Sadly too few spread too thin and with too little influence, kinda sums up the whole situation at the moment 🙁

I didn't mean to imply you had, sorry if it came across that way, but it's a good example of a situation where the LA are to blame for something (like gates) which often gets wrongly attributed.

Recently, I went to a Sustrans consultation on improving a local path, to try and get gates removed. Just in case anyone still thinks us moaners sit around doing nothing!

I think aspects of their strategy are lacking and can be massively improved, but I also think in a world where the LA and government won't put the work in that it's better to work with them and try to improve than to be too negative towards them at the risk of gettign even less in the long run. It's a fine line though I'll grant you that...

Segregation is a concept I still struggle with, we all know it has pros and cons, and Bez has some strong thoughts on it too, and to some degree I think we get too hung up on it but it has its place.

but just wish Sustrans wouldn't put their name to crap

me too, I really really agree with you on that one, I guess in this thread I've just been trying to highlight to some people some of the reasons why I think it happens.

I don't think it's intentional, and I don't think it's irreversible either, but I think the increasing constraints and pressures put on them over the years have lead to the current situation, and that you need a full understanding of how and why we are where we are when pointing fingers of blame.

I also think that many of the substandard routes that have had their name stamped on them were done so in the sincere belief that they could improve them later, and that it would be easier to get funding to improve an existing route than to try and deliver the perfect route first.

I think I'm right in saying that the biggest factor in on-road safety is the number of bums on saddles. So if there's an expectation of using a path, it needs to be a really good one, otherwise it can be worse than useless.

There are times when a segregated route can simply be more pleasant, and often just as quick, canal and ex-rail paths being the obvious examples, and I don't think it has to be to the detriment of on-road routes. In an ideal world it shouldn't be that one is safer than the other, simply that using a bike to travel should afford you [b]more [/b]options than using the roads when planning your route.

I'd love it if the NCN signs actually meant something in terms of route quality.

i often find myself following routes on the sustrans online map.

then i remember that those little blue arrows are most usefully interpreted by riding in the opposite direction. either because the route will be crap and or dangerous, and or it'll simply be the wrong direction altogether.

eg:

[img] [/img]

crap routes? tick.

[i]and[/i] completely the wrong direction? tick (completely wrong twice on the same sign, and managing to contradict itself, that's a neat trick).

but thanks to these bloody useless signs, some ****ing desk-jockey can put a tick against the 'cycle access' requirement, and Harworth estates get another pat on the back for a job well done.

i'd love to follow some of the longer-distance routes, but when i cannot fathom the blue signs [i]even when i know where i'm going[/i], there's no way i'm going to tackle something so potentially complex as The Way of The Roses.

Sustrans, for better or worse, have become the default "brand" to go to for cycling infrastructure. Much like you ask a Joe Public in the street where to buy a bike, they'd probably say "Halfords".

You ask a council to put in a cycle lane and they'll go "oh, let's talk to Sustrans".

And Sustrans, desperate to secure the next bit of funding because they're a charity and not a government department, will put forward their guidelines document, the council and the beancounters will dumb it down until it's little more than some green paint and it'll be implemented.

And then when people complain (which will consist of "proper" cyclists refusing to use it cos it's shit, drivers getting upset that #bloodycyclists are still using the roads rather than the cycle path and novice cyclists still being too scared to use it since it vanishes at the first major junction or they need to wear wellies and have an MTB to use it), the council say "oh but Sustrans signed it off" and Sustrans say "oh but we were constrained by funding/space/local authorities".

And as for the people saying "quit whinging and do it better yourself". I wasn't aware I had the power, authority or resources to go and build a top quality cycle path. I thought that's what the HIghways Department was for...

sorry, my mistake, there are 3 mistakes on that sign, not 2.

and by mistake, i mean the wrong direction by 180 degrees.

well summarised Crazy-legs!

which Sustrans route is that awhiles?

@molgrips

By the time our illogical division of rights of way came along much or most of the canal network was in disuse/disrepair yet those assigning designations chose to ignore that the towpaths had been used by horses.

As much the problem is now that everyone is retreating into their walled garden: "This is mine/ours and you aren't having any of it". Organisations like Sustrans, English Nature and the National Trust have an increasingly entrenched world view getting any of them to see a different point of view will only get harder.

i'd love to follow some of the longer-distance routes, but i cannot fathom the blue signs even when i know where i'm going.

The frustration is that in all of those rides, parts of the route were absolutely brilliant, but unless you know the area, you never find out which bits are ok/ not ok until you're already on them.

amedias - Member

which Sustrans route is that awhiles?

67 i believe.

at least, it's where you end up if you follow the signs for 67...

Garmin and route planning software these days, which provides for a far more pleasant experience,

The thing is people, myself included don't want to have plan every trip, being able to change your mind and follow sign posts to X is really useful especially in terms of utility cycling.

Don't get me wrong there are such big improvements that are needed. I just wish it was realistic to expect the government to put some effort into non car based infrastructure. Maybe I am too cynical but I can't see the government paying anything other than lipservice.

I spent plenty of time getting lost, looking for non-existent infrastructure, going miles out of my way to avoid a tiny stretch of main road,

You can check the map for alternatives and find a much better route for next time but these trails are supposed to help get beginners into cycling.

The thing is people, myself included don't want to have plan every trip, being able to change your mind and follow sign posts to X is really useful especially in terms of utility cycling.

I agree, which is why I said that buying an expensive GPS and planning your own routes isn't very inclusive.

Gotcha misunderstood.