National Cycle Network - some paths not very good?

[tom73]

It's a mix of owned and maintained (or not maintained) by the local authority or trunk road authority with a small proportion owned by Sustrans and maintained by Sustrans volunteers. Sustrans have undertaken to provide mapping of the entire NCN regardless of ownership of individual route sections.
Some route sections not owned by Sustrans, are inspected by Sustrans volunteers who report the defects they find to the appropriate authority, but these reports are usually ignored.AFAIK.

So it's National network with no one overseeing it, coordinating repair or maintenance , recruiting and managing volunteers. The only thing national about it is a map of a route. So how can anyone begin to even try and fix it? Unless local councils shock horror work together or even more mind-blowing hand the whole lot over to a truly national trust as we have with the canal network. Then in short we are stuffed. Knowing what I know and my past experience with local government empire building Sustrans may as well knit fog.

 

[ColinJ]

I like that "Unsuitable for motors" but fine for people who use muscle power. Obviously our safety isn't as important.

I have posted that picture many times but you are the first person to comment on the sign - I was careful to get it in the shot!

Unfortunately, the NCN sign is some distance away so it would be difficult to get both in.

I might have another go next time I cycle over there. To the bottom of it by road, that is! I only tried cycling down once, chickened out, and crashed when I braked...

 

[Ian H]

The only news here is that Sustrans have admitted it (or belatedly found out).

 

[snorri]

So it's National network with no one overseeing it, coordinating repair or maintenance , recruiting and managing volunteers. The only thing national about it is a map of a route. So how can anyone begin to even try and fix it? Unless local councils shock horror work together or even more mind-blowing hand the whole lot over to a truly national trust as we have with the canal network. Then in short we are stuffed. Knowing what I know and my past experience with local government empire building Sustrans may as well knit fog.

Local councils and trunk road authorities already maintain the roads network in their own particular geographical area to nationally agreed standards. There is no reason why the cycle network could not be similarly maintained, apart from the apathy of these organisation towards cycling and walking. If or when the cycling lobby became as vociferous as the motoring lobby, then things could change. Unfortunately the cycling lobby is already split between utility and sport cycling whose wishes can be quite different.

 

[mjr]

It's a mix of owned and maintained (or not maintained) by the local authority or trunk road authority with a small proportion owned by Sustrans and maintained by Sustrans volunteers. Sustrans have undertaken to provide mapping of the entire NCN regardless of ownership of individual route sections.
Some route sections not owned by Sustrans, are inspected by Sustrans volunteers who report the defects they find to the appropriate authority, but these reports are usually ignored.AFAIK.

Nearly correct. The defect reports are not ignored, but closed as "does not meet our policy intervention level" regardless of what's in the authority's policy.

Sustrans's mapping seems to be fantasy, seemingly largely based on reports from the highway authorities which are, shall we say optimistic? OpenStreetMap's volunteers usually do better.

IMO a key problem is the refusal of government to set any binding minimum standards. Under Cameron, this was because localism. Now it's probably because Hammond and Grayling hate cycling.

 

[mjr]

Eventually they made the worlds most expensive cycle path: 50 000 € for a gravel path 50cm wide and perhaps 300m long...

Not even close, sadly. I give you this abomination on Sustrans National Route 1 https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/norwichs-£10k-per-meter-cycle-lane.191155/ and I suspect there may be worse out there.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Not even close, sadly. I give you this abomination on Sustrans National Route 1 https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/norwichs-£10k-per-meter-cycle-lane.191155/ and I suspect there may be worse out there.

At least yours was paved. And more than 50cm wide.

I remember reading that in Germany they calculate for 1 000 000€ per metre of major road. It makes me wonder why Cycle infrastructure is "too expensive"

 

[Alex H]

At least yours was paved. And more than 50cm wide.

I remember reading that in Germany they calculate for 1 000 000€ per metre of major road. It makes me wonder why Cycle infrastructure is "too expensive"

I don't think construction cost have risen by 8 times in 10 years

http://www.worldhighways.com/sections/eurofile/news/european-highway-construction-costs-evaluated/

(Germany €8.24 million/km unless mountainous terrain where costs rise to €25.99 million/km)

 

[mjr]

I don't think construction cost have risen by 8 times in 10 years

http://www.worldhighways.com/sections/eurofile/news/european-highway-construction-costs-evaluated/

(Germany €8.24 million/km unless mountainous terrain where costs rise to €25.99 million/km)

More questions than answers there, such as what spec road, how many lanes, shoulders or not and so on. And there's no source reference linked to check

 

[mjr]

Video announcement

View: https://youtu.be/L7ngWCwfzDI

 

[briantrumpet]

Video announcement

View: https://youtu.be/L7ngWCwfzDI

"Paths for everyone" is rather more honest... at least it doesn't give the impression that cyclists can be sure to be able to ride along them.

 

[Threevok]

I am extremely lucky where I live, that all the routes I use are well maintained - in fact a little too well maintained as the local council has a poo bin and control gate fetish.

They are also well planned, as most are old railway lines, so there are no huge hills or blind bends to contend with (not that hills bother me much)

Some of the ones near Merthyr are a bit silly and (in the case on on-road ones) downright dangerous in places

 

[MontyVeda]

I am extremely lucky where I live, that all the routes I use are well maintained - in fact a little too well maintained as the local council has a poo bin and control gate fetish.

They are also well planned, as most are old railway lines, so there are no huge hills or blind bends to contend with (not that hills bother me much)

Some of the ones near Merthyr are a bit silly and (in the case on on-road ones) downright dangerous in places

pretty much the same up here. The first one I was aware of was laid in the early 80s on the disused railway between Lancaster and Morecambe. It was a chalky surface that quickly potholed and was fully tarmacked by the 90s. Many other stretches of disused track have since been given over to walkers, riders and cyclists... which is nice.

After watching Walking Britain's Lost Railways... I can't help but imagine what routes we'd have if all the abandoned railways became public rights of way after Beeching's Axe came down. Give me a time machine and i'll form a lobby group to make sure this happened.

There was a spokesperson from Sustran's discussing this on Radio 4's you and yours today... maybe worth a listen.

 

[mjr]

"Paths for everyone" is rather more honest... at least it doesn't give the impression that cyclists can be sure to be able to ride along them.

At least "paths" is debatable, but yes, I really don't like "paths" or "traffic-free" (we want them to be successful and contain cycle and foot traffic!) so I'm not yet convinced Sustrans has changed enough to be really useful... but we live in hope!

 

[NorthernDave]

Some big figures being quoted, so here's mine:

£1m per km for the appalling Leeds - Bradford Cycle Superhighway*

Parts of it are just a cycle lane painted on the existing carriageway or shared paths, so other parts must have been really expensive.

* - this is the official figure. As works massively overran and the final cost doesn't appear to have been announced, who knows what the actual costs is?