Sustrans/cycleways- what do you want?

[equicyclist]

This is my first post and I hope you will be kind to me! I am a horserider and leisure cyclist with a husband and child who are also leisure cyclists. My boy uses Sustrans tracks to get from A to B locally with his friends whilst my hubby does about 30 miles to keep fit. Both like tarmac but they have no other options other than raod.
I am working with the Local Authority here to bring about multi user routes but here we have a Council worker who is taking cycling forward with Sustrans and doing a good job, but he seems anti horse. We are all vulnerable road users and I think there are things we want in common and depending on what sort of riding or cycling you do depends on what tracks you want. We have footpaths that have been given permissive cycleway status and have been tarmaced as Sustrans routes.
What I want to know is does every cyclist prefer tarmac? If not what is the best surface and do you like a natural environment ie canal paths or old railway lines? Sustrans are selling tarmac as the ideal surface but I wonder what cyclists would chose and why. What type of cyclist uses cycleways and Sustrans routes in particular? With money tight for local councils it seems good value for users to share a track and perhaps improve the surface of bridleways which provide a legal route for all.

 

[marinyork]

On the topic of horses you might want to look at the sort of work done NCN 62 north of Sheffield near Oxspring and Penistone where one half of the past has been treated for what horse users want and the other half has been treated for what cyclists want.

If you think sustrans are selling tarmac as the perfect surface I would say they are telling porkies. A lot of their routes are deeply variable and have all sorts of surfaces from mudbath, to nasty gravely stones, to standard mud footpath with a few stones right through to the highest quality tarmac you've ever seen.

 

[jonesy]

As ever with these sort of things, the answer is 'it depends'! There isn't a typical Sustrans path users, not least because there isn't a typical Sustrans path. The NCN covers a very wide range of types of provision, location and types of journey served (and quality...), and accordingly attracts a great range of user types at different parts of the network. So what you are going to have to do is to consider each individual scheme and decide what is the most appropriate solution in that situation.

To work out who the most likely users are going to be, think about what destinations and population the route will serve: is it on a route to school? Does it link housing to a major employment site? Does it provide a link from an urban area to the countryside? Does it realistically serve trips within the distance range that most people are willing to consider cycling for? The vast majority of cycle trips are below 5 miles, and more than half are under 2 miles, so unless you can identify a significant number of potential journeys within those sort of distances, then the route is never going to attract a large number of users for utility cycling.

Similarly, think about walking and horse riding in terms of likely journeys people might actually make on the proposed route, again thinking about distance and journey purpose.

Once you've identified who the most likely user groups are, then you can think about what they need, what is appropriate for the location and to take account of practical constraints such as how much space and money you've got. Now I'd' agree with you that if the route is mostly going to be used for leisure cycling then the surface doesn't have to be as smooth as it does for all year round commuting. A good, well-rolled, hardcore surface can be fine for most bicycles. But there are lots of techniques for creating surfaces that look appropriate for sensitive rural locations but still have a sealed surface below. Near where I live there is a well used railway path, on which Sustrans have built a path with a sealed surface using part of the available width, leaving the rest unsurfaced for horses, or anyone else that wishes to go there. It all works well, the vast majority of people are considerate in sharing the space together. Further on there is a section with less space, and everyone has to use the same path for a bit, but that's OK as well. Anyone wanting to cycle fast can go on the road...

 

[summerdays]

As they have said above... depends where the route is going and being used for...

In the Forest of Dean I've used those paths and they aren't tarmac'd, but I'm going there for a leisure day with friends or family. We will cancel the day if its going to be torrential rain.

In town I use paths like the Bristol and Bath cycle path frequently - but mostly as part of my commuting rather than recreational cycling. In which case I do want it tarmac'd - I'll be using it what ever the weather is (well apart from the Chocolate Path which is tiled and I have learnt my lesson the hard way not to go on it when its icy).

 

[John the Monkey]

Tarmac is probably best for getting people from place to place (i.e. commuting, utility cycling) as it can be ridden on pretty much any bike, and is quick. where it's not possible to tarmac, the surface quality should be indicated as unsuitable for road tyres & an alternative offered. I've ridden a couple of local bits of the NCN on my tourer, (42c tyres) and they're ok, but it's slow going, and I'd not do it on thinner, higher pressure tyres. (I'd not do it on 32s, if I'm honest).

 

[dellzeqq]

In my view tarmac is best avoided. It contains toxic petrochemicals, and causes run-off. And, without a proper roadbed, it will crack.

I've done many a mile off-road on 23Cs, and, although I'm not too clever off road, I've never felt the need of a broader tyre.

 

[Davidc]

As said above tarmac is often not the best option. Where it's used without road like preparation it can be lumpy, and doesn't last well.

Whatever is used it does need to be maintained. The Bridgwater and Taunton canal has sections which are a testament to what happens where no maintenance is done following the building of a path! (Sustrans NCN3, with more pot holes than the roads!) I can see no reason why off-road paths shouldn't be developed so that horses bikes and pedestrians can all use them

My own preference is for cycling on roads, but I'll use the off road paths if they're good enough and go where I want them to. The presence of horses on either doesn't concern me.

 

[John the Monkey]

I've done many a mile off-road on 23Cs, and, although I'm not too clever off road, I've never felt the need of a broader tyre.

There's bits of the NCN (5, I think) near me that I'd avoid on my training 25Cs - incredibly squirrelly and insecure.

I'd like to see an alternative route signposted where the surface degenrates like this.

 

[equicyclist]

Thank you all for your thoughts. I have always found cyclists very friendly and accommodating and when you live in a very remote area using paths that do not carry a lot of traffic its nice to meet someone and say hello. It brings a sense of security that if something did happen at least someone would find you. ..eventually! Particularly the off road routes in certain forestry areas!

Has anyone got an opinion on whether increased traffic will deter the use of paths by motorbikes or other antisocial behaviour? I also think that riders would be less worried at challenging illegal use of paths because they feel less vulnerable to agression like a walker may. I have often taken mobile phone pics of suspicious situations to report to police.

 

[mangaman]

Sustrans threads always provoke discussion equicyclist (welcome by the way)

I feel there is a problem with mixed used paths that means they should only be used very carefully by cyclists. They are great for recreational cycling with children for example.

My worry is that there will be a tenancy for some cyclists to behave recklessly around pedestrians, dogs, horses. Personally I never use shared use paths but I prefer the roads, which are safer, better maintained and more direct - but I tend to cycle from A to B for a specific reason.

I do think Sustrans' reps are often anti road, and want more shared-use paths and they have a disproportionate say in how cycling provision money is spent at local and national level (especially outside London)

 

[equicyclist]

In my view it depends what type of horse rider you are and what type of cyclist you are. If I was a rider who wanted to go fast over long distances to get my horse fit for an endurance event I would not be using cycle routes much like a cyclist wanting to get from A to B quickly may not either because they tend to meander! If users expect to meet other users then they tend to be respectful of each other. If a horse was scared of bikes the rider wouldnt take it on a cycle track and I would hope that walkers with dogs that hated horses would not take them off lead on a bridleway or multi user route where they may meet them. This is what I am trying to highlight to the powers that be. Not everyone wants tarmac and not all riders and cyclists will want to use multi user routes. So its nice to hear your views.

 

[dellzeqq]

We have a wonderful network of over 25,000 miles of cycleways in the UK, with (on the whole) smooth tarmac and direct routes to the places we want to go to. Why would we want some organisation to provide additional, and often dodgy, routes?

All we have to do is get the other people using those cycleways in their motor vehicles to do so safely and properly...

you're fortunate you're not joining us on Lonesome Lane tonight. It would make you weep....

 

[SavageHoutkop]

I haven't had much cycling 'offroad'. My bike is essentially a 'road' bike and shouldn't really be ridden on uneven surfaces. There is a shared path near me which is tarred and which is great to ride on; and there is a part of my daily commute home which (to my joy) is being re-tarred at the moment. Tar, if smooth, is great. I'm not sure it's the only option though; I'm sure that there are things that can be done with hard packed soil etc; but the part of the TransPennine trail near me, for instance, is marked as 'offroad - good surface' on my local cycle map and it isn't at all; it's not pleasant to cycle on on my bike, so I don't. Pity though.

edit: You did ask what type of cyclists use cyclepaths - I would like to use cyclepaths to get to work and back, as they are less stressful than the street (and often less potholed as the busses haven't eaten the tar); but they would need to be direct-ish! At the moment I travel into work fully on-road, but coming home I avoid a bit of busy street by going via an off-road shared tarmac route. I hugely enjoy the shared path i've linked to but I only get to use it occasionally due to its location.

 

[ufkacbln]

On the topic of horses you might want to look at the sort of work done NCN 62 north of Sheffield near Oxspring and Penistone where one half of the past has been treated for what horse users want and the other half has been treated for what cyclists want.

... and both sides are covered in horse muck!

 

[Norm]

I had a chat with a young lady on a horse in the grot weather which we had yesterday afternoon. After a brief exchange of "the weather's a bit rough today", I complimented her awareness as both the rider and horse were wearing hi viz coats. They were very visible in the murk.

I prefer tarmac, in general, as a way to get places. I do ride off-road but, if forced to choose one or the other, I'd stick to the tarmac. I spend plenty of time on tow paths, bridleways and tracks and the harder the surface, the easier the riding. I've spent some time on different bits of NCN4, including much of the Kennet and Avon Cycle Route (from Pewsey to the eastern end in Reading) and the Thames Valley route from Reading to Kingston, and I like the idea of the Sustrans routes, although some of the sign-posting leaves a little to be desired it's made easier if you buy the map or print the PDF before you set off.

I like canal paths and railway lines... because they are both pretty flat and I'm a lazy git.

From what I've seen (the horse-specific routes through Windsor Great Park and in Hyde Park, for example), horse riders prefer to keep away from tarmac and like to have a very sandy surface which gives good drainage and provides a stable footing for their mounts. Cycling on that stuff is pretty tiring, though. I wonder if you are trying to marry together two sets of user-requirements which are not reconcilable.