Thumbs up for Sustrans volunteers...

[summerdays]

How do you define a "Sustrans route"?
Is it a route designed, built and maintained by Sustrans?
Or designed and built by a local authority with grant aid from Sustrans but maintained by the local authority?
I only ask because I believe Sustrans gets a lot of the flak which should be directed at the local authorities who, I believe, are the real culprits in second rate cycle facilities.

I agree - just tonight I was out for a quick cycle ride, and past a place I have complained about in the past, where the council put in an island 2/3 of the way across the road. It was so narrow you had to go through on primary to prevent anything trying a daft overtake. Joy of joys... the complaints (maybe someone had an accident?), have obviously had an effect and the island is gone tonight about a year or two after it was installed.

 

[Bollo]

How do you define a "Sustrans route"?
Is it a route designed, built and maintained by Sustrans?
Or designed and built by a local authority with grant aid from Sustrans but maintained by the local authority?
I only ask because I believe Sustrans gets a lot of the flak which should be directed at the local authorities who, I believe, are the real culprits in second rate cycle facilities.

That's far enough to a point, but its sustrans that holds some heavy purse strings (£50 million anyone?). If they're just a clearing house for cycling cash, then the question about the real benefit of sustrans remains.

If they have responsibility for managing how that cash is spent, then they should at least evaluate the benefits of a particular scheme and consider 'through-life' costs as well as the initial capital costs.

If the initial development and maintenance is contracted out to local authorities, then sustrans, as the cycling experts, should ensure that the facilities implemented by the local authorities are fit for purpose and good value. They should also have the systems in place to ensure that these facilities are well managed and maintained.

"How do you define a sustrans route". The question is a good one and its worrying that there isn't an obvious answer, because for the money sustrans has received, there should be one. As I posted some anti-sustrans links, I'll post a link to sustran's 'What We Do' page. I've read it and I'm non-the-wiser. There's an element of lobbying, lots of aspirational thinking and a few hard numbers. Its those hard-numbers that cause me and many others some concern. Take this one..

The Network carries over 230 million journeys each year, taking kids to school, workers to work dogs on walks, shoppers to shops - it even helps the Royal Mail deliver your post.

I contribute about 300-400 of those journeys. Except that I'd still use the same roads that comprise "The Network" even if sustrans had never existed. Tell you what - I declare all non-classified roads in Hampshire as "The Bollo Network". Kaipath, Jay Clock, MacB, montage, Cunobein, Peter, and many others, you've all had the privilege of using the Bollo Network. If you'd care to make a donation, I can get on with this lottery application form.

I know this argument is facetious, but its not a million miles away from the truth. Perhaps some of the problem is that there is no overall control, and therefore no single point of responsibility for cyling facilities in this country. Sustrans seems to concentrate on high-profile capital development projects. The local authorities are left with responsibility for lower-profile cycle facilities developed and maintained to tick the boxes against whatever weasel words the latest transport plan contains.

Sorry snorri, but if sustrans takes the cash, then it should be in the firing line when people question how well that money is being spent.

 

[toontra]

How do you define a "Sustrans route"?
Is it a route designed, built and maintained by Sustrans?
Or designed and built by a local authority with grant aid from Sustrans but maintained by the local authority?
I only ask because I believe Sustrans gets a lot of the flak which should be directed at the local authorities who, I believe, are the real culprits in second rate cycle facilities.

Well, it was a couple of years ago. To refresh my memory I've just tried to check on the Sustrans' website "online mapping" facility. Now that has to be one of the worst websites I've ever visited! I gave up after waiting 3 minutes for a page to load!

Basically the two routes were the main London-Bath route just past Heathrow going west (don't remember the number) and the NCN 1 from Edinburgh to the Forth Bridge. So we're talking about major national routes here; I'd have thought these would be flagship Sustrans routes and therefore planned/maintained by Sustrans.

As I said, in each case I got lost within a few miles of following the Sustrans signs. I know for a fact that the Edinburgh-Forth Bridge stretch is widely regarded as a dangerous joke by locals, and is positively retrograde in attempting to provide an efficient cycle route - a case where Sustrans are actually doing harm rather than good as they are complicit in taking cyclists off the road (bikes are barred from that stretch).

 

[marinyork]

How do you define a "Sustrans route"?
Is it a route designed, built and maintained by Sustrans?
Or designed and built by a local authority with grant aid from Sustrans but maintained by the local authority?
I only ask because I believe Sustrans gets a lot of the flak which should be directed at the local authorities who, I believe, are the real culprits in second rate cycle facilities.

I'd say it's just as much the other way round. That councils get a lot of the flak for the crap that sustrans come out with. It's just that sustrans get bragging rights because it has a number and national written officially in front of it.

The NCN near me will become more useful when a council run cycle route is completed. You can be sure if it piggy backs off the other scheme they'll be a large amount of backslapping going on at sustrans but someone else will have been digging their crap scheme out of the doldrums.

One of the things with sustrans is I think it's politeness why we put up with things like routed through plowed fields rather than saying, actually it's complete crap and they are idiots. I don't think their politics are healthy for cycling either, on the tv or at the local level.

 

[snorri]

Sorry snorri, but if sustrans takes the cash, then it should be in the firing line when people question how well that money is being spent.

The local authorities are also taking the cash! I did not suggest that Sustrans should not be in the firing line, only that the local authorities should be in the firing line as well, but I think we are generally agreed that cycle facility provision needs a thorough revision.
I am well aware of the shambles that is the NCN1 between Edinburgh and the Forth Bridge, but would want to have some hard evidence regarding who was responsible for what before allocating blame.

 

[Bollo]

The local authorities are also taking the cash!

I agree!

I admit I have a particular huff with sustrans and I can explain why.

Local authorities have a thousand and one responsibilities and cycle facilities are way down the list. The success or otherwise of authority-implemented facilities will depend on the motivation of the people within that authority to push the cycling cause. Even the most evangelical council cycling officer will be faced with obstacles from within their own organisation - financial, political and organisational - that can make the job almost impossible. Authority-based cycle plans will always be hostage to government targets, local authority funding and short term political pressures. The facilities they do provide are often rubbish and they do annoy me, but I'm not naive enough to believe most local authorities really care that much.

Sustrans on the other hand is a single-issue organisation and receives money solely to promote sustainable transport, with cycling as the key component. It seems to have manoeuvred itself into the position as the government-approved representative of the cyclists' needs and its certainly very proud of its ability to attract funding. It should therefore have the expertise to recognise how this money should be spent and the long term stability to implement its plans. What we seem to get is a publicity machine that's big on grand schemes and, with some exceptions, poor at providing grassroots support for people trying to use bikes as everyday transport - not touring, leisure or holidays, but transport.

Sustrans should care about cycling but I've come to the conclusion that all it really cares about is sustrans.

 

[snorri]

I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet Bollo

 

[Crankarm]

I agree!

I admit I have a particular huff with sustrans and I can explain why.

Local authorities have a thousand and one responsibilities and cycle facilities are way down the list. The success or otherwise of authority-implemented facilities will depend on the motivation of the people within that authority to push the cycling cause. Even the most evangelical council cycling officer will be faced with obstacles from within their own organisation - financial, political and organisational - that can make the job almost impossible. Authority-based cycle plans will always be hostage to government targets, local authority funding and short term political pressures. The facilities they do provide are often rubbish and they do annoy me, but I'm not naive enough to believe most local authorities really care that much.

Sustrans on the other hand is a single-issue organisation and receives money solely to promote sustainable transport, with cycling as the key component. It seems to have manoeuvred itself into the position as the government-approved representative of the cyclists' needs and its certainly very proud of its ability to attract funding. It should therefore have the expertise to recognise how this money should be spent and the long term stability to implement its plans. What we seem to get is a publicity machine that's big on grand schemes and, with some exceptions, poor at providing grassroots support for people trying to use bikes as everyday transport - not touring, leisure or holidays, but transport.

Sustrans should care about cycling but I've come to the conclusion that all it really cares about is sustrans.

Agree again 100%. I think maybe Sustrans has become the raison d'etre rather than sustainable transport system that it is supposed to promote and provide. It is another massive government quango. Perhaps some one or an MP with green credentials or a cycling group need to ask some pretty fundamental questions of Sustrans, the funding it has received, the amount it spends on it's own administration and costs such as wages, the cost of schemes it has considered, implemented, actually delivered and those that it intends to support, likewise the actual use of these schemes by CYCLISTS that have been completed and how they measure use. Maybe these questions need to be asked under a Freedom of Information request. I negotiate a rutted and totally unsuitable farm track which is designated as part of Sustrans NCN 12 joining to the Peterborough Green Wheel. Having a Sustrans Cycle Route sign nearby is like seeing one of those useless blue plaques that English Heritage attaches to the side of a decrepit building to stop it being demolished or a bus shelter to indicate that a celebrity once occupied it. I really cannot get enthused with Sustrans. I think they are just another government department wasting tax payers money and lottery funding under the guise of cycling. I see no benefit what so ever where I normally cycle or further a field. I felt really short changed when I bought their guide to the National Cycle Network in 2002. I still maintain that an up to date OS map is far more informative or one the numerous on line route planning services.

 

[Bollo]

I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet Bollo

La!

 

[HF2300]

...It is another massive government quango... I think they are just another government department wasting tax payers money...

<OT pedant> Hate to nitpick as generally I agree with everyone's points, but it winds me up when everything is blamed on whoever the current government is. Sustrans may be spending money badly but they aren't a government department, and by definition a quango can't be part of government.</OT pedant>

The other problem I have with Sustrans, and similar organisations, is they set themselves up as promoting sustainable transport, perhaps with a particular bias, and then slide into lobbying for one particular issue / form of transport at the expense of all else.

There have been a number of cases where Sustrans have lobbied against preservation or rebuilding of closed railway lines as railways or tramways because they want the trackbed for a cycle path, when in fact a tramway or similar would serve the local population better.

To my mind, an organisation whose name is a contraction of sustainable transport should be assisting other groups trying to promote a workable transport system whatever the most appropriate solution, not working against them to promote their dubious cycle routes at the expense of all else; that'll only serve to isolate cycling further.

 

[style over speed]

Agree again 100%. I think maybe Sustrans has become the raison d'etre rather than sustainable transport system that it is supposed to promote and provide. It is another massive government quango. Perhaps some one or an MP with green credentials or a cycling group need to ask some pretty fundamental questions of Sustrans, the funding it has received, the amount it spends on it's own administration and costs such as wages, the cost of schemes it has considered, implemented, actually delivered and those that it intends to support, likewise the actual use of these schemes by CYCLISTS that have been completed and how they measure use. Maybe these questions need to be asked under a Freedom of Information request. I negotiate a rutted and totally unsuitable farm track which is designated as part of Sustrans NCN 12 joining to the Peterborough Green Wheel. Having a Sustrans Cycle Route sign nearby is like seeing one of those useless blue plaques that English Heritage attaches to the side of a decrepit building to stop it being demolished or a bus shelter to indicate that a celebrity once occupied it. I really cannot get enthused with Sustrans. I think they are just another government department wasting tax payers money and lottery funding under the guise of cycling. I see no benefit what so ever where I normally cycle or further a field. I felt really short changed when I bought their guide to the National Cycle Network in 2002. I still maintain that an up to date OS map is far more informative or one the numerous on line route planning services.

+1 couldn't agree more... the whole useless company needs its funding cut off.

Coincidentally I was chatting to a very infrequent cyclist last night who mentioned she'd been send a lot of emails from sustrans and how good it look. I just said go with pretty low exceptions apart from expecting to get lost and sent down plenty of normal roads.

 

[HLaB]

I know for a fact that the Edinburgh-Forth Bridge stretch is widely regarded as a dangerous joke by locals, and is positively retrograde in attempting to provide an efficient cycle route

That's about right, although I've not been on that section for a while and my Bianchi has never seen it at all, its so bad. It does play a positive in promoting the availability of a route to the non confident, although its not ideal it does get some people started and hopefully it doesn't put too many off continuing.

The NCN 1 (a primary route is even more daft further north at Burntisland to Binn Hill the signposted route is straight up through the woods a very steep muddy section. Talking Sustran's Rangers they think its daft too. Just looked its been renumbered route 76 and the section is now a proposed route, maybe they are going to do something with it. In general the routes do seem to be improving here.

 

[Bollo]

.... need to ask some pretty fundamental questions of Sustrans, the funding it has received, the amount it spends on it's own administration and costs such as wages, the cost of schemes it has considered, implemented, actually delivered and those that it intends to support, likewise the actual use of these schemes by CYCLISTS that have been completed and how they measure use. ....

I read this and thought, fair do's, I've seen the sustrans annual review on their website so in the interests of fairness, I'll post the link. But the 'About sustrans' page only gives the review of 2007 and the page was last updated a almost a year ago. Here it is.

The finances in the 2007 review are interesting. NCN implementation in 2007 accounted for only 7%ish of sustrans expenditure. The biggest single expenditure item was "Practical Projects" at 60%, which also exactly matches the earnings from "Practical Projects" (%s in my head so may be a few % out). I couldn't find any definition of "Practical Projects", but I've only skim-read the review. There's also no clear entry for staff costs, beyond £75k governance costs but sustrans employs about 180 people.

Just to show I'm not a complete anti-sustrans arse, the Usage and Monitoring section of their website looks interesting and I'll try and read some of their stuff when I get the chance. It may well contain sound research, but when this is 'summarised' by the marketeers to figures like "trillions of people use the NCN every minute" then that research is largely devalued.