Thumbs up for Sustrans volunteers...

[c2c]

I'm glad you enjoyed your ride and I wouldn't want to come across as some cynical cycling insider, because I'm not. I know I've made a statement that you might find annoying, so I'll try and explain why I feel the way I do about sustrans.

I came across much of the info in my first link after trying to contact sustrans over some sections of my commute that form part of the NCN23. I felt that some of the facilities encouraged close overtaking, some junction designs increased the danger to cyclists and were there purely to 'get cyclists out of the way' and other sections of the route were in poor repair. I'd not even read Cyclecraft at that time, it was just down to my experience using these facilities.

I tried contacting sustrans but got exactly nowhere. Not a reply. So while hunting for a better contact, I started to come across others who were dissatisfied with sustrans and, by and large, they had the same complaints and the same experiences.

On a day-to-day level, the facilities sponsored by sustrans do very little to help, and a good deal to hinder my commute to and from work. At best they're a costly irrelivence.

For a wider view, I don't know Ron Strutt but his article conclusions nail it for me...

• 
  [*]Sustrans paths tend to go miles out of the way, are poorly signed, and often badly surfaced.
  [*]The attempt to make the same cycle paths meet the needs of schoolchildren, local commuters, shoppers, day-out riders, and long-distance tourers is not sustainable.
  [*] Sustrans should cease to be self-appointing and accountable only to itself.
  [*] With the exception of the popular railway paths, towpaths, etc, the rural sections of the NCN are little used and are probably not justified.
  [*] The emphasis should be on local networks of road-based cycling routes plus improved cycle parking facilities.
  [*] Sustrans needs to ensure that real environmental benefits are obtained from the facilities it builds. It should not claim the benefits from pre-existing walking and cycling flows, nor should it encourage facilities which are primarily accessed by car.
  [*] Sustrans needs to ensure that its usage monitoring studies provide better information on the use of the NCN.

no, was not annoyed, didnt mean to come across that way, and indeed now that i have read most of all the links you have supplied i can see your point. the route we took was indeed poorly signposted, and the surface rough, i did make a bloomer in taking my road bike though. for leisure riding and in part for my commute i use the bristol bath path, which is very good so perhaps im a tad spoilt. its often the case when an organisation, which starts out small with good intentions, then gets bloated, up itself a bit and loses focus. but i still say, better to have a sustrans, than not.

 

[Bollo]

Interesting links Bollo - although following the sublinks there is almost too many to read so I will bookmark to read later. I'll still renew my membership as I think they do somethings such as the Safer Routes to School work and Bike It Officers which are good. But perhaps I should also join CTC and Bristol Cycle Campaign too (though they never seem that approachable from their website).

No problem with that - ultimately sustrans isn't going to go away so the most constructive approach is to join and try and influence the organisation from within. One of the key general criticisms of sustrans is its lack of openness and accountability. I think its unfortunate that, for whatever reasons, a worthy and grass-roots organisation has become so detached from its original purpose and goals.

Again, from a purely personal perspective I think the CTC at the national level is doing a better job of representing the needs of a wider cross-section of cyclists. That's because it's recognised that its potential membership demographic is changing and, if it wants to gain members and stay alive, it has to reflect that change. The CTC is not perfect, but its heading in the right direction IMHO.

Sustrans doesn't really have that pressure. A quick check of sustran's website shows that the majority of its funding comes from the Lottery, local and national governments, the EU etc - in other words, organisations that themselves have no stake in or recognition of the real needs of cyclists. The cynic in me says that these funding organisations want to 'dump' their money with as little fuss as possible while claiming to be meeting largely spurious transportation, environmental and health targets.

A bit of a rant I know , but its a topic worthy of discussion.

 

[mangaman]

Quoted by Grouchfungus

Well, after reading through , I must agree that in the main, the NCN routes SEEM (including my own limited experience) to be useful in a leisure capacity. Anyone to contradict this? I really do hope so.

I live near the Centurion Way - about 6 miles long and mainly converted railway line
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/default.asp?sID=1155726269625

I used it several times and it starts nowhere near the centre of Chichester. It is packed at weekends and busy times with families / dogs not on leads etc

It is always trumpetted by the council and Sustrans as a great resource for bikers to get out onto the trails of the South Downs, and I think this is the problem.

It is OK as a place to teach your child to cycle for example

It is useless for commuting as it goes nowhere

If you want to go MBing in the Downs you don't want to spend the first 6 miles riding at 3mph, weaving between children and getting chased by dogs - especially as there is a big wide road from the centre of Chichester which gets to the same place much quicker.

I complained to Sustrans about the dogs off leads and their response was that it was my responsibility when near people or animals "to cycle at walking pace" in her words.

Sorry about the rant but I found Bollo's links about the funding and influence of Sustrans disturbing

I've never used the trail since

 

[marinyork]

I agree with Bollo. Surprised this hasn't been flamed to death by the pro-sustrans enthusiasts on here. I think sustrans should focus on physical infrastructure creating blockages and bottlenecks. There are gaps in the road network (and cycle track network) all over the place created mostly by motorways, rivers and railway lines that make route selection difficult for cyclists in places. Sustrans also don't publish cycle routes they don't like on their maps which I've always found totally out of order.

 

[MacB]

interesting to note the lottery funding, if you then look at the demographic around lottery participants, it becomes more interesting. I've always been amused by lottery grants that benefit activities largely patronised by non-lottery users.

Cycle routes, starting and ending in the middle of nowhere, poorly maintained, too narrow, blind corners and multi use. Like others I'm more interested in the use of bikes as alternate transport rather than just leisure. When routes take you a long way out of your way, or force near walking pace, then they are a negative impact.

 

[Grouchfungus]

So it would be interesting...

If someone here could inform of a scheme in their area, other than the NCN's, that would for instance, benefit someone getting to work.

 

[marinyork]

That has been built or should be built or is planning on being built?

 

[gavintc]

If someone here could inform of a scheme in their area, other than the NCN's, that would for instance, benefit someone getting to work.

Errm, the road outside my house connects with an excellent network of routes. My impression of sustrans is that they waste money on pretty useless facilities.

 

[Grouchfungus]

That has been built or should be built or is planning on being built?

Any of those..

 

[marinyork]

Well for example a nearby park directly on the way into town (not far out) has been legalised to cycle through in the last few weeks. Some people have a phobia of 3 of the nearby main roads. It's a fairly sane commuter route from the south of the city. We didn't really have one before. There are also plans to link the bottom of the route to a crossing of a major roundabout into town. I don't personally find it a problem but other people do and babble on about it being one of those things that "puts people off". In the North of the City a cycle path that's about a mile long got built as a commuter corridor directly into town. Cycle paths aren't my thing but it gets used for that as some people don't like busy dual carriageways in rush hour. There are plans for another stretch elsewhere although that'll be more of a mix of leisure and commuter, it's rumoured very heavy money is going into it from the council to make it happen.

 

[Grouchfungus]

Well for example a nearby park directly on the way into town (not far out) has been legalised to cycle through in the last few weeks. Some people have a phobia of 3 of the nearby main roads. It's a fairly sane commuter route from the south of the city. We didn't really have one before. There are also plans to link the bottom of the route to a crossing of a major roundabout into town. I don't personally find it a problem but other people do and babble on about it being one of those things that "puts people off". In the North of the City a cycle path that's about a mile long got built as a commuter corridor directly into town. Cycle paths aren't my thing but it gets used for that as some people don't like busy dual carriageways in rush hour. There are plans for another stretch elsewhere although that'll be more of a mix of leisure and commuter, it's rumoured very heavy money is going into it from the council to make it happen.

As for schemes that should be built there are a series of cycleways along parts of the ringroad that dip under the roundabouts. Some muppet at Sheffield City Council did a bad job of negotiating a development and so one of the worst roundabouts it stops. It'd lead to a shortcut by bike and again a safe crossing of dual carriageway ring road punctuated by insane roundabouts. There have been plans to build a bridge over. There have been plans to use other bridges as shortcuts/safe crossings into town.

That's all (in the main) good isn't it?
I know that all public(ish) organisations have major faults but surely we're better off with Sustrans?

For a long time I've let things go and pass me by. Now I've started to complain for change where I deem necessary. Perhaps anyone unhappy with Sustrans should complain. It's a pain the the proverbial I know, but the mechanisms are there if needed.

 

[marinyork]

The things I've mentioned were all done by the council and have nothing to do with sustrans. I'm not sure we are better off with sustrans than without them. In anycase round here the NCNs go through really grotty areas and are generally regarded as better for commuting than for leisure cycling but in most other areas it is the other way round!

Sustrans were thinking of doing a proper crossing as mentioned above as part of a connect2 scheme. Instead another rival local scheme that has no value to commuters got picked instead. It involves building a bridge over a railway as a connection. It might lead to that bit of the NCN getting used as at the moment it goes miles without any connections (really stupid).

 

[summerdays]

Well following those links yesterday I ended up reading more of the Bristol Cycle City proposed routes information. I did find one of those links was anti one of the proposed paths beside a road. But its a road (Hartcliffe Way) that I have used, and I have had a couple of close overtakes by lorries. The road isn't wide enough for lorries to overtake a cyclist in most of the places as the traffic is fairly solid both ways. So I will be pleased with that bit of off-road. Not sure who is responsible for its creation under the Cycle City banner.

I think off road sections are needed, especially in cities where a large proportion of the population wouldn't dream of popping some wheels on the road. But they need to have a sensible design, and go somewhere.

 

[toontra]

I've only tried to follow a Sustrans route twice, and both times I became hopelessly lost - once in a gravel yard and the other time in a field. I now avoid them like the plague. Total waste of space and money IMHO and does nothing to promote cycling as a sustainable for of transport (rather than noodling with the family, usually after having driven there!).

 

[snorri]

I've only tried to follow a Sustrans route twice, and both times I became hopelessly lost

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.