# Is Sustrans fit for purpose?



## KnackeredBike (7 Mar 2017)

Disclaimer: although I've ridden on lots of Sustrans routes across the country it is still a tiny fraction of the total...

Sustrans has bothered me for quite a while. It has stewardship of, potentially, an amazing network of routes for cyclists, pedestrians and horses. Run properly it would enable safe and pleasant journeys of everything from school and work to long distance cycling holidays.

However, it's a bit bloody rubbish and rather than seemingly making serious efforts to improve it, or at least shout about how they need more money, they frig about moaning about taxis and planning new parts of the network when the existing ones are rubbish. I know they use volunteers but at some stage if you want to have a reliable and well maintained network you need paid professionals. You don't see appeals for people to cut back the bushes on the A1.

NCR5 runs right past my house and goes to both of our workplaces. I don't use it because it's circuitous and the surface is so bad that I would no longer need contraception at road bike speeds. I use the busy A-roads instead, but I am likely to be in a minority that wouldn't get in the car instead.

My wife likes slow and ponderous cycling so she should be well suited, except that it was so poorly maintained she was constantly getting stung and pushing the bike home because of a puncture. So she actually learnt to drive, and now drives instead.

I had plenty of time this weekend so I thought I would take a slow ponderous cycle along, and immediately regretted it when I remembered how poorly joined together it is, requiring you to swerve across roads or cross on blind corners. Then I got a puncture, which put me in an even worse mood, but unsurprising as it is on a part of the route which runs through a landfill site. And this is on NCR5, which should surely be a jewel in the crown.

The same has happened on many other routes I have tried, they are poor quality, dump you on roads randomly and are easy to lose the route and find yourself cycling in the middle of nowhere.

tl;dr if we want to get people cycling the Sustrans network surely needs to be well maintained, safe, and easy to follow. IMO it is none of these, it is worse than even the most minor roads for cars. With that, surely Sustrans need to get their act together and start acting like a highways authority, or give the network to someone that will.


----------



## r04DiE (7 Mar 2017)

I have never used them and now I know why. I think its a great shame that you experienced what you did from a network that could be as good as you say.


----------



## fossyant (7 Mar 2017)

Get an MTB for sustrans routes.


----------



## PeteXXX (7 Mar 2017)

Route 6, through Northants, could be a lot better. Occasionally, some community payback folks hack back the bushes and widen the narrowing route. 
Last weekend, some volunteers were out planting bulbs alongside part of it near the A50. 
I was discussing the joys of the ride with a passing dog walker as I was repairing a Blackthorn induced p*ncture.


----------



## User6179 (7 Mar 2017)

I like the NCRs that you cycle along for a few miles only to find path has disappeared , stopped using them then I got a CX bike and thought I would do a few, got a couple of miles down a route and the path turned to a forestry track which had been covered with what looked like a demolished building, nearly came off and lost a lens out of my sunglasses , couldn't even walk on the track never mind cycle.


----------



## Dave 123 (7 Mar 2017)

The only time I've followed them specifically is on the Devon coast to coast. The good bits are really good and it's a pleasure to use them.
The bits that were bad were through Barnstaple and Braunton. There were short length off road paved sections that had really narrow gates/car stoppers, so every 150 yds we had to dismount to negotiate the furniture. I can't see why we couldn't use the road.
Through villages like Peter Tavy and Lydford, instead of sticking to the perfectly usable road we were sent through a steep track down and up that required pushing the bike and through a bog on Dartmoor.


----------



## KnackeredBike (7 Mar 2017)

Eddy said:


> I like the NCRs that you cycle along for a few miles only to find path has disappeared , stopped using them then I got a CX bike and thought I would do a few, got a couple of miles down a route and the path turned to a forestry track which had been covered with what looked like a demolished building, nearly came off and lost a lens out of my sunglasses , couldn't even walk on the track never mind cycle.


They resurfaced a few hundred metres near me in a fine gravel. I assume it had fallen off the back of a lorry somewhere but it was akin to cycling on a skid pan, enhanced by the fact the surface started around a tight corner.


----------



## Milkfloat (7 Mar 2017)

I don't use any of them because I have no idea if I will suddenly go offroading. I would much prefer a significant reduction in length if the quality was acceptable - at least mark on the maps the surface quality. That is before I start moaning about access barriers.


----------



## snorri (7 Mar 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> tl;dr if we want to get people cycling the Sustrans network surely needs to be well maintained, safe, and easy to follow. IMO it is none of these, it is worse than even the most minor roads for cars. With that, surely Sustrans need to get their act together and start acting like a highways authority, or give the network to someone that will.


I agree that much of the network is not what it should be , but I don't believe it is fair to blame Sustrans.
Sustrans is a charity which gets grants from authorities to construct sections of NCN, but they receive no payment for ongoing maintenance, that would usually be the responsibility of the body providing the grant for construction. There are some sections of the NCN which Sustrans own, but I would think these make up a very small fraction of the NCN network. The blue signs with NCN numbers on cycle routes are not an indication of Sustrans ownership nor do they indicate the body responsible for maintenance. Some Sustrans volunteers inspect NCN routes and report defects like missing signs, overhanging branches, weed growth on path surfaces etc., to the responsible authority, but neither the volunteers or Sustrans has the power to ensure that defects are actually dealt with.


----------



## User6179 (7 Mar 2017)

snorri said:


> I agree that much of the network is not what it should be , but I don't believe it is fair to blame Sustrans.
> Sustrans is a charity which gets grants from authorities to construct sections of NCN, but they receive no payment for ongoing maintenance, that would usually be the responsibility of the body providing the grant for construction. There are some sections of the NCN which Sustrans own, but I would think these make up a very small fraction of the NCN network. The blue signs with NCN numbers on cycle routes are not an indication of Sustrans ownership nor do they indicate the body responsible for maintenance. Some Sustrans volunteers inspect NCN routes and report defects like missing signs, overhanging branches, weed growth on path surfaces etc., to the responsible authority, but neither the volunteers or Sustrans has the power to ensure that defects are actually dealt with.




If they would just use a simple way of explaining what routes are suitable for skinny tyres and what routes you need off road tyres it would be a lot better , saying cycle route when it is impossible to cycle that route on a road bike is not very helpful to the user.


----------



## byegad (7 Mar 2017)

No it's not. I was a Ranger for five years or so and appreciate some of their problems in not owning all of the infrastructure and being reliant on land-owners and Local Councils. But the standard is so variable that I no longer ride any of their routes.

There are lots of perfectly good cycle routes, I have one staring outside my drive. We usually call them roads!


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Mar 2017)

There is a misconception about Sustrans.

They were set up as an enabling organisation, and are neither the builders, nor maintainers of the "National Cycle Network

Volunteers do some work, but that is not the same as maintaining

When a route is planned, it is the local County Council that is the organisation that plans builds and maintains. Sustrans merely puts everyone in the same room and as far as possible pushes them in the right direction. They are not always successful, but all they can do is try


----------



## S-Express (7 Mar 2017)

In my experience, pretty much everything Sustrans does could be devolved to local/county council level, or upwards to NGB level (ie BC or CTC) with no loss of function.


----------



## Hardrock93 (7 Mar 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> There is a misconception about Sustrans.
> 
> They were set up as an enabling organisation, and are neither the builders, nor maintainers of the "National Cycle Network
> 
> ...


AFAIK, in Scotland, they do more than put everyone in the same room. Sustrans gets a pot of money from the Scottish Government. Local authorities apply to Sustrans for funding for new route construction - generally on a match funding basis. Perhaps they work to a different model elsewhere?


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Mar 2017)

This is still "enabling" as opposed to building or maintaining


----------



## KnackeredBike (7 Mar 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> There is a misconception about Sustrans.
> 
> They were set up as an enabling organisation, and are neither the builders, nor maintainers of the "National Cycle Network
> 
> ...


They said they have £64m income in 2015/16 and say they spend 97% of this on projects... so where does the money go if they don't build or maintain anything? (I can quite believe they didn't spend anything on maintaining.)

You can buy a lot of smooth tarmac path for £64m.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Mar 2017)

S-Express said:


> In my experience, pretty much everything Sustrans does could be devolved to local/county council level, or upwards to NGB level (ie BC or CTC) with no loss of function.



One of our biggest problems locally is a cycle path that is regularly blocked by parked cars.......

Ironically they are attending a local BC affiliated BMX club. The parents would rather block the path than use the adjacent car parks

Neither the club or BC are willing top tackle the issue


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Mar 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> They said they have £64m income in 2015/16 and say they spend 97% of this on projects... so where does the money go if they don't build or maintain anything? (I can quite believe they didn't spend anything on maintaining.)
> 
> You can buy a lot of smooth tarmac path for £64m.




 Link


----------



## cyberknight (7 Mar 2017)

fossyant said:


> Get an MTB for sustrans routes.


part of my commute uses a NCN path , on the MTB till the weather is better and it get clearer as i have had 6 flats on the same section this year on the roadie.
EDIT actually its not part of sustrans , reported it to the council as the amount of debris is dangerous .


----------



## KnackeredBike (7 Mar 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> Link


Makes sense, they spend £433,000 on route maintenance, with 210 infrastructure staff. So each member of staff has £40 a week to spend. I wonder why all highway authorities don't adapt this model.


----------



## S-Express (7 Mar 2017)

Cunobelin said:


> Neither the club or BC are willing top tackle the issue



Enforcement should come from the council and/or the police though, as with any other parking issue. BC/local club can only request.


----------



## mjr (7 Mar 2017)

Even as an enabler, Sustrans are the route numbering authority, aren't they? They're responsible for the travesty that is cyclists being unable to count on their red numbers as signifying a useful all-weather cycle route. Even within the same highway authority area (Norfolk), Notional Route 1 varies between wide/smooth tarmac and near-unrideable sand, dangerous gravel descents ending in barriers and narrow dirt track.

I feel they should be stricter about delisting sections which do not conform to their design manual, but I think much of the current substandard network was accepted by them in a Lottery-funded push to have a route within X miles of Y% of the population by the year 2000 and falling back below that carries some reputational risk (if not having to refund the £43.5m lottery grant).

But why would they? As a self-perpetuating private charity, they're basically not accountable to cyclists, as long as enough people are willing to donate money.

There's also their key involvement as a trusted partner of central government enabling the waste of cycling budgets on dross such as the Bedford Turbogate but they did at least ask cyclist-led organisations to get involved then (and none covered themselves/ourselves with glory in that example IMO).


----------



## mjr (7 Mar 2017)

Eddy said:


> If they would just use a simple way of explaining what routes are suitable for skinny tyres and what routes you need off road tyres it would be a lot better , saying cycle route when it is impossible to cycle that route on a road bike is not very helpful to the user.


Volunteers are slowly adding surface quality information to Open Street Map and some route planners (http://cycle.travel/map for one) use that information - rough stuff is marked in green on that and weighted accordingly, but you can drag the route away if you're on a bike that really can't use it.


----------



## confusedcyclist (7 Mar 2017)

I have ridden Route 6 which is partly on an old railway track from Penistone towards Sheffield, I found it enjoyable at first, then confusing, then infuriating. The segregated/rail track was impressive, if a little busy with dog walkers, muddy/covered in horse shoot, then once you got off the track, the signage was very poor. My friend and I got horribly lost and confused, being confronted with footpaths which stated no bicycles permitted etc... Luckily my friend knew the roads in the area so we did a bit of on road riding instead of attempting to continue on the route.

Making it sound like a national network is a bit misleading, you couldn't use it to navigate long distances with ease, but I'd be happy to take a child/novice on it to get a taste of riding.


----------



## User6179 (7 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Volunteers are slowly adding surface quality information to Open Street Map and some route planners (http://cycle.travel/map for one) use that information - rough stuff is marked in green on that and weighted accordingly, but you can drag the route away if you're on a bike that really can't use it.



Thanks, will have a look .


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Mar 2017)

S-Express said:


> Enforcement should come from the council and/or the police though, as with any other parking issue. BC/local club can only request.




Or refuse participation to members blocking a local cycle facility


----------



## Hardrock93 (7 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Volunteers are slowly adding surface quality information to Open Street Map and some route planners (http://cycle.travel/map for one) use that information - rough stuff is marked in green on that and weighted accordingly, but you can drag the route away if you're on a bike that really can't use it.


Yes, indeed. In fact, I've been doing some OSM data updating today on a local section of the NCN. I'm fairly new to editing OSM, but I find it a satisfying and worthwhile task to try and accurately set the parameters (good or bad!) for my local area routes.


----------



## growingvegetables (7 Mar 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> ... if we want to get people cycling the Sustrans network surely needs to be well maintained, safe, and easy to follow. IMO it is none of these, it is worse than even the most minor roads for cars. With that, surely Sustrans need to get their act together and start acting like a highways authority, or give the network to someone that will.


Do we need something like a highways authority? Yup.
Do we need a quality network? Yup.

Should it be a charity endeavour? Nope. [Not in my opinion ]

Are we in danger of criticising the charity endeavour that tries to fill a glaring gap? Transferring expectations of *what should be*, to a bunch of guys who can only fail? Cos all that they CAN do is badger local authorities and their agendas?

One of the joys of riding the TPT north-south - you can spot the local authority boundaries by the changes in the quality of the provision. Barnsley had the HQ - cracking stuff in its time, within its boundaries. Leeds - nose out of joint, so their bit of the TPT is a ******* joke. And Sheffield? Just CBA.


----------



## mcshroom (7 Mar 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> And Sheffield? Just CBA.


To be fair they take the same approach to the roads


----------



## KnackeredBike (7 Mar 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Do we need something like a highways authority? Yup.
> Do we need a quality network? Yup.
> 
> Should it be a charity endeavour? Nope. [Not in my opinion ]
> ...


I don't think that a non-profit is per se the wrong way of doing it, I just think Sustrans model of skeleton funding and badgering local authorities to borrow a bit of tarmac isn't working and wasn't ever going to work.

However, Sustrans have to take accountability, there is money out there for sustainable transport be it from government, Big Lottery fund, etc, but they clearly aren't banging on the doors loud enough. Honestly £1bn is nothing to either of those if they could say it got a nationwide NCR properly surfaced and signed. However, they're now in the way of anyone else doing it now because Theresa May will just point out Sustrans is already cutting the odd branch back and cleaning her windows and all for £10 a week.


----------



## HLaB (7 Mar 2017)

User said:


> That money wasn't always wisely spent (e.g. the Misguided Busway project in Cambridgeshire).


From the outside judging from the amount of Strava tracks on it for commuting it doesn't seem like that bad an investment but tell me more?


----------



## Flying Dodo (7 Mar 2017)

The sad fact is that in the UK we've taken increasingly the wrong direction, following the vested interests of the motor and construction industries, compared with more enlightened parts of the world. Until a UK Government wakes up, smells the coffee along with the smog and realises what a mess we're in, then no meaningful amount of money is going to be spent on cycling provision on a national basis.

Therefore it's left to Sustrans to scrabble for what they can. Bear in mind the National Cycle Network was never intended to be the equivalent of the A road network, and as stated by @User they only own a small amount, less than 500 miles, so for the rest are completely restricted by what the actual landowners let them install. Sustrans would love to have tarmac down on minimum 3m wide cycle paths to encourage more cyclists, but it's just not going to happen.

There are going to be sections of the Cycle Network effectively abandoned by Sustrans, and one of the reasons is lack of resources.


----------



## NorthernDave (7 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Even as an enabler, Sustrans are the route numbering authority, aren't they? They're responsible for the travesty that is cyclists being unable to count on their red numbers as signifying a useful all-weather cycle route. Even within the same highway authority area (Norfolk), Notional Route 1 varies between wide/smooth tarmac and near-unrideable sand, dangerous gravel descents ending in barriers and narrow dirt track.
> 
> I feel they should be stricter about delisting sections which do not conform to their design manual, but I think much of the current substandard network was accepted by them in a Lottery-funded push to have a route within X miles of Y% of the population by the year 2000 and falling back below that carries some reputational risk (if not having to refund the £43.5m lottery grant).
> 
> ...



I've posted about this before, but it's worth mentioning again.
NCR66 passes within a mile or so of my house, but there is nothing on the Sustrans website* to tell you what sort of surface it has, and as it takes you from the heart of a major city into some great countryside it should be a jewel in the network.
But turn up on an MTB and you'll spend an age slogging along on roads or shared paths and having no fun. Turn up on a road bike and you'll sink to the axles in mud, if you haven't already knackered your bike on the stony, rutted bridleway sections.
And that's all assuming you can follow the route as signage is diabolical in far too many places leaving you with no idea where you are meant to go. At one point the route takes you up a dead end street that ends with a high kerb - you have to dismount, lift your bike up onto the footpath and try and spot where the route goes next...

EDIT: to add this picture showing what I mean -





You have to go up the path to the bollards just visible, where there is a dropped kerb with a splash of red tarmac on it which then takes you onto a mini-roundabout and is again unsigned leaving you to guess where to go again.
This is the route from the other side looking down the slope:




At least here there is a clue with the badly eroded red tarmac, but look at the bollard slap in the middle of the 'cycle lane' and the ambiguous sign that could easily send you along the main road.

Other routes locally (655? at Wetherby and whatever the Solar Cycle at York is designated as) are former railway lines, yet the tarmac is rutted by tree roots, frequently covered in debris and oddly narrow for the available space with just enough room for two bikes to pass.

* - I'm aware you can find some details on some route surfaces elsewhere, but it's hardly easy to find when the Sustrans website should be doing it


----------



## mjr (7 Mar 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> Are we in danger of criticising the charity endeavour that tries to fill a glaring gap? Transferring expectations of *what should be*, to a bunch of guys who can only fail? Cos all that they CAN do is badger local authorities and their agendas?


Should trying to fill a glaring gap exempt a self-perpetuating group from criticism?

They can badger local authorities but don't seem to be. Withdrawing route numbers from substandard sections, resulting in them being signed (1) rather than 1 would at least mean we know it's shoot. Announcing the downgrade may be useful badgering, too.


----------



## KnackeredBike (7 Mar 2017)

Flying Dodo said:


> There are going to be sections of the Cycle Network effectively abandoned by Sustrans, and one of the reasons is lack of resources.


But there aren't a lack of resources. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We can afford metres wide, well maintained, well signed tarmac to almost everywhere you might want to go by car. My local council spent £11m just adding a couple of lanes to a roundabout for God's sake. It is outrageous that we don't have even 10% of a skeleton cycle network to a similar standard. 

In fact what we have is worse than useless because it's mostly unusable whatever bike you are on, but it invites the idea that there is provision, and fuels a minority of motorists who feel that roads are for cars, bikes should be on the cycle paths.


----------



## Flying Dodo (7 Mar 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> But there aren't a lack of resources. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We can afford metres wide, well maintained, well signed tarmac to almost everywhere you might want to go by car. My local council spent £11m just adding a couple of lanes to a roundabout for God's sake. It is outrageous that we don't have even 10% of a skeleton cycle network to a similar standard.
> 
> In fact what we have is worse than useless because it's mostly unusable whatever bike you are on, but it invites the idea that there is provision, and fuels a minority of motorists who feel that roads are for cars, bikes should be on the cycle paths.



I thought I'd made it quite clear in my post that there's a lack of resources allocated to cycling.


----------



## growingvegetables (7 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Should trying to fill a glaring gap exempt a self-perpetuating group from criticism?


No.

However, should they be held accountable for all the c**p? Equally - no way.

But we've got (no particular reason for selecting these from above - they just happen to be handy examples)


KnackeredBike said:


> However, *Sustrans have to take accountability* ...


... umm, really?
Or


NorthernDave said:


> ... I'm aware you can find some details on some route surfaces elsewhere, but it's hardly easy to find *when the Sustrans website should be doing it.*


---- hmm. I can't think of a single Yorkshire council that provides anything beyond glossy photo brochures made for some far-gone official opening ... with nary a hint of what the reality was then, and certainly nothing about how the route has fared after years of non-maintenance. 

And meanwhile, one Philip Hammond (not just him - he's just the current incumbent) sits and grins his Cheshire cat grin, quietly pleased that others take the flak for the purse-strings he pulls.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Mar 2017)

HLaB said:


> From the outside judging from the amount of Strava tracks on it for commuting it doesn't seem like that bad an investment but tell me more?



Another issue?

Sustrans original "vision" was a system usable by a competent ten year old.

Should they be mixing with someone actively pursuing a speed record?

It was always going to be a poisoned chalice trying to meet the needs and demands of these two extremes and the plethora of user types in between


----------



## Pat "5mph" (7 Mar 2017)

@KnackeredBike you forgot the Sustrans hills: one can bet one's bottom bracket that, if there's a flat road and a big hill taking you to the same place, the NCN route takes you up the big hill!
Most of the Sustrans paths around here are not bad on a sturdy bike, if you don't mind lots of blind bends, uneven surfaces, the risk of sliding into water streams.
They won't get you to your destination directly but they can be quite scenic.
A big problem I have noticed is that some routes are outdated: maybe once upon a time they used to be quiet back roads, but residential building have made them into quite busy roads, sometimes even fast roads, used by drivers as shortcuts.
I have one near me, on route 754, that goes up a very steep hill with many side street and driveways. It is actually safer (less steep too) to use the parallel main roads, at least they are wider and they carry the same amount of traffic.


----------



## KnackeredBike (7 Mar 2017)

Pat "5mph" said:


> A big problem I have noticed is that some routes are outdated: maybe once upon a time they used to be quiet back roads, but residential building have made them into quite busy roads, sometimes even fast roads, used by drivers as shortcuts.


One near me follows a ancient road which is good except that it's one foot underwater for large parts of the winter. At one point, though, the route shares a road with a quarry for 200m, so monster trucks career onto the route on one side, than career off the other. It would be difficult to think of a more dangerous combination, but at some stage someone has signed this off as a signed, bona fide cycle route. Imagine it was a road crossing...


----------



## Glow worm (7 Mar 2017)

It's an indictment of the UK's transport policy of the past 50 or so years that we even need something like Sustrans. The organisation does some great work and the volunteers are brilliant but most of the routes are crap.

We have a massive air quality problem in Britain, obesity etc is costing the NHS a fortune and parents are too scared to allow their kids on bicycles because everyone drives (badly) and yet no one in Government seems to be able to join up the dots. Even the recent advice from the Mayor of London was for kids to 'not breathe too deeply' during a recent particularly bad episode of toxic air pollution from vehicle emissions. So basically the message was ' carry on driving folks, and kids, it's your fault for breathing'.
We're stuck in the dark ages in the UK and it's not looking like getting any better (on the bright side though, at least it's not Australia).


----------



## Aravis (7 Mar 2017)

I've paid very little attention to Sustrans over the years. This thread has been quite an eye-opener. A few observations:

Looking at their website, it does all seem a bit self-serving. The expectation seems to be that people will view using the NCN as an end in itself. But surely anyone using a bike to make meaningful journeys will be on non-NCN routes most of the time.

Occasionally I come across NCN signs when out cycling - a blue background with a number on it. As if that's meant to mean something to me?

Having had a look at the Sustrans map, it seems that the existence of a route does not necessarily imply that it's a good way to cycle. There've been many examples highlighted already, but a highly amusing one is the approach to Tewkesbury from the south. Sustrans want you to cross the Severn on the Lower Lode ferry, for which you need to extract the ferryman from the nearby pub. If approaching from the other side you have to hope he hears you ring the bell. And you're out of luck if it isn't summer. Very quaint and a worthwhile experience I'm sure, but not a practical transport solution. Bizarrely, heading north from Tewkesbury, the continuation of the same route plonks you straight onto the A38 for a mile or so, up a steepish hill with no segregation from other traffic whatsoever. This makes a mockery of the lengths taken to avoid the same road further south.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Mar 2017)

There can be commercial and other interests involved with the council and design

There was a large development in Gosport at Priddys Hard with a new pedestrian / cycle bridge






With development funding and also a need to make the bridge a success there was a lot of pressure for a cycle route to go this way


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2017)

growingvegetables said:


> No.
> 
> However, should they be held accountable for all the c**p? Equally - no way.


Probably not for building it (although I do know one shocker they built - since rebuilt), but who's fault is it that the c**p is designated as part of the National Cycling Network? That's wholly Sustrans, isn't it? They could decide to dedesignate c**p but don't.



growingvegetables said:


> And meanwhile, one Philip Hammond (not just him - he's just the current incumbent) sits and grins his Cheshire cat grin, quietly pleased that others take the flak for the purse-strings he pulls.


Oh I think he deserves lots of flak for the pathetic funding (£2 per person per year out here - various groups are calling for 10% of the transport budget now, while even the not-very-radical UN says 20% by 2025 IIRC), as did his predecessors. I've ridden to Westminster in protest a couple of times - have all the people complaining here?


----------



## KnackeredBike (8 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> I've ridden to Westminster in protest a couple of times - have all the people complaining here?


I doubt the government really cares about protests unless it gets in their way. I'd happily be up for protest where we all go down and block Horseferry Rd by the DfT for a few hours and see if that bends a few ears.


----------



## confusedcyclist (8 Mar 2017)

May be old news for some but this documentary goes into some of the history of our poor cycling infrastructure and there's interviews with Sustrans founders too.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMiNdAMIqjk


----------



## confusedcyclist (8 Mar 2017)

KnackeredBike said:


> I doubt the government really cares about protests unless it gets in their way. I'd happily be up for protest where we all go down and block Horseferry Rd by the DfT for a few hours and see if that bends a few ears.



It's been tried before in the 70s and failed, see above. Only thing that can really change culture and the way we use our roads at this point is another oil shock. We are due another one in the not too distant future anyway. But it will be too late to spend lots of money on nice new infrastructure, on the postive side, there will be plenty of new space on the existing infrastructure, think quiet rodes and almost empty motorways to ride on the Sunday club run.


----------



## psmiffy (8 Mar 2017)

Nothing will change until there is a cyclists vote - plenty of other things that a Government has to find money to run - todays example is £2Bn for adult care - plus LAs are strapped for cash - Council Tax will rise in April to meet social demands


----------



## Glow worm (8 Mar 2017)

The picture below from Google Earth taken near me demonstrates the contempt road planners have for cyclists. You can (just about) see Newmarket is 15 miles away on Sustrans routes (and at this time of year you'll be spending a week clearing mud of your bike for the privilege when you eventually get there) whereas it's only 6 miles by car.
You can of course ride the 6 miles, but it is pretty unpleasant (I won't ride that road now after being clipped by a van).

So if I'm in a hurry to get to Newmarket, I have no choice but to drive. (This is in a flat area where it rarely rains much. The Dutch must just piss themselves laughing at us).

I'd rather just have an honest sign there that says 'Screw you cyclists' and be done with it.


----------



## confusedcyclist (8 Mar 2017)

psmiffy said:


> Nothing will change until there is a cyclists vote - plenty of other things that a Government has to find money to run - todays example is £2Bn for adult care - plus LAs are strapped for cash - Council Tax will rise in April to meet social demands


Oh yes, and somehow they can find room in the budget to subsidise... public houses. Those important contributors to national infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, I like a good pint. But waiting for the government to sort out this mess is futile. Central government are the very gits who got us into this mess in the first place. I think the Sustrans had its heart in the right place, but got lost somewhere along the way with the mammoth £42 million grant, that's one hell of a project to manage. They were probably a bit ambitious with their timelines and lacked the expertise to pull it off.

We need a sustained spending commitment for cycling infrastructure, but that won't happen unless society beings to recognise there's an alternative to personal motor transportation, and not only an alternative, but a preferable alternative. As I said, I find it hard to find that day coming any time soon, it won't be until driving becomes too expensive, and by that time the economy will be on it's knees again and there will be little to spend on fancy schemes on the scale of Sustrans. We should continue hope for some common sense up top, but for now, we might be better off volunteering and opting for bottom up approaches, like the roots of Sustrans, rather than waiting for 'they' who will never arrive to sort it all out. Sadly, the low hanging fruit (disused rail lines) have been picked, so what's left is practically difficult for volunteers to tackle.

Don't like the rubble on your cycle path, take a broom and rubbish bag. Don't like the potholes? Fill em!

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/12/san-franciscos-anonymous-diy-bike-lane-builders-qa/510989/


----------



## EasyPeez (8 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> http://cycle.travel/map



This looks really good as a basic mapping tool. 
Excuse my ludditeness but I can't seem to find a key to the different colour coded routes - is there one? And before I go through the sign-up process, can you save routes plotted on there as gpx files to export to Garmins etc? Can't see any facility for it to plot elevations etc?


----------



## Ian H (8 Mar 2017)

My impression of Sustrans is that its main purpose is to raise funds for Sustrans.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2017)

EasyPeez said:


> This looks really good as a basic mapping tool.
> Excuse my ludditeness but I can't seem to find a key to the different colour coded routes - is there one?


Click the "Key" link next to the copyright message (top right on my computer - might not appear on mobiles).



EasyPeez said:


> And before I go through the sign-up process, can you save routes plotted on there as gpx files to export to Garmins etc?


GPX, TCX and KML with optional announcement distance. You should be able to test it by clicking "GPS" on routes I've saved like http://cycle.travel/map/journey/22666



EasyPeez said:


> Can't see any facility for it to plot elevations etc?


It plots 2D and 3D elevations. Click the mountain symbol. (If you do that on the test link then no, it's not broken and we really do ride 100 miles like that around here.  )


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2017)

Glow worm said:


> The picture below from Google Earth taken near me demonstrates the contempt road planners have for cyclists. You can (just about) see Newmarket is 15 miles away on Sustrans routes (and at this time of year you'll be spending a week clearing mud of your bike for the privilege when you eventually get there) whereas it's only 6 miles by car.


That sign combination in Bottisham is rather notorious because both signs are wrong!

Even following the bizarre Sustrans mud bath route, it's 11.5 miles, not 15 (did someone not type a 1 at some point, then someone later think "it can't be 1.5 - they must mean 15" rather than actually check?) - and you can cut 1.3 off by using the direct B road (which is so-so and would benefit from a cycle track, for which there's enough space in the highway corridor). Meanwhile, it's actually 7.5 miles by car, not 6 - but yes, that route would benefit from a cycle track too, but because there aren't many places on it, I reckon Burwell-Exning should come first.

But that those signs are still wrong means the point still stands: it's a bit of a "screw you cyclists" from Cambridgeshire County Council there


----------



## psmiffy (8 Mar 2017)

confusedcyclist said:


> We need a sustained spending commitment for cycling infrastructure,



There is not much point in preaching to the converted - the key thing is money/investment - and then using that money/investment however limited in a smart way - quite what a "smart way" is the tricky bit assuming you can get the money/investment - one thing I immediately notice being on a couple of cycle forums is that everybody's opinion of what is a smart way is different and as yet Ive not seen anyone come up with a cunning plan that would satisfy Uncle Tom Cobbly and All 

Easy to point the finger at the howlers by LAs and Sustrans - they try their best with pretty limited funding (I think somewhere above £43 million was spoken about for Sustrans for the whole of England - that will be over a period of something like 5 to 10 years - I was cycling in Holland and they were talking about €208M for one year for a single city)

Cycling per se is a minority activity - until it becomes mainstream improvements will be little by little - sometimes steps forward and sometime steps backwards - working out what is the "Smart Way" for the UK will be tricky


----------



## Glow worm (8 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> That sign combination in Bottisham is rather notorious because both signs are wrong!
> 
> Even following the bizarre Sustrans mud bath route, it's 11.5 miles, not 15 (did someone not type a 1 at some point, then someone later think "it can't be 1.5 - they must mean 15" rather than actually check?) - and you can cut 1.3 off by using the direct B road (which is so-so and would benefit from a cycle track, for which there's enough space in the highway corridor). *Meanwhile, it's actually 7.5 miles by car, not 6* - but yes, that route would benefit from a cycle track too, but because there aren't many places on it, I reckon Burwell-Exning should come first.



I'd not noticed/ measured that - reminds me of a lot of Norfolk lanes where no matter how much closer you get to your destination, the signs always seem to add a half mile or so to give the impression you're getting further away rather than nearer.

The Burwell to Exning road is horrible. Not sure how a cycle route could get over the railway bridge on that road - my suggestion of course would be to close the road to motorised traffic  I'm sure that would go down well!

The parallel bridleway (to the north) is a good alternative but only really passable by bike in summer. And only really good for MTB/ hybrid.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (8 Mar 2017)

Glow worm said:


> reminds me of a lot of Norfolk lanes where no matter how much closer you get to your destination, the signs always seem to add a half mile or so to give the impression you're getting further away rather than nearer.


On the NCN bit from Balloch to Luss there's a sign saying "Luss 6 miles".
After about 5 miles, the same sign. After another 5 miles ... "Luss 6 miles"


----------



## Glow worm (8 Mar 2017)

Pat "5mph" said:


> On the NCN bit from Balloch to Luss there's a sign saying "Luss 6 miles".
> After about 5 miles, the same sign. After another 5 miles ... "Luss 6 miles"



Exactly - completely soul destroying! At least the Garmin never lies!


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2017)

Glow worm said:


> The Burwell to Exning road is horrible. Not sure how a cycle route could get over the railway bridge on that road - my suggestion of course would be to close the road to motorised traffic  I'm sure that would go down well!


Could do what's happened on some other narrow bridges: single alternating-flow of one lane for motorists, controlled by traffic lights, while cycles free-flow in the other lane... but there's no railway under there since 1965ish, so any cycle track could probably go to the south.

There's tons of other options for a more direct route, too. All it needs is CCC to get their finger out, really.


----------



## EasyPeez (9 Mar 2017)

mjr said:


> Click the "Key" link next to the copyright message (top right on my computer - might not appear on mobiles).
> 
> 
> GPX, TCX and KML with optional announcement distance. You should be able to test it by clicking "GPS" on routes I've saved like http://cycle.travel/map/journey/22666
> ...



Brilliant, thanks for the quick tutorial.

As a skinny-tyre type who nevertheless likes to go off-piste where possible I think this tool is a revelation. I've used Google maps and Sustrans website up to now but have often plotted rides where I've had to detour midway because the surface just wasn't traversable on a road bike and there was no way of knowing that from the vague-at-best Sustrans info.

I'm loving the riding in your part of the world by the way - I thought East Yorkshire was flat, but you can virtually pick out each sleeping policeman on the elevation graph of your 100 mile ride!


----------



## byegad (9 Mar 2017)

[QUOTE 4713957, member: 9609"]NC1 in Northumberland
View attachment 341500

seriously, this is the A1 of cyleways, a muddy field full of cows.[/QUOTE]
Been on that POS. Further on we came to a field with mud in the gate way at least 6 inches deep. We ended up lifting trikes and bikes over a barbed wire fence and hiking across the field before repeating the process at the other side of the field, in order to avoid yet another deep mud bath. That was definitely the last time I'll ever use Sustrans routes.


----------



## spen666 (9 Mar 2017)

Has anyone actually looked at what the purpose Sustrans is supposed to have, before deciding its not fit for purpose?

It may be that its purpose is not the one you want


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> Has anyone actually looked at what the purpose Sustrans is supposed to have, before deciding its not fit for purpose?
> 
> It may be that its purpose is not the one you want


Yes - "Our vision is a world in which people choose to travel in ways that benefit their health and the environment. Our mission is to work everyday on practical and imaginative solutions to the transport challenges affecting us all"

Does anyone think that mudbath on National 1 (or the sand trap or big gravel descent into a fence that I linked earlier) is a solution to everyone's transport challenge? Or that it's going to help people choose to travel in ways that benefit their health and the environment?

I feel the criticism is fair, although I still feel the buck stops with most bits of government for not funding this properly and taking a lead, rather than a charity which seems to be enabling/endorsing government crapness.

I still use Sustrans routes where they are decent (rest assured, if a route is any good, Sustrans may well want to claim it as part of their network), but I know my requirements are different to Sustrans's, so I tend to rely on things like OpenStreetMap and Geograph and even flaming Streetview and Bing Aerial, rather than Sustrans's claims.


----------



## User482 (9 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> Has anyone actually looked at what the purpose Sustrans is supposed to have, before deciding its not fit for purpose?
> 
> It may be that its purpose is not the one you want


Dairy farming?


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Mar 2017)

My thoughts are that because Sustrans seem so ineffective that it may be better not to have the organisation and but the ball back in the government's court, that way at least we all no where we stand and have a simple target to blame.


----------



## psmiffy (9 Mar 2017)

Milkfloat said:


> My thoughts are that because Sustrans seem so ineffective that it may be better not to have the organisation and but the ball back in the government's court, that way at least we all no where we stand and have a simple target to blame.



What!  and remove the whole point of the public/private partnership - and of course there is no organisation within government to bridge between the national government and the local authorities on a national basis


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Mar 2017)

psmiffy said:


> What!  and remove the whole point of the public/private partnership - and of course there is no organisation within government to bridge between the national government and the local authorities on a national basis



Exactly - that way we might get something fit for purpose.


----------



## screenman (9 Mar 2017)

Would somebody be helpful to me and explain the pensions part of page 33.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/Sustrans' annual accounts 2016(1).pdf


----------



## Flying Dodo (9 Mar 2017)

screenman said:


> Would somebody be helpful to me and explain the pensions part of page 33.
> 
> http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/Sustrans' annual accounts 2016(1).pdf



They paid £475,000 in pension contributions in total for all 651 employees and included within that, for the 7 employees earning between £60,000 to £69,999 they paid £14,000 in contributions; for the 1 earning £70,000 to £79,999 they paid a total of £2,000; and for the Chief Executive on between £100,000 to £110,000, they paid £4,000 in pension contributions.

Seems quite clear to me.

To only get a 4% employer contribution as the Chief Executive is pretty small scale for an organisation the size of Sustrans. But it is a charity after all.

The accounts for the year end 31/3/17 will show a drop in staff numbers.


----------



## screenman (9 Mar 2017)

Flying Dodo said:


> They paid £475,000 in pension contributions in total for all 651 employees and included within that, for the 7 employees earning between £60,000 to £69,999 they paid £14,000 in contributions; for the 1 earning £70,000 to £79,999 they paid a total of £2,000; and for the Chief Executive on between £100,000 to £110,000, they paid £4,000 in pension contributions.
> 
> Seems quite clear to me.
> 
> ...



Thanks for taking the time to explain it too me. I must admit my expereince with Sustrans is quite positive, in that each time I have phoned them to report a problem on the local route they have had somebody down to fix it quite rapid. Now if the people they employ are actually treating Sustrans well is another story, they have told me things like that path was cut last week when it has not been done for months. Maybe they are being exploited, I must say the Lincoln office did not know where Bardney was on one phone call.


----------



## mjr (9 Mar 2017)

screenman said:


> Maybe they are being exploited, I must say the Lincoln office did not know where Bardney was on one phone call.


If it's anything like here, the "Lincoln office" phones are probably being covered by a neighbouring county these days, at least some of the time. That said, I'm in a neighbouring county and I know where Bardney is because it's on Route flipping 1.


----------



## NorthernDave (10 Mar 2017)

As someone didn't quite say, 'the cycle route to hell is paved with good intentions'.

And while the efforts of volunteers is appreciated and commended, if they don't have the basic knowledge (through training, support and experience) they can sometimes make matters worse.

(Although in my experience, ineptitude isn't necessarily limited to volunteers - and not all volunteers do a bad job)


----------

