# Sustrans



## Debian (12 Feb 2010)

There didn't seem to be an obvious place to put this so I put it here.

I was wondering how many CCers are involved in some way with Sustrans? I'm a volunteer ranger. Just interested to discuss our involvement, share experiences, info etc.


----------



## summerdays (12 Feb 2010)

Does giving them money on a regular basis count?

I'd be interested to hear what work you do anyway. I vaguely know a couple of sustrans employee's - though I must admit we haven't passed on the road recently.


----------



## marinyork (12 Feb 2010)

Probably unsuitable for the cafe on such a controverial topic if you don't mind me saying but leaving it here might make it a more pleasant thread.

It depends what you mean by "help" and "involved", I know several volunteer rangers and have no problems helping out a bit on the basis that we're all cyclists and will do so in future but I make it very clear I don't subscribe to Sustrans's philosophy.


----------



## Debian (12 Feb 2010)

summerdays said:


> Does giving them money on a regular basis count?
> 
> I'd be interested to hear what work you do anyway. I vaguely know a couple of sustrans employee's - though I must admit we haven't passed on the road recently.



It certainly counts as far as helping the work they do   but to be honest I'm looking for employees / volunteers.

I only started with them late last year and have a couple of sections of local cycle route to keep an eye on. Apart from one local meet that's all I've done so far so I'm looking to broaden my Sustrans horizons.


----------



## marinyork (12 Feb 2010)

Horizons - do you know about the connect 2 stuff http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/?


----------



## Debian (12 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Probably unsuitable for the cafe on such a controverial topic if you don't mind me saying but leaving it here might make it a more pleasant thread.
> 
> It depends what you mean by "help" and "involved", I know several volunteer rangers and have no problems helping out a bit on the basis that we're all cyclists and will do so in future but I make it very clear I don't subscribe to Sustrans's philosophy.



I'd be interested to read your views. I'm not interested in an argument either way but simply in getting other points of view as I have some opinions myself.


----------



## snorri (12 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> I'm a volunteer ranger.


I was a volunteer ranger and over a period of some 5 years submitted reports of defects on the NCN to my local authority(LA), but little or no action was taken to sort the defects. Missing signage on the on-road routes was the most common problem, lack of consideration for the NCN when new developments affected the route came a close second.. The LA never acknowledged receipt of reports, and were generally obstructive by changing contact details etc. . I appealed to Sustrans for help to get action from the LA, but would have to say, got very little practical support so in the end just gave up.


----------



## marinyork (12 Feb 2010)

Debian said:


> I'd be interested to read your views. I'm not interested in an argument either way but simply in getting other points of view as I have some opinions myself.



Locally sustrans routes have quite a hard time - that's because they are pretty crap and badly signposted where it matters. There was a long closure on a section approaching town for about a year and the council have decided to steal a bit of wide share use pavement. There was also the problem of cabling being stolen off bridges leading to long closures on at least one (but I think actually three). They aren't really integrated with anything else and this has been brought up the last year but in 2010 this will change. At the moment there is no decent signing at the start of the route there is even confusingly enough a "no cycling sign" that presents itself at the start of the route so for those that didn't know better would think otherwise.

If you have a look at connect2 you'll see they are all over the country. A scheme near me that is about sustainable transport, well ish. From a value for money point of view, it's probably a total waste of time depending on what the total budget comes into at the end. I've no idea whether it'll work or not, looks all right on paper, but to me that's sustrans taking a look at their network and saying ah, I see that area is underutilised because we designed it so crap, let's think up some local justification to get people using this useless route. One of the other shortlisted schemes that didn't make it sustrans were thinking about doing not because it'd be good for sustainable transport and the set of local problems there but because it'd make the route I talked about earlier look good. Sustrans did a lot of good work in the autumn over yonder in collaboration with the council and drafted in people from all over the country to do it that should get finished this year and might make a passable commuter/leisure route.


----------



## Campfire (12 Feb 2010)

I'm a volunteer ranger on the Transpennine Trail. I haven't been out for about 3 months as I had my Mum ill, the snow & ice and then Mum not well again, then Mr Campfire in bed most of last week, but am hoping to get back out again.

What I do is just cycle along the route, armed with carrier bags, collecting litter and getting rid of it at a suitable refuse point. One day I went along by the Manchester Ship Canal, where the bank drops down right to the canal and has a wooden fence in front. Most other parts of the path are more gradual drops. This time someone had vandalized two fence posts and there was a yawning gap right down to the canal. I got hold of local authority as I was afraid of anyone/dogs, kids falling in.

Mostly signing is quite good on this stretch. When it gets a little bit further on I think it is a bit ambiguous.


----------



## Over The Hill (13 Feb 2010)

I generally try to avoid them as whenever I have tried to use one it took a really useless route or the signs run out at a key point leaving me high and dry. 

If you try to ride the route from Basingstoke to Reading you cover about 32 miles (well I did but the signs ran out at one point) and you are taken through a really muddy rutted track which is not suitable for a road bike. 
On my own route (which is also back lanes and a nice ride) it is 19 miles with no muddy track. As one point I go the other way along the Sustrans route as it swings around and about so wildly. 

Similar bad experience with the route from Padstow.

Someone needs to sort out if the routes are a sensible a to b cycle route or a Sunday jaunt in the countryside and present them as such. Until then I am sticking to my own map and route. 

Sorry to be so negative!


----------



## Crankarm (13 Feb 2010)

My impression of Sustrans and their routes is so-so. They have little impact on any of my rides. A section of the Greenwheel around Peterborough takes you over a rough farm track easily capable of giving your bike a puncture or knackered rim, so I am not altogether convinced by their choices and strategy for locations of cycling routes. I did the C2C years ago and the Sustrans signs wanted to route us through Consett town centre, through the actual shopping mall, bugger that ........


----------



## marinyork (13 Feb 2010)

If anyone's interested Sustrans's budget is about £25 million per year alone.


----------



## snorri (13 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I did the C2C years ago and the Sustrans signs wanted to route us through Consett town centre, through the actual shopping mall, bugger that ........


Which just goes to prove you cannot please everyone.
I complained about a signed route which directed cycled along a tortuous town centre bypass route when the obvious and direct route was along the High Street, which would give cyclists the option of availing themselves of local services, cafes, bike shops etc.

PS
Are you sure this was a Sustrans route and not a NCN route designed and signed by the local authority? Sustrans routes are usually off road.


----------



## jonesy (13 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> Which just goes to prove you cannot please everyone.
> I complained about a signed route which directed cycled along a tortuous town centre bypass route when the obvious and direct route was along the High Street, which would give cyclists the option of availing themselves of local services, cafes, bike shops etc.
> 
> PS
> Are you sure this was a Sustrans route and not a NCN route designed and signed by the local authority? Sustrans routes are usually off road.



No, most of the NCN is on-road, and the whole NCN is planned, coordinated, co-funded and promoted by Sustrans. Certainly highway authorities are involved in the actual implementation of all on-road sections, because only they have the necessary powers, but Sustrans will have played a signficicant role in the choice of route, how it is mapped and, through the Rangers, in maintaining the signposting.


----------



## snorri (13 Feb 2010)

jonesy said:


> but Sustrans will have played a signficicant role in the choice of route, how it is mapped and, through the Rangers, in maintaining the signposting.


I'm not so sure that Sustrans play a significant role, they have an input, but inputs can be ignored or substantially modified. They certainly have no control of maintenance standards, including maintenance of signposting, once the route is completed.
The point I was trying to make is that in some cyclists eyes, Sustrans are the whipping boys for all that is wrong with all of our cycle routes when in fact the local authorities are responsible for a lot of the poor quality. Sustrans had no input whatsoever to the bypass route I mentioned earlier.


----------



## marinyork (13 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> I'm not so sure that Sustrans play a significant role, they have an input, but inputs can be ignored or substantially modified. They certainly have no control of maintenance standards, including maintenance of signposting, once the route is completed.
> The point I was trying to make is that in some cyclists eyes, Sustrans are the whipping boys for all that is wrong with all of our cycle routes when in fact the local authorities are responsible for a lot of the poor quality. Sustrans had no input whatsoever to the bypass route I mentioned earlier.



I would disagree. They have unfavourably significant role in many things and then will complain behind the council's back about things "not joining up" and when flatteringly consulted on something new will um and ah, and mess around everybody and then stomp their foot afterwards and say they didn't like whatever it was that got put in. When they do like something they'll then take all the credit over everyone else and the glory of the sustrans empire. I can think of far fewer examples where sustrans got things going with other organisations when the council were holding things up... then again I think they were getting that particular one largely for free, it's not like they dipped their hands into their unusually large pockets for a scheme they regarded as "important".


----------



## jonesy (13 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> I'm not so sure that Sustrans play a significant role, they have an input, but inputs can be ignored or substantially modified. They certainly have no control of maintenance standards, including maintenance of signposting, once the route is completed.
> The point I was trying to make is that in some cyclists eyes, Sustrans are the whipping boys for all that is wrong with all of our cycle routes when in fact the local authorities are responsible for a lot of the poor quality. Sustrans had no input whatsoever to the bypass route I mentioned earlier.



Sustrans has the final say on whether a route is designated as NCN. And they certainly promote the NCN as a success: I don't see any disclaimer on their website absolving themselves of responsibility for poor quality sections. Of which there are sadly very many (and here I must make the usual disclaimer of saying that there are also lots of good bits, and that I've been a Ranger myself). And one of the problems with the poor quality sections of the NCN (apart from the waste of resources) is that they set an unfortunate benchmark for future cycling infrastructure.


----------



## snorri (13 Feb 2010)

That is interesting to hear marinyork, but I can only speak from my own experiences where I see the local authority as more of a problem than Sustrans when it comes to provision for cyclists.


----------



## jonesy (13 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> That is interesting to hear marinyork, but I can only speak from my own experiences where I see the local authority as more of a problem than Sustrans when it comes to provision for cyclists.



In which case Sustrans shouldn't endorse it.


----------



## chap (13 Feb 2010)

Over The Hill said:


> I generally try to avoid them as whenever I have tried to use one it took a really useless route or the signs run out at a key point leaving me high and dry.
> 
> If you try to ride the route from Basingstoke to Reading you cover about 32 miles (well I did but the signs ran out at one point) and you are taken through a really muddy rutted track which is not suitable for a road bike.
> On my own route (which is also back lanes and a nice ride) it is 19 miles with no muddy track. As one point I go the other way along the Sustrans route as it swings around and about so wildly.
> ...



I have heard about a lovely route they have to Alton, apparently it extends to Winchester too. Of course your feedback for that would be appreciated


----------



## Danny (14 Feb 2010)

jonesy said:


> Sustrans has the final say on whether a route is designated as NCN. And they certainly promote the NCN as a success: I don't see any disclaimer on their website absolving themselves of responsibility for poor quality sections. Of which there are sadly very many (and here I must make the usual disclaimer of saying that there are also lots of good bits, and that I've been a Ranger myself). And one of the problems with the poor quality sections of the NCN (apart from the waste of resources) is that they set an unfortunate benchmark for future cycling infrastructure.


While I agree that Sustrans has overall responsibility for the designation of each long distance route, the actual legal ownership and responsibility of particular sections is a very grey area. A couple of years ago a young woman was killed on a section of the York-Selby route (NCN 65) that crosses York racecourse near my home. While this was essentially a freak accident I was alarmed to discover that no one seemed have legal responsibility for that stretch of the route. 

Having said that Sustrans quickly got together with the Council and Racecourse to implement a series of safety improvements on the junction where the accident happened.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Feb 2010)

There is a conflict here....

The tourist wants a quick straight through route through the town, the local cyclists want a network that allows commuting, to the local town centre for shopping and entertainment.

The former will almost always end up passing through the town on the latter. 

Then when the route does take the "tourist" concept and bypass the town there are complaints that the town centre would have been better!

No-one is ever going to be able to satisfy everyone


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Feb 2010)

the NCN routes aren't the be-all and end-all of Sustrans, but they do reveal a kind of ideological fervour. NCN1 through Gravesend or NCN 21 are profoundly daft. Often close to uncyclable (if that's a word), hard to follow, parallel to pleasant, not to say joyous roads, needlessly overcomplicated. The Greenways proposed for the Wimbledon tennis club are extraordinarily complex, and ignore charming streets that would halve the distance, and railways stations that fail the 'off-road' test. 

I watched a boy doing that freejumping stuff yesterday. There are clearly more ways of getting up staircases than ever I'd imagined. Most of us, though, will do it the way we've always done it.


----------



## Danny (14 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> My impression of Sustrans and their routes is so-so. They have little impact on any of my rides. A section of the Greenwheel around Peterborough takes you over a rough farm track easily capable of giving your bike a puncture or knackered rim, so I am not altogether convinced by their choices and strategy for locations of cycling routes. I did the C2C years ago and the Sustrans signs wanted to route us through Consett town centre, through the actual shopping mall, bugger that ........


I've now cycled on close to 1,000 miles of Sustrans routes. In my experience only a tiny proportion (less than 5%) are really substandard - by which I mean they cannot be comfortably ridden on a touring bike. And yes there are a few annoying and bizarre diversions around town centres.

But you need to balance this against the many excellent traffic free routes that have been opened up to cyclists which are far superior to the on-road alternatives - for example the routes along the Solway Firth, the Tyne, or Loch Venachar.

And judging by how well many of their off-road routes are used for both commuting and leisure cycling Sustrans have more than succeeded in their objective of encouraging more people to cycle.


----------



## Danny (14 Feb 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> There is a conflict here....
> 
> The tourist wants a quick straight through route through the town, the local cyclists want a network that allows commuting, to the local town centre for shopping and entertainment.
> 
> ...


This may be true in some cases, but I have also come across routes that go on bizarre and confusing diversions through towns to avoid busy roads. In my experience if you are not familiar with a town it is easy to get lost on these and end up back on the busy road you were trying to avoid in the first place, or an even busier one. 

The problem could easily be resolved with better signing, and is in any case a relatively minor problem in the scheme of things.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (14 Feb 2010)

I'm not a big fan of Sustrans, or any organisation which seeks to promote a special network of roads for cyclists. There's already a national cycle network which goes to practically every address in the UK after all, and I don't want people coming along and building another thereby reinforcing the "cycling is dangerous" myth and handing ammunition to those who think we're in the way on "their" roads.


----------



## marinyork (14 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> The problem could easily be resolved with better signing, and is in any case a relatively minor problem in the scheme of things.



It's not minor at all. Getting sustrans to do anything is a major headache.


----------



## wafflycat (14 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I'm not a big fan of Sustrans, or any organisation which seeks to promote a special network of roads for cyclists. There's already a national cycle network which goes to practically every address in the UK after all, and I don't want people coming along and building another thereby reinforcing the "cycling is dangerous" myth and handing ammunition to those who think we're in the way on "their" roads.



+1


----------



## mangaman (14 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> I would disagree. They have unfavourably significant role in many things and then will complain behind the council's back about things "not joining up" and when flatteringly consulted on something new will um and ah, and mess around everybody and then stomp their foot afterwards and say they didn't like whatever it was that got put in. When they do like something they'll then take all the credit over everyone else and the glory of the sustrans empire. I can think of far fewer examples where sustrans got things going with other organisations when the council were holding things up... then again I think they were getting that particular one largely for free, it's not like they dipped their hands into their unusually large pockets for a scheme they regarded as "important".



Unfortunately my experience of the council and Sustrans ties in with marin's.

They seem to have a disproportionately loud voice on cycling infrastructure as far as council planners are concerned, and a general ideology of segregating bikes and cars.

This may lead, as Danny says to some pleasant off-road leisure routes where you can mingle cozily with peds / dogs on extendible leads etc. and I can see such routes being nice if you have a young family and want a pootle off road on a tarmac track at 7 mph and introduce your kids to cycling.

My beef is that sustrans manage to persuade councils they are providers of viable routes for commuters / kids cycling to school etc and the council says OK and ticks the box for cycling provision. If you go to a transport planning meeting at your council, I would be very surprised if sustrans and segregating cyclists would not be the prevailing view.

My personal experience in Chichester is the Centurion Way. It leaves Chichester at the very edge of town and wends it's way to the middle of nowhere. It is full of pedestrians and dog walkers.

It theoretically joins Chichester and the South Downs off-road, but when I've used it to get out of town and into the hills I have to go 2 or 3 miles out of my way to even get to it. I have to cycle incredibly slowly as there are tunnels and blind corners with little kids and dogs everywhere.

The alternative is Broyle Road - a very wide / dead straight / very safe road that even has a cycle lane on (admittedly a useless one). It ends up exactly where Centurion Way does and in half the time and more safely for me and the peds / children on the Centurion Way.


----------



## marinyork (14 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> My personal experience in Chichester is the Centurion Way. It leaves Chichester at the very edge of town and wends it's way to the middle of nowhere. It is full of pedestrians and dog walkers.
> 
> It theoretically joins Chichester and the South Downs off-road, but when I've used it to get out of town and into the hills I have to go 2 or 3 miles out of my way to even get to it. I have to cycle incredibly slowly as there are tunnels and blind corners with little kids and dogs everywhere.
> 
> The alternative is Broyle Road - a very wide / dead straight / very safe road that even has a cycle lane on (admittedly a useless one). It ends up exactly where Centurion Way does and in half the time and more safely for me and the peds / children on the Centurion Way.



Looks positively direct, simple and quick compared to round here! The routes going into the city centre are windy, short, complicated to sign post, twist and turn, closed for months on end, some sections very high quality, others very low quality, a myriad of complicated death runs on toucan crossings to cars zooming past. What's more on bits of the two run ins to the city centre there's a very high chance of getting mugged if you weren't on the bike.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Feb 2010)

Mangaman - I've taken the FNRttC down that path, and it's an absolute honey compare to NCN 1, bits of NCN 4, NCN 21 and the Wandle Way! 

NCN 1 through Gravesend is four foot wide with a chainlink fence on one side, an industrial building on the other, and covered in broken glass. The alternative is Harmer Street which is one of the finest streets in the country.


----------



## mangaman (14 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Looks positively direct, simple and quick compared to round here! The routes going into the city centre are windy, short, complicated to sign post, twist and turn, closed for months on end, some sections very high quality, others very low quality, a myriad of complicated death runs on toucan crossings to cars zooming past. What's more on bits of the two run ins to the city centre there's a very high chance of getting mugged if you weren't on the bike.



It may look that way, but the road is much more simple and direct


----------



## marinyork (14 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> It may look that way, but the road is much more simple and direct



Oh I'm sure it is. 2.45 miles at 13mph or 3.7 miles at 9.5mph. But sustrans have a phobia of main roads, except when they have no option and then by a remarkable magic trick with some paint and a few tiny blue signs they become safe .


----------



## mangaman (14 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Mangaman - I've taken the FNRttC down that path, and it's an absolute honey compare to NCN 1, bits of NCN 4, NCN 21 and the Wandle Way!
> 
> NCN 1 through Gravesend is four foot wide with a chainlink fence on one side, an industrial building on the other, and covered in broken glass. The alternative is Harmer Street which is one of the finest streets in the country.



Like I said to marin though Dell, it may not be the worst path in Britain - and I guess you used it at night on the FNRttC. I just question the council banging on about how cycle friendly they are because of it.

It's different on a Sunday afternoon, when I might want to use it. It becomes a walking path with the odd cyclist (which is fine - I understand it's shared use status). It would be perverse in the extreme for me and my mates to cycle a significant extra distance to get to it and have to meander up it for the safety of everyone else.

Especially when there's a huge great road going the same way more directly much nearer my house.


----------



## mangaman (14 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Oh I'm sure it is. 2.45 miles at 13mph or 3.7 miles at 9.5mph. But sustrans have a phobia of main roads, except when they have no option and then by a remarkable magic trick with some paint and a few tiny blue signs they become safe .



Exactly


----------



## Ian H (14 Feb 2010)

One thing that Sustrans are extremely good at is fund-raising. Would that the CTC were half as good.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Feb 2010)

Ian H said:


> One thing that Sustrans are extremely good at is fund-raising. Would that the CTC were half as good.


ooooocchhhhh. That smarts.

I should say, by the way, that I agree with Mangaman on the parallel road in to Chichester. It's perfectly acceptable. The path was an interesting diversion, really to add a spurious air of mystery to what had been hitherto a 30 mile stretch of A286 - one of the finest cycling roads in the country.


----------



## Danny (14 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> It's not minor at all. Getting sustrans to do anything is a major headache.


The point I was making was that perhaps a mile or less in a 200 mile route might be poorly signed - according to my maths that's no more than 0.5% of the overall route.

I am not sure what you have tried to get Sustrans to do, but in my experience they respond very positively with reports of missing or inadequate signs.


----------



## marinyork (14 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> The point I was making was that perhaps a mile or less in a 200 mile route might be poorly signed - according to my maths that's no more than 0.5% of the overall route.
> 
> I am not sure what you have tried to get Sustrans to do, but in my experience they respond very positively with reports of missing or inadequate signs.



Danny, I wasn't born yesterday. I've cycled your beloved one probably more times than you have. When the diversion signs were up near selby would be one example, similarly a section up this end. Add in the starting section the council/others have been trying to get sorted for a long time that's 3 in considerably less than 200 miles. Then there's that joke section going into stamford bridge oh and that closed section I was talking about earlier . You could argue in context that 2 of those are pretty major failings, the others more marginal and much less important.


----------



## Danny (14 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> Unfortunately my experience of the council and Sustrans ties in with marin's.
> 
> They seem to have a disproportionately loud voice on cycling infrastructure as far as council planners are concerned, and a general ideology of segregating bikes and cars.
> 
> ...


I cannot speak for Chichester, but in York Sustrans and the Council have developed some extremely successful commuting routes which are used by many hundreds of cyclists every day. Many of these are actually quicker to use than the on-road equivalent because they take a more direct route than the roads and you are not held up by traffic congestion.

I personally have no problem with sharing a cycle route with dog walkers, joggers, or people just going out for a stroll with their kids. I find this a lot more pleasant than trying to battle my way through York's congested streets.

In any case it is a myth to say that Sustrans is trying to segregate cyclists from cars. As others have said the vast majority of the national cycle network goes along existing roads. Where they have built off-road routes these generally provide an _alternative_ to busy main roads - cyclists can still choose which they prefer to go on.


----------



## snorri (14 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> The point I was making was that perhaps a mile or less in a 200 mile route might be poorly signed - according to my maths that's no more than 0.5% of the overall route.
> 
> I am not sure what you have tried to get Sustrans to do, but in my experience they respond very positively with reports of missing or inadequate signs.



If a sign is missing the route is severed, according to my maths that is a 100% fail.
You are indeed fortunate to have defects resolved promptly, in my locality the time scale for resolving signing defects is measured in years rather than months.


----------



## marinyork (14 Feb 2010)

I would agree snorri, which is why for example people have tried to get better signing at the start of one of the routes here. It's 100% fail if no one knows it is there. What are you more likely to notice a large no cycling sign or a sustrans sticker put there a while ago pointing down a very strange looking private development?


----------



## Danny (15 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Danny, I wasn't born yesterday. I've cycled your beloved one probably more times than you have. When the diversion signs were up near selby would be one example, similarly a section up this end. Add in the starting section the council/others have been trying to get sorted for a long time that's 3 in considerably less than 200 miles. Then there's that joke section going into stamford bridge oh and that closed section I was talking about earlier . You could argue in context that 2 of those are pretty major failings, the others more marginal and much less important.


We are talking about two different things, as I wasn't referring to the York-Selby route at all

I was responding to and agreeing with Crankarms point about some of the signing through town centres on other long distance routes. However generally we are generally talking about one or two junctions where the signing seems to disappear.


----------



## marinyork (15 Feb 2010)

Well you can talk about city centre stuff if you want, it's included in my examples. 

Thefts/vandalisms is harder to sort out. Fortunately cabling thefts etc that has hit the city centre routes here seems to have been resolved for the present.


----------



## Danny (15 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> If a sign is missing the route is severed, according to my maths that is a 100% fail.
> You are indeed fortunate to have defects resolved promptly, in my locality the time scale for resolving signing defects is measured in years rather than months.


Well actually if you have the accompanying map you can usually get back on the route in a matter of minutes - though I agree it can be very frustrating if you miss a turn because there is no sign.

Sustrans is still largely reliant on volunteers to maintain things like signing, so I guess the service can be variable in different areas of Britain.


----------



## marinyork (15 Feb 2010)

53°23'3.8"N 1°27'39.75"W copy those into google maps exactly as you would an address and have a look at streetview. 

That's the sort of thing I'm on about (and no, it's not actually changed since the imagery was taken which was a while back).


----------



## Danny (15 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Well you can talk about city centre stuff if you want, it's included in my examples.
> 
> Thefts/vandalisms is harder to sort out. Fortunately cabling thefts etc that has hit the city centre routes here seems to have been resolved for the present.


I am not sure there is much point. 

You fundamentally disagree with with Sustrans so will find fault in anything they do.


----------



## marinyork (15 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> I am not sure there is much point.
> 
> You fundamentally disagree with with Sustrans so will find fault in anything they do.



I disagree with their philosophy and their wastage. If they did things better and stopped trying to hinder other cycling efforts I wouldn't have a problem with them. That's very different from what you're saying and I would point out that as so often on these boards you become quite resentful of others with similar background interests and try and spin out a politburo version of either cycle campaigning/Labour party politics. Just because you're chums with someone doesn't mean you follow every thing they say loyally forever.


----------



## snorri (15 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> Sustrans is still largely reliant on volunteers to maintain things like signing, so I guess the service can be variable in different areas of Britain.



Volunteers only maintain sections of route which are owned or leased by Sustrans. In my part of the country maintenance of all cycle routes is the responsibility of the local authority or trunk road authority.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> In any case it is a myth to say that Sustrans is trying to segregate cyclists from cars. As others have said the vast majority of the national cycle network goes along existing roads. Where they have built off-road routes these generally provide an _alternative_ to busy main roads - *cyclists can still choose which they prefer to go on*.



No doubt they can, for the moment. How long that happy state of affairs will last when Sustrans has publicised cycling as something best done away from traffic is anyone's guess.


----------



## Norm (15 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> 53°23'3.8"N 1°27'39.75"W copy those into google maps exactly as you would an address and have a look at streetview.
> 
> That's the sort of thing I'm on about (and no, it's not actually changed since the imagery was taken which was a while back).


Tried that and can't see what point you are trying to make. Lots of buses, lorries and stationary traffic, though. 

Can you hit the "link" button top right hand corner and show us exactly what you are looking at. It'll give something like this:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=OLjl_nJQlv7ESlslH3jhOw&cbp=12,80.19,,0,17.06


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Feb 2010)

if any of you ever go to a Sustrans rally be prepared for something distinctly 'ol' time religion'. Grimshaw calls women from the audience to testify on the dangers of roads. Interesting.........

they're now far more in to consultancy, producing papers on sustainable development, some of which are not all bad - but, spookily, there's a real lack of ambition about the ones I've read. Sort of rus in urbe with mixed use surfaces and cycle paths


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> if any of you ever go to a Sustrans rally be prepared for something distinctly 'ol' time religion'. Grimshaw calls women from the audience to testify on the dangers of roads. Interesting.........



Interesting indeed. I can't see any benefits in having a campaigning organisation effectively promoting the dangers of cycling and offering to keep out of everyone's way.


----------



## wafflycat (15 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> if any of you ever go to a Sustrans rally be prepared for something distinctly 'ol' time religion'. Grimshaw calls women from the audience to testify on the dangers of roads. Interesting.........



Do you think I should attend one?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Feb 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Do you think I should attend one?



Maybe if you are prepared to have your demons exorcised in public in a graphic "laying on of hands" ceremony.


----------



## Danny (15 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> No doubt they can, for the moment. How long that happy state of affairs will last when Sustrans has publicised cycling as something best done away from traffic is anyone's guess.


Sustrans are not "publicising cycling as something best done away from traffic" - they are offering alternatives to people who prefer not to cycle on busy main roads.

Suggesting that Sustrans are party of some conspiracy to stop people cycling on normal roads is pure paranoia.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> Sustrans are not "publicising cycling as something best done away from traffic" - they are offering alternatives to people who prefer not to cycle on busy main roads.
> 
> Suggesting that Sustrans are party of some conspiracy to stop people cycling on normal roads is pure paranoia.


Danny - you protest too much! All we're saying is that they have a talent for contriving routes that are.......wiggly.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (15 Feb 2010)

Danny said:


> Sustrans are not "publicising cycling as something best done away from traffic" - they are offering alternatives to people who prefer not to cycle on busy main roads.
> 
> Suggesting that Sustrans are party of some conspiracy to stop people cycling on normal roads is pure paranoia.




Oh, I don't think there's an active conspiracy, not at all. But any organisation whose rationale is to build a dedicated network of roads for cyclists is indirectly promoting the view that bicyles are not for road use. Which I'm afraid I see as an enormous backward step; I'd sooner see them campaigning for better awareness of bicycles as legitimate road users, like the CTC do.


----------



## wafflycat (15 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Oh, I don't think there's an active conspiracy, not at all. But any organisation whose rationale is to build a dedicated network of roads for cyclists is indirectly promoting the view that bicyles are not for road use. Which I'm afraid I see as an enormous backward step; I'd sooner see them campaigning for better awareness of bicycles as legitimate road users, like the CTC do.



+1


----------



## marinyork (15 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Tried that and can't see what point you are trying to make. Lots of buses, lorries and stationary traffic, though.
> 
> Can you hit the "link" button top right hand corner and show us exactly what you are looking at. It'll give something like this:
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...=OLjl_nJQlv7ESlslH3jhOw&cbp=12,80.19,,0,17.06



Cool strangely enough I didn't know how to do that before.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...id=F2ZjI9fHoQzqwphPP8PrTw&cbp=12,124.4,,0,9.3

Which you might have seen anyway, it's the start of an NCN. In it you can see a teeny weeny sticker on a lamp post whereas the most prominent cycling signing is the no cycling sign. 

If you switch to satellite you can clearly see http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&s...4247,-1.459725&spn=0.001157,0.003484&t=h&z=19 where it goes.


----------



## Hilldodger (15 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Danny - you protest too much! All we're saying is that they have a talent for contriving routes that are.......wiggly.



Well I wish they would put some wiggles in my commuting route Most of which is three miles along an old railway line that is so straight any Roman would be proud.

Even though it is the most direct route I sometimes take the road just for some excitement.


----------



## Norm (15 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> Which you might have seen anyway, it's the start of an NCN. In it you can see a teeny weeny sticker on a lamp post whereas the most prominent cycling signing is the no cycling sign.


I hadn't seen the NCN sticker... and still can't, but I guess that shows how small it is.


----------



## Danny (15 Feb 2010)

Hilldodger said:


> Well I wish they would put some wiggles in my commuting route Most of which is three miles along an old railway line that is so straight any Roman would be proud.
> 
> Even though it is the most direct route I sometimes take the road just for some excitement.


As well as being too wiggly in places and too straight in others, it should also be pointed out that some Sustrans routes suffer from being too flat while others are far too steep (at least for my legs). They just can't get anything right.


----------



## marinyork (15 Feb 2010)

Well if it is too straight they could always add barriers every so often, they've even done this on a section up this way, I'd say it is more frustrating than adding interest to the route though .


----------



## mcshroom (15 Feb 2010)

My experience of sustrans routes are sections of the Western parts of NCN 71 & 72. In the main I'm rather impressed. The route from Egremont to Whitehaven is a nice 2m wide old railway line which is more direct and less hilly than the road and a brand new section next to the A595 is nice, well surfaced and easy to useand also helps reduce traffic jams on the main road next to it as a lot of queueing is caused by cars following bikes up the hill.

They are not perfect, and round here have a habit of looping into towns instead of following the main road straight on, but as an extra piece of cycling space they seem reasonably well thought out.


----------

