# Sustrans routes



## Bigtallfatbloke (4 Sep 2008)

I have been looking at this map:
http://www.sustrans.co.uk/webfiles/general/sustrans_2008_ncn_map.pdf

What I dont undrstand is why these lines on a map are any different from any other lines on a map that I might choose to ride? Why are they called cycle routes? It isnt like they are like the German routes which are all traffic free and proper cycle 'roads'. Seems to me that following a sustrans route isnt going to get me to where I want to go in a traffic free zone...I may as well just plan my own routes, these are just somebody elses idea of which roads I should ride on right?

Clearly I am missing something here, so why should I ride on sustrans routes...all I need is an AA atlas I'd get there quicker right?


----------



## sheddy (4 Sep 2008)

Sustrans would have chosen the least busy route, but possibly the least useful. Better suited to families


----------



## John Ponting (4 Sep 2008)

Many SUSTRANS routes, or sections of a route, are off road completely. These are often on reclaimed railway routes or similar. Often the routes are on quiet roads. 

They are called cycle routes because they help people avoid busy roads more easily. This can be appealing to riders with inexperience and/or younger riders in their group. The routes are generally fairly well signed (another good point for the inexperienced) and do not require a bag of maps or a satnav.

They may or may not be the shortest route between your A and B points but they can be fun. They can be used in part with a self planned route; they can be used to join with another SUSTRANS route (network?).

You have become, in maybe 12 months, an experienced inter continental cycle tourist. You can now seen how cycling should be and how routes can be designed and built. How did the routes in France compare with those in Germany or did you mainly use roads ?


----------



## vernon (4 Sep 2008)

Bigtallfatbloke said:


> I have been looking at this map:
> http://www.sustrans.co.uk/webfiles/general/sustrans_2008_ncn_map.pdf
> 
> What I dont undrstand is why these lines on a map are any different from any other lines on a map that I might choose to ride? Why are they called cycle routes? It isnt like they are like the German routes which are all traffic free and proper cycle 'roads'. Seems to me that following a sustrans route isnt going to get me to where I want to go in a traffic free zone...I may as well just plan my own routes, these are just somebody elses idea of which roads I should ride on right?
> ...



Sustrans routes are a mixed bag of roads, byeways, disused railway trackbeds, permissive access bridle paths and the like put together to creat a network of leisure routes with as little use of high traffic roads as possible.

The routes come about through the co-operation of local authorities, landowners and others. Sustrans I think assembles and negotiates the access rights to the routes and their meanderings can sometimes be contrived because of lack of access to certain stretches of track beds etc.

You are not compelled to ride on any of the Sustrans routes and they should, at best, be regarded as advisory routes. Having said that I have ridden the majority of designated route on the following Sustrans rides and found them enjoyable and scenic - they were also almost traffic free - very appealing to the less confident cyclist. When plotting your own routes - you have to make a guess whether or not a road will be busy and it isn't always easy to tell by its designation.

Coast to Coast
Walney to Wear
Coast and Castles
Hadrians Cycle Route
Lon Las Cymru North
Lon Las Cymru South

Folk will ride all or part of any Sustrans use for pleasure and, when it's suitably located, for commuting/utility cycling.

*chacun à son goût*


----------



## Cathryn (4 Sep 2008)

The C2C route was fantastic - very well signposted and with a surprising amount off-road. I was hugely impressed.


----------



## summerdays (4 Sep 2008)

Having use the Devon Coast to Coast route as our first tour, I found it useful that I didn't have to sit down in advance and plan the whole route. It was nice to arrive at a junction and see a small sticker pointing which way I should go, rather than getting out a map each time. 

To get to the start of the route I had do a bit of route planning myself, and to be honest I choose a route with more hills and almost gave up before I got to the start.

I'm quite happy map reading (love them), but it was nice to have it sort of done for me. You don't have to slavishly follow the whole route. However it did vary in how well it was signed, and what the road/surface conditions were.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (4 Sep 2008)

> How did the routes in France compare with those in Germany or did you mainly use roads ?



Well in France I didnt use any designated cycle routes (not knowingly anyway!) I just took the roads that went in th edirection I wanted to go. For th emostpart the out of town roads offered perfect road surfaces, low traffic use (except in the very south) and nice things to see as well...the main difference in germnay is that the cycle paths there are just that CYCLE paths and cars are not allowed on them.

I can see the attraction in some of the Sustrans routes for inexperienced riders perhaps, and for those who drive to a location and ride around and back etc...but from where I live (which may be the issue) I see no useful routes...say from Essex south tot he coast or west & around london etc
For me it's easier just to highlight a 'B'road route on a road atlas map I think.

Just how well signposted are the routes anyway? Can you really rely on the signs being there (vandals) ...dunno, I am not knocking the system but to me it's just alittle to ...whats the word...'restrictive'


----------



## summerdays (4 Sep 2008)

They have stickers that I think the volunteers can put on road signs at junctions, as well as putting up proper signs/arms on some junctions. Its amazing how good you get at spotting the little blue and red(?) sticker. Why not try cycling to one and see for yourself.?


----------



## marinyork (4 Sep 2008)

Signposting varies dramatically and some bits are small and fiddly, rather like walking and looking for a public footpath you haven't used before. Some of the signs are proper etched signs but the fixings become loose and get blown round to the wrong angle or people bend them for pranks.

Some off road sections can also have few joining points. One section near me suffers from this and so is barely used at all because it's pretty pointless.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (4 Sep 2008)

> Why not try cycling to one and see for yourself.?



..this is my plan...when it stops raining

I want to be able to set off on a trip from my front door and not have to get on a train to the start etc...so stuff like th ecoast to coast just doesnt float my boat a sI would have to train it up north and back and that would probably mean getting through london on the underground with my bike...which isnt going to happen.

Actually it seems that sustrans have an anticipated route in waiting that goes almost right past my front door, which kind of makes my point I suppose as that is th eroute I would have taken most likely had it been called sustrans or not.

I think th esustrans routes provide a good 'idea' for a tour ...so if you want to ride to enjoy th eride thats fine, but if you want to get to a specific objective (say a non touristy place) then they arnt all that much use....wekk they are if used when appropriate, but for the most part I dont see it makes all that much difference...a road is a road, regardless of whether sustrans 'claim' it or not.


----------



## dragon72 (4 Sep 2008)

I tried following the Gatwick to Greenwich route recently. I shouldn't have bothered.

At one stage it took me across a golf club terrace bar past bewildered fatties weilding 3-irons and up a rocky and boggy bridleway up a 20% hill just inside the M25. I lost the route several times and probably all-in-all cost me an extra 10 miles trying to find the route again. 

Not friendly for the seasoned tourer _*nor*_ the family outing IMHO. 

Go out of your way to *avoid* the Sustrans routes because they'll piss you off more than finding your own way.

Grrr. Rant over.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (4 Sep 2008)

hello Dragon72...I noticed you are in Brighton which is on my destination list (wel worthing actually)...the simple plan is to get the tilbury ferry and head down to Brighton...via east grinsted, slaugham etc then down the river into shoreham/worthing. Seems simple to me...is there a better route you might know of? I know there is a big hill at Handcross which I hav enothing against riding DOWN...but would like to go around if possible....I see nothing on sustrans that would do this.


----------



## John Ponting (4 Sep 2008)

Bigtallfatbloke;388686...a road is a road said:


> How do you know where the roads are ???
> 
> You either buy a map, or a satnav or a guide of some form. Sustrans is "a guide of some form".


----------



## marinyork (4 Sep 2008)

The problem is as maps go, sustrans maps I've seen are highly politicised and seem to go with extreme opinions rather than more balanced ones.


----------



## sadjack (4 Sep 2008)

A Sustran route is only a suggestion. You can ride as much or as little of it that you want. Personally I have found they take you to some areas that perhaps you would have visited otherwise. 

If your in a hurry and want to be more direct, do so.

I think the principal of having a waymarked route, on traffic free or quiet lanes/roads is a great one. I dont always want to ride direct and a meander along country lanes is rather pleasant


----------



## srw (4 Sep 2008)

Bigtallfatbloke said:


> but from where I live (which may be the issue) I see no useful routes...say from Essex south tot he coast or west & around london etc



From west of London (Rickmansworth), there are a series of mostly flat traffic-free paths via Watford, St Albans, Hitchin, Hertford to Ware. I haven't carried on eastwards, but they do into Essex. Presumably that also means you can use them to go West around London!

They're not perfect - I'd take a map (the 1:100,000 OS maps are fine) - but without sustrans they wouldn't be nealy as findable.


----------



## Over The Hill (4 Sep 2008)

I live in Basingstoke and did work in Reading a car ride of 22 miles. Tried an occasional commute so went on the Sustrans cycle route as the main road is a pig. 
Got there eventually after 35 miles and no I did not get lost! 
Yes the route avoids the main road but it also seems to just wander around aimlessly all over the place. OK for a sunday ride with the kids but not if you want to get anywhere. 
Next day I worked out my own route and it was 19 miles, at one point I was going along a bit towards Reading and found I was on the sustrans route that was supposed to be going to Basingstoke!
So now I avoid them. Mostly I find you can tell what a road will be like from a good map.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (4 Sep 2008)

> Mostly I find you can tell what a road will be like from a good map.



'tis wot I fawt 2


----------



## Danny (5 Sep 2008)

Sustrans routes follow quiet roads where possible, but provide off-road cycle tracks where the alternative would be to go on a busy main road. 

So the point is that you can follow an entire Sustrans route knowing that it will either be on quiet roads or on completely traffic free dedicated cycle tracks. Usually they follow the most scenic route as well.

Obviously you can plan your own route from a map - but in my experience it isn't alway easy to work out which roads are going to be really busy, particularly in parts of the country you don't know well.

Sustrans maps are pretty well designed and about the right level of detail for cycling. They also provide a useful route profile for each section you are cycling.

So why not try a Sustrans route and see what you think?


----------



## John Ponting (5 Sep 2008)

I don't believe Sustrans claim to be all things to all people.

They do state that 

*Sustrans is the co-ordinator of the hugely popular National Cycle Network. Offering over 12,000 miles of walking and cycle routes on traffic-free paths, quiet lanes and traffic-calmed roads, there is now 75% of the UK population living within two miles of a route! The Network is well signed. It connects towns and villages, countryside and coast throughout the UK*

*The National Cycle Network forms more than 12,000 miles of walking and cycling routes and over one-third are completely traffic-free, perfect for all, including families and those new to cycling. *

I personally have to ride more than a kilometer to an NCN route. I can then chose 3 different directions. I'm sure it is not quite so convenient in some remote areas.


----------



## wafflycat (5 Sep 2008)

Sustrans.. *blech*


----------



## srw (5 Sep 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Sustrans.. *blech*



Oh dear - a fundamentalist. Explain thyself! This thread has been surprisingly reasonable up to this point.


----------



## hubbike (5 Sep 2008)

The sustrans map itself is almost completely useless. I like to use their routes when I come across them by accident. If they are sign posted to where I fancy going then I can get a change of scenery, pace etc. I also use the same tactic for canal paths, disused railways not on the sustrans network.

I think it is an important charity which touring cyclists should benifit from in the future. For now they just seem to be catering for commuters and short trips.


----------



## srw (5 Sep 2008)

Be careful - there is more than one type of sustrans map. The "main" map of the whole country is not particularly helpful, apart from as an overall indication. There are also 1:100,000 strip maps of many of the big routes, and the routes are also plotted on OS 1:50,000 and 1:100,000 OS maps.

As I posted above, they can be useful for touring - there's a long strip of traffic-free paths across Hertfordshire which I've used as the basis for a trip to Suffolk, and I've also used the route from the Chilterns towards Oxford, taking in another traffic-free path.


----------



## Over The Hill (5 Sep 2008)

Problem seems to be that there are two needs:

1. An A to B route that will get you there without running the gauntlet of a main road
2. A nice Sunday morning bike ride in the countryside.

Problem I see is that the Sustrans route I have used (Basingstoke to Reading) is 2. when I am looking for a 1. 

IF it wanted to be 2 then it would be a circular route. Who on earth would cycle to Reading if they did not need to? 

So they really do not do what is on the tin.


I am really REALLY worried - Waffly and I agree on something!!!


----------



## dodgy (5 Sep 2008)

Sustrans need to make the mapping more accessible, you can view the routes online but it's an awful experience. The maps don't provide enough contrast and you can't drag them around, it's simply not up to what we now need and expect in the age of digital mapping.

Dave.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (5 Sep 2008)

I agree the didgital mapping thing on their site is hopeless. I took time to try and make sustrans mapping work for me but it just isnt useable. BRT, MMR etc are far superior.


----------



## dodgy (5 Sep 2008)

Fortunately the good people at openstreetmap are gradually putting all the NCN onto their digital mapping. So if you've got any GPX traces of paths that don't show up on conventional digital maps (Google etc) then upload them to openstreetmap and eventually we'll be sorted.


----------



## John Ponting (5 Sep 2008)

I totally agree with the failure of digital mapping on Sustrans. A look at their 'bookshop' shows where thay have put their priorities. The route guides can be excellent with full detail strip maps as well as pointers to camping or lodging places, food stops and bike shops. Not the stuff of explorers.

I still use AutoRoute for basic route planning with the options set for the vehicle that I'm planning for. It's the one I grew up with and the one that I find easiest to move around. Horses for courses.

This thread reminded me that I have a very good (but old) book of cycle routes in Britain - published by Pan/Ordnance Survey in the '80s. That claimed to have a comprehensive network of traffic free on and off road routes. Failed by not having a good overall map of the country, or even of main areas (East Anglia etc). Probably because the book was around A5 so it could fit into a Carradice Long Flap.

A reasonable source of routes (let's call them ideas rather than routes) are County Council web sites. Download a few in pdf and pick the ones that join up to form an idea of a planned journey. Use the bits that fit and ignore the bits that don't.


----------



## marinyork (5 Sep 2008)

The OS Landrangers do a reasonable job of the sustrans routes. They also warn you which bits might be bog/martian surface/narrow path and which bits are tarmaced. I'd really not bother with the 100 000 to 1 jobs but the online is appalling clunky when compared with newer generation mapping stuff online (or even previous generation).

I disagree very much with them being quiet roads when on the roads. Nor are they necessarily scenic either. It's someone's opinion, normally an extreme and unbalanced one.

John Ponting I know that's what they quote as their purpose but as soon as they get a news outlet they'll be bossing people around, hogging the limelight and misrepresenting. Ordinary cyclists as soon as they get their sustrans hat on are the same and go all swivel-eyed and spouting political agendas.


----------



## Danny (5 Sep 2008)

hubbike said:


> The sustrans map itself is almost completely useless.



Not true. 

I recently completed a 216 mile Sustrans route using nothing more than the Sustrans map and accompanying guide book. I would have needed 6 separate OS maps 1:50,000 maps to cover the full route so as far as I am concerned the Sustrans map represented good value.

And I have successfully navigate other long and short distance Sustrans routes using just their maps without any problem.


----------



## Baggy (5 Sep 2008)

Dannyg said:


> So the point is that you can follow an entire Sustrans route knowing that it will either be on quiet roads or on completely traffic free dedicated cycle tracks. Usually they follow the most scenic route as well.


Unfortunately the ones around here also tend to follow scenic routes using the audax sense of the word: scenic = up some nasty hills! Unless you know the route you're never quite sure whether the offroad bits are going to be suitable for a road bike as well, I've encountered a few sections here and in London that were challenging on 28mm tyres.


----------



## John Ponting (5 Sep 2008)

marinyork said:


> Ordinary cyclists as soon as they get their sustrans hat on are the same and go all swivel-eyed and spouting political agendas.



PLEASE PLEASE stop me straight away if I go there PLEASE PLEASE.

I have a deep distrust of evengelists in any field.


----------



## marinyork (5 Sep 2008)

Oh yeah BFTB as well as 50 000/1 landrangers I find google earth/birdseye view good for getting a better idea of piecing together the fiddly bits on sustrans routes. Authority cycle maps can be pretty good but they can be hard to locate.


----------



## srw (5 Sep 2008)

marinyork said:


> I'd really not bother with the 100 000 to 1 jobs but the online is appalling clunky when compared with newer generation mapping stuff online (or even previous generation).



The sustrans online mapping _is _previous generation. It was more or less the first online mapping of any kind. They're now moving it to google maps, starting in Scotland - it's only very rudimentary, but it is there.


----------



## dodgy (5 Sep 2008)

srw said:


> The sustrans online mapping _is _previous generation. It was more or less the first online mapping of any kind. They're now moving it to google maps, starting in Scotland - it's only very rudimentary, but it is there.



Great news! Got a link?


----------



## marinyork (5 Sep 2008)

My favourite for such routes was actually using multimap when it was revamped so it had OS at two zoom levels. They've arsed it up now though and it doesn't seem to exist anymore. That was a shame as imo it was the best way of viewing these things.


----------



## marinyork (5 Sep 2008)

That is good news. I suspect use of that resource may go up a lot.


----------



## dodgy (5 Sep 2008)

marinyork said:


> My favourite for such routes was actually using multimap when it was revamped so it had OS at two zoom levels. They've arsed it up now though and it doesn't seem to exist anymore. That was a shame as imo it was the best way of viewing these things.



If you're interested in OS mapping integration, nobody has done it better than www.bikehike.co.uk it's brilliant.

Dave.


----------



## marinyork (5 Sep 2008)

Friggin' brilliant!


----------



## Danny (5 Sep 2008)

Baggy said:


> Unfortunately the ones around here also tend to follow scenic routes using the audax sense of the word: scenic = up some nasty hills! Unless you know the route you're never quite sure whether the offroad bits are going to be suitable for a road bike as well, I've encountered a few sections here and in London that were challenging on 28mm tyres.


I never said that they were all flat! Some of the hills are indeed pretty damn scenic (in the audax sense of the word). Even so a lot of routes are built along old railway lines which are pretty easy going. 

And agree that a few off road sections are not really suitable for road bikes, but these are often indicated on the maps. 

Anyway here is a picture from the 60 mile flat and scenic section of the Hadrians Cycleway along the Solway Firth.


----------



## coopman (5 Sep 2008)

Im a big fan of the Sustrans routes, but then Im lucky to have them on my doorstep leading various directiions. They have used the old railway lines near me (johnstone near glasgow) which are all tarmac now. I have cycled through to edinburgh, up to inverness and found them very good.
I have several Sustrans maps and found them very good and detailed. The signage is very good as well.
Planning to do the C2C next year, that seems to get good reviews by all those who have done it.
Its an excellent job they have done creating safe routes for families (I trail my daughter) hopefully getting more kids into cycling. 
Agree their online mapping need a wee bit of improvement!!!


----------



## HLaB (6 Sep 2008)

dodgy said:


> Great news! Got a link?


I think this might be the link, the routes 2 ride website.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2008)

marinyork said:


> John Ponting I know that's what they quote as their purpose but as soon as they get a news outlet they'll be bossing people around, hogging the limelight and misrepresenting. Ordinary cyclists as soon as they get their sustrans hat on are the same and go all swivel-eyed and spouting political agendas.



Most interesting, especially as I have been wearing the hat for some time. To my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong) I have not become brainwashed, nor have I once spoken of any agenda. I actually resent the comment made by Marinyork and wounder if he could qualify it?

In my area Sustrans have taken over the management of one of (if not) the largest Trails in South Wales, namely "The Taff Trail" It is kept clear of debris and flooding, erosion etc is dealt with in a very timely fashion. These Trails are a pleasure tyo cycle on.


----------



## Danny (6 Sep 2008)

I wouldn't worry too much about what marinyork says on this topic. He has long had a bee in his bonnet about Sustrans, and based what he has said previously his idea of a good and scenic cycle route is one that runs alongside a dual carriageway. 

If he prefers to cycle along busy main roads that's fine by me. But I've never understood why he get so exercised about Sustrans providing alternatives for the many cyclists who prefer more quiet routes.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Sep 2008)

Sustrans don't provide the alternatives - the alternatives are already there as part of the road network. A swift look at a road map will enlighten as to what is likely to be a busy road or not. I find OS maps exceedingly useful in this regard and they've been around for donkey's years more than Sustrans.

What I particularly don't like about Sustrans:-

1.Sustrans, derived from 'sustainable transport' Yet Sustrans appear to put emphasis on leisure rather than sustainable transport routes. 

2. Sustrans emphasis on equating safe with 'traffic-free' thus painting the erroneous picture that cycling on roads where there is traffic is unsafe, when in the great scheme of things, it isn't. It paints a false picture of the real level of danger cycling on road. Also, it effectively emphasises the erroneous belief by too many non-cyclists that cyclists have no place on the roads, but should be relegated to farcilities off the road.

Example:- part of NCN 13 is not far from me. It's the route between Dereham & Fakenham. As a local resident I simply cannot understand the reasoning behind the choice of route. It adds miles to the journey - which sort of puts the 'sustainable transport' bit out of the window. Nor does it take a route that is any quieter or more 'traffic-free' than the many alternative routes available. Plus on the shared-use farcilities bit of some of the route there are barriers across the route including concrete bollards and junctions which increase risk to cyclists due to how they've been positioned.


----------



## vernon (6 Sep 2008)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Most interesting, especially as I have been wearing the hat for some time. To my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong) I have not become brainwashed, nor have I once spoken of any agenda. I actually resent the comment made by Marinyork and wounder if he could qualify it?
> 
> In my area Sustrans have taken over the management of one of (if not) the largest Trails in South Wales, namely "The Taff Trail" It is kept clear of debris and flooding, erosion etc is dealt with in a very timely fashion. These Trails are a pleasure tyo cycle on.



The Taff Trail is not so friendly towards touring cyclists with panniers when it comes to negotiating the frequent labyrinth barriers at the Merthyr Tydfil/ Cardiff end of the trail. It is the worst bit of any Sustrans route that I have ridden on for interrupting a potentially pleasant and continuous ride because of this. Oh, I forgot about the several sets of steps that have to be negotiated too thankfully they were downwards towards Cardiff - I'd have hated pushing carrying my bike up them on my way towards Brecon.

Apart from that I have enjoyed most of the Sustrans routes that I have cycled.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2008)

I have never found the gates to be a problem and find them preferable to Scrambler bikes invading the route. As for the steps IIRC there is just one short set of them and one can easily push a bike up them. 



vernon said:


> The Taff Trail is not so friendly towards touring cyclists with panniers when it comes to negotiating the frequent labyrinth barriers at the Merthyr Tydfil/ Cardiff end of the trail. It is the worst bit of any Sustrans route that I have ridden on for interrupting a potentially pleasant and continuous ride because of this. Oh, I forgot about the several sets of steps that have to be negotiated too thankfully they were downwards towards Cardiff - I'd have hated pushing carrying my bike up them on my way towards Brecon.
> 
> Apart from that I have enjoyed most of the Sustrans routes that I have cycled.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2008)

Why not approach them and offer your help and assistance in redesigning the NCN. It seems as though you have a wealth of experience that the organization could benefit from.



wafflycat said:


> Sustrans don't provide the alternatives - the alternatives are already there as part of the road network. A swift look at a road map will enlighten as to what is likely to be a busy road or not. I find OS maps exceedingly useful in this regard and they've been around for donkey's years more than Sustrans.
> 
> What I particularly don't like about Sustrans:-
> 
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2008)

Cheers. It seems he is not the only one. I get the impression that some types of cyclists forget that other types exist.




Dannyg said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about what marinyork says on this topic. He has long had a bee in his bonnet about Sustrans, and based what he has said previously his idea of a good and scenic cycle route is one that runs alongside a dual carriageway.
> 
> If he prefers to cycle along busy main roads that's fine by me. But I've never understood why he get so exercised about Sustrans providing alternatives for the many cyclists who prefer more quiet routes.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Sep 2008)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why not approach them and offer your help and assistance in redesigning the NCN. It seems as though you have a wealth of experience that the organization could benefit from.



You think I haven't approached them as regards the local route? All my experiences of Sustrans are bad ones - especially when reporting problems encountered on any supposed NCN I've found myself on. As a result, I have no time for Sustrans.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2008)

Fair enough; I guess we all have different experiences. All of mine have been extremely positive.




wafflycat said:


> You think I haven't approached them as regards the local route? All my experiences of Sustrans are bad ones - especially when reporting problems encountered on any supposed NCN I've found myself on. As a result, I have no time for Sustrans.


----------



## srw (7 Sep 2008)

wafflycat said:


> Sustrans don't provide the alternatives - the alternatives are already there as part of the road network. A swift look at a road map will enlighten as to what is likely to be a busy road or not. I find OS maps exceedingly useful in this regard and they've been around for donkey's years more than Sustrans.



There any many places (e.g. across Hertfordshire which i've been batting on about but you seem not to have read) where the alternative is _better_ than the roads - flat, direct, avoiding main roads. Without sustrans these routes might exist but wouldn't be maintained and publicised.



> What I particularly don't like about Sustrans:-
> 
> 1.Sustrans, derived from 'sustainable transport' Yet Sustrans appear to put emphasis on leisure rather than sustainable transport routes.



Safe routes to schools? That's all about transport. Yes, some of the country routes meander somewhat, and some of the urban routes are less than desirable, but there's some good stuff among the dross.



> 2. Sustrans emphasis on equating safe with 'traffic-free' thus painting the erroneous picture that cycling on roads where there is traffic is unsafe, when in the great scheme of things, it isn't. It paints a false picture of the real level of danger cycling on road. Also, it effectively emphasises the erroneous belief by too many non-cyclists that cyclists have no place on the roads, but should be relegated to farcilities off the road.



I disagree with both your points. "Traffic-free" is not equated with "safe", it is equated with "more pleasant". And I fundamentally disagree that non-cyclists are being brainwashed by a cycling organisation into believing that we should be off the road. In fact I believe the reverse - the more signs there are that people cycle the more accepted the pastime/transport method/hobby will become.



> Example:- part of NCN 13 is not far from me. It's the route between Dereham & Fakenham. As a local resident I simply cannot understand the reasoning behind the choice of route. It adds miles to the journey - which sort of puts the 'sustainable transport' bit out of the window. Nor does it take a route that is any quieter or more 'traffic-free' than the many alternative routes available. Plus on the shared-use farcilities bit of some of the route there are barriers across the route including concrete bollards and junctions which increase risk to cyclists due to how they've been positioned.



Shared-use paths are usually an abomination. The route between Dereham and Fakenham on the sustrans site (it's not on the OS 1:50,000 map yet) doesn't look massively unreasonable - yes, you could cut off a corner (and if I really wanted to go from Dereham to Fakenham I probably wouuld), but it looks designed to join up with a previous route between Fakenham and Norwich. The route south from Dereham to Thetford looks like a perfectly reasonable route.

No-one is forcing anyone to ride anything they don't want to. Your comments are tired - I've seen the same sort of unthinking, purely local criticism many many times.


----------



## wafflycat (7 Sep 2008)

Every time I see Sustrans promoted on TV it's always about equating safe with 'traffic free' This promotes the idea that cycling & traffic don't mix and that cyclists somehow need to be kept away from motorised traffic. It's helping promote the myth that cycling is somehow inherently unsafe on road.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2008)

*That is quite clearly how you translate the message*. It might be promoting a healthier environment and exploring places otherwise unseen by taking car routes.




wafflycat said:


> Every time I see Sustrans promoted on TV it's always about equating safe with 'traffic free' This promotes the idea that cycling & traffic don't mix and that cyclists somehow need to be kept away from motorised traffic. It's helping promote the myth that cycling is somehow inherently unsafe on road.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Sep 2008)

_I must correct something I wrote regarding the steps along this route._ I had taken a variation on the route when I first did the ride and had bypassed the steps referenced. As such my comment regarding "_just one short set of steps_" is *null and void*. I apologise for any confusion caused. I will also add that some parts of the Abercynon to Merthyr trail are quite intimidating (long dark / dank tunnels) and not ideal for a lone cyclist, *especially female*.



vernon said:


> The Taff Trail is not so friendly towards touring cyclists with panniers when it comes to negotiating the frequent labyrinth barriers at the Merthyr Tydfil/ Cardiff end of the trail. It is the worst bit of any Sustrans route that I have ridden on for interrupting a potentially pleasant and continuous ride because of this. Oh, I forgot about the several sets of steps that have to be negotiated too thankfully they were downwards towards Cardiff - I'd have hated pushing carrying my bike up them on my way towards Brecon.
> 
> Apart from that I have enjoyed most of the Sustrans routes that I have cycled.


----------



## User482 (25 Sep 2008)

Having ridden many of the Sustrans routes (including C2C, Devon C2C, Pennine Cycleway) my experiences are generally very positive. Sure, some of the routes aren't direct, but that's not really the point of them, as these are long distance leisure routes. Their urban routes round here (Bristol) are extremely popular - the Bristol-Bath path heaves at rush hour, and is also a haven for joggers & walkers.

Some experienced cyclists dislike Sustrans routes, but so what? No-one is compelling you to use them. And if they get more bums on saddles then that's fine by me.

These debates always seem to polarise into CTC vs Sustrans. It is possible to be supportive of both organisations' point of view. I know I am.


----------



## Bodhbh (26 Sep 2008)

srw said:


> There any many places (e.g. across Hertfordshire which i've been batting on about but you seem not to have read) where the alternative is _better_ than the roads - flat, direct, avoiding main roads. Without sustrans these routes might exist but wouldn't be maintained and publicised.


Actually quite useful information for me living in Watford and will give it a crack. Fancied a trip over Essex/Sufolk way, but avoided heading east till now cos the routes didn't look too appealing.


----------



## srw (27 Sep 2008)

Bodhbh said:


> Actually quite useful information for me living in Watford and will give it a crack. Fancied a trip over Essex/Sufolk way, but avoided heading east till now cos the routes didn't look too appealing.



Take a map, don't worry about bypassing bits of the marked routes you don't fancy (we didn't go into Welwyn GC town centre) and enjoy.


----------



## WJHall (29 Sep 2008)

I am afraid that it is the offroad bits of the NCN that worry me. The quality of surface can be rather variable, and finding yourself faced with the possibility of either a bumpy ride or a detour via a main road is rather daunting, so careful checking is a good idea.

The bits of NCN marked on minor roads are usually fine, and useful, especially on today's road network where A roads are carrying the traffic that B roads did 30 years ago, without any widening. The number of continuous minor road routes can be rather limited in some areas, so if Sustrans have puzzled out the conundrum it saves you the trouble of doing so. In this context many of the offroad bits are most useful when they provide key links allowing you to avoid major roads.

Scenically I also tend to feel that the on road routes are usually more attractive. Some of the off road routes have a feeling of cutting across the countryside rather than being part of it, which is fine, sometimes, but not always the most attractive option.

You have to recognise the difficulties Sustrans work under. Most of the implementation is through local authorities, which frankly are fundamentally not the least bit interested in cycling, so if there sometimes seems to be excessive hype compared to the quality of the product, this may be the price to pay for getting anything at all. The same goes for any empire building.

With that said, there are serious questions about whether the Sustrans philosophy of off road routes, often based on old railway lines is really the way forward for any real increase in cycling, especially if it leads to conflict with proposals to reopen the railways as railways. The flagship Bristol to Bath path could bump into this one some time in the next half century.

John Hall


----------



## srw (29 Sep 2008)

WJHall said:


> With that said, there are serious questions about whether the Sustrans philosophy of off road routes, often based on old railway lines is really the way forward for any real increase in cycling,


If you'd been out with me last weekend on the Phoenix trail (Thame to Princes Risborough) you wouldn't be saying that. Dozens and dozens of riders, mostly families. Judging by the people and their bikes, approximately none of them would have been cycling without the path.



> especially if it leads to conflict with proposals to reopen the railways as railways. The flagship Bristol to Bath path could bump into this one some time in the next half century.


That's always possible, but why begrudge half a century of use as a bike path? Compared with the cost of a rail line, a bike path is very very very very cheap.


----------



## User482 (30 Sep 2008)

WJHall said:


> With that said, there are serious questions about whether the Sustrans philosophy of off road routes, often based on old railway lines is really the way forward for any real increase in cycling, especially if it leads to conflict with proposals to reopen the railways as railways. *The flagship Bristol to Bath path could bump into this one some time in the next half century.*
> John Hall



It already has. The council proposed a plan to put a "Bus Rapid Transit" route along it. Cue mass protests and a council u-turn. The path is massively popular, not only as a cycle path, but a haven for parents walking kids to school, dog walkers, joggers etc. A typical Sunday will see people using it as a park - walking along in a green space free of traffic. It was interesting that the number of people projected to use the new bus service were dwarfed by the number of cycle commuters, so there's no doubt that in this case, using an old railway path is very much the eco option.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Sep 2008)

I must say I don't know the route (as yet!!) but find this fantastic news heart-warming. It is great to know that public opinion can win out!



User482 said:


> It already has. The council proposed a plan to put a "Bus Rapid Transit" route along it. Cue mass protests and a council u-turn. The path is massively popular, not only as a cycle path, but a haven for parents walking kids to school, dog walkers, joggers etc. A typical Sunday will see people using it as a park - walking along in a green space free of traffic. It was interesting that the number of people projected to use the new bus service were dwarfed by the number of cycle commuters, so there's no doubt that in this case, using an old railway path is very much the eco option.


----------



## WJHall (30 Sep 2008)

I said "railways".




User482 said:


> It already has. The council proposed a plan to put a "Bus Rapid Transit" route along it. ...


----------



## User482 (30 Sep 2008)

WJHall said:


> I said "railways".



The principle is exactly the same.


----------



## orbiter (7 Oct 2008)

I'm another of those whose experience of NCN routes is generally positive. I've found they compare reasonably well to Dutch & German routes in signage and their choice of road and off-road sections. In all three countries, I've found badly routed and surfaced parts. 

I agree with Waffly's view that roads are a the 'real' cycle network, which I regularly use, but I also appreciate the traffic- and noise-free tracks when I'm not in a hurry. The two are not alternatives, either in the UK or elsewhere, where there are also many routes similar to the NCN.

In towns the precise NCN route is often decided by the local authority, perhaps with the aid of a local cycle action group. In my town, the local CAG are supporting a devious back-street route for one of the NCN routes to pass through, where I'd take a direct, slightly busy road. So Sustrans isn't necessarily to blame for some of the bizarre routing.

Pete


----------



## dodgy (16 Jul 2009)

I've been fairly scathing of Sustrans' online mapping resources, but it looks like they've been improved (though I still prefer www.opencyclemap.org ). Just type your postcode into http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ and you'll notice the maps are now draggable.


----------



## Billloudon (24 Jul 2009)

I have used the Cycle route 73 in North Ayrshire/ Soputh Ayshire and am really impressed.
I have done the Largs - Ayr run about 35miles and a lot is off road and most is on very quiet lanes. A good run if you can manage it.
All that said, I came off a few weeks ago because of mud on the track


----------



## PaulSB (1 Aug 2009)

I have been a Sustrans supporter for many years, perhaps 15-16, by which I mean I make a small monthly contribution, used to take part in some of the inaugural rides (for fun not politicing) and avidly read all the literature etc. I'm a supporter not an activist.

My first "tour", perhaps 10 years ago was the C2C. Perhaps in the eyes of many not a real tour but I was very nervous at being away from home, out of my comfort zone and having to get from A to B on my bike with no support or get out possibilities. It was fantastic and I now tour whenever I can, which is not often enough.

Six years ago I cycled the inaugural Pennine Cycle Way ride and had great fun. It remains an excellent route. Today I'm more experienced, fitter, more confident and have a better bike. Sunday to Wednesday last week I rode the PCW from Gargrave to Berwick plus adding in a few diversions of my own, to visit Alnwick for example. On this ride I began to appreciate why some cyclists are so anti-Sustrans. Six years ago I enjoyed every moment of the route and was happy to put up with some of the sections that I now consider rather daft. Today as said I have far more experience and quickly found myself studying maps in much greater detail, rather than slavishly following the generally excellent signage, this allowed me to cut out sections which now seem a little pointless, included a rough track etc.

My point would be this. I started riding a bike about 17-18 years ago when my eldest boy wanted Dad to take him for a ride. From this I have progressed to being a cyclist, riding locally as often as possible, being a sometimes club member, confident and able to set off to average 90 miles / day with just a map, rack and small bag when I can. I got a real buzz from completing Chorley - Gargrave - Appleby via Route 68 (102 miles) in a day.

Without Sustrans, especially the C2C, I would probably not have taken up cycle touring and missed something I really enjoy. I no longer follow every mile of a Sustrans route but find they provide great ideas for tours and a reliable basis for a route which as one gains experience can be varied according to taste. For the completely inexperienced Sustrans provides the safest, in every sense of the word, option, as one grows and develops one's views develop and needs change meaning one uses the network differently.

Surely the whole point of a cycling charity is to encourage and develop cycling? Those who are dismissive of Sustrans miss the point entirely.

For the sceptics I'd strongly suggest you come and try the Lancahire Cycleway (routes 90 / 91) which makes a good 250 mile, three day tour. The route existed for many, many years and was known to cyclists, clubs etc but unless someone told you about it you wouldn't have had a clue. By signing the route Sustrans have made it accessible to all - surely a good thing? The Lancashire Cycleway has some beautiful rural riding and some blistering climbs!


----------



## Garz (1 Aug 2009)

Hi PaulSB, I regularly cycle around bolton area, and one of my major annoyances was the route 91 (i think) between hawkshaw and turton I always miss the detour through turton bottoms. Either some wally has stolen a sign or two or they have been twisted in the wrong direction.


----------



## PaulSB (3 Aug 2009)

Only done his section once - doesn't fit with many of my routes - but I THINK it follows the B6391 through Turton Bottoms, joins the A676 Bradshaw / Bolton Road out to Hawkshaw and after going through Hawkshaw pick up the B6214 fro Holcombe / Helmshore.


----------



## Arch (3 Aug 2009)

User482 said:


> Some experienced cyclists dislike Sustrans routes, but so what? No-one is compelling you to use them.



True, but perhaps what some people feel is that they contribute to the whole "get on the cyclepath!" mentality. A sort of feeling that you can't cycle somewhere unless there is a designated route... I was working on a cycling promotion roadshow once and a lady said "You're a member of Sustrans I presume?" When I (and my colleague) said "No", she got a bit snooty and said "I find that very odd!". The assumption was that as keen cyclists, we had to belong to some 'club' or something...

I use bits and pieces of routes, when it suits me (the York-Selby path for example), but I'm pretty capable of working a route out for myself, so I tend to end up on one because it's convenient and happens to be on my route, rather than choosing it. I find barriers a real pain, mind you, I don't have the knack of riding through narrow gaps, and there are some that are just too narrow to do so. And I don't find a rough surface any fun on a road bike. A few potholes I can dodge, but the 2 miles of deep loose gravel I found on route 65 was horrible... Unless I know a route, or there is no option without a long detour, I'll tend to choose a road, which I can be fairly sure will be tarmacced.

For a family with kids, or new cyclists, I agree some off-road paths are great. The trick is to then encourage the new folk to see beyond the path, and understand how to read maps, pick routes etc...


----------

