Is Sustrans fit for purpose?

[HLaB]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

However, Sustrans have to take accountability ...

... umm, really?
Or

... 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]

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"]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.