Is Sustrans fit for purpose?

[byegad]

[QUOTE 4713957, member: 9609"]NC1 in Northumberland
View attachment 341500
seriously, this is the A1 of cyleways, a muddy field full of cows.[/QUOTE]
Been on that POS. Further on we came to a field with mud in the gate way at least 6 inches deep. We ended up lifting trikes and bikes over a barbed wire fence and hiking across the field before repeating the process at the other side of the field, in order to avoid yet another deep mud bath. That was definitely the last time I'll ever use Sustrans routes.

 

[spen666]

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

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

 

[mjr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[User482]

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

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

Dairy farming?

 

[Milkfloat]

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

 

[psmiffy]

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

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

 

[Milkfloat]

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

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

 

[screenman]

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

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

 

[Flying Dodo]

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

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

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

Seems quite clear to me.

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

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

 

[screenman]

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

Seems quite clear to me.

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

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

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

 

[mjr]

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

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

 

[NorthernDave]

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

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

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