Sustrans

[marinyork]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.