Vote for Sustrans?

[Brock]

The routes are supposed to be for Sunday pootling, recreational sight seeing and relaxed family rides aren't they? Of course they don't take you from A to B the most direct way, because you can just follow the existing main road system if you want to do that.
I can't think of a much better way of encouraging people onto bicycles than providing them with pleasant, unstressful, scenic routes which are mapped, signed and patrolled regularly.
Obviously this won't directly benefit experienced commuters and lycra warriors much, but in the long run I'm sure it'll promote cycling greatly.

The Cycling England campaign does sound fantastic, and should be wholeheartedly supported in my opinion. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be in the running for this particular handout.

 

[sheddy]

I'm hoping that the Connect2 campaign is more about the substantial engineering required to build bridges over rivers, canals, major roads and motorways in order to provide direct routes between communities.
I'll be voting for em

 

[John the Monkey]

The routes are supposed to be for Sunday pootling, recreational sight seeing and relaxed family rides aren't they?

The location of most would suggest that, yeah - but this isn't where the bulk of journeys are taking place. I submit that improving that latter experience (daily commutes, little trips to shops etc) would get more people making more journeys by cycling.

I can't think of a much better way of encouraging people onto bicycles than providing them with pleasant, unstressful, scenic routes which are mapped, signed and patrolled regularly.
Obviously this won't directly benefit experienced commuters and lycra warriors much, but in the long run I'm sure it'll promote cycling greatly.

A fair point, but there has to be a two pronged approach that improves the experience away from the segregated path as well. I'm not convinced by the sustrans approach in this respect, and I feel wary of lending weight to it being the "right" idea for the future of sustainable transport.

 

[col]

I see it as place to cycle relatively traffic free,if i wanted,but my main route is through town,for work,so sustrans is an option if i want it.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Personally I can't see any thing wrong with it, OK, it's "off road" but if it's using dis-used rail tracks, it's a more direct route as a rule and flatter.

To be honest, if I had the choice of breathing petrol fumes off cars and diesel fumes off (mainly) buses or going down a dirt track with the wee birdies tweeting at me, guess which option I would chose (and , No, I'm not about getting bikes off roads).

 

[Brock]

The location of most would suggest that, yeah - but this isn't where the bulk of journeys are taking place. I submit that improving that latter experience (daily commutes, little trips to shops etc) would get more people making more journeys by cycling.

Those journeys are already being made though, presumably successfully, and on the road, with the traffic, which is as it should be?

A fair point, but there has to be a two pronged approach that improves the experience away from the segregated path as well. I'm not convinced by the sustrans approach in this respect, and I feel wary of lending weight to it being the "right" idea for the future of sustainable transport.

My experience is that NCN routes are generally only offroad/segregated when there is either a suitable legacy way such as a disused railway, towpath etc, the opportunity of a scenic ride, or as the best way of avoiding busy roads. You are of course free to get on the busy roads if you feel you're going to be late for tea.
When you say 'improve the experience away from the segregated path', what do you have in mind?

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Currently planning a trip from Bowness to Durham via the 'Toon following NCN 72 route, Hadrian's Wall, 78% (I think) is "on road" cycling, OK a lot is on minor roads allegedly, but I have driven along that route in the past and even that, for being in the sticks, can be manic.


I will add that up here in the N.E. what with all the pit closures etc. etc.. There are loads of dis-used rail lines that are just crying out to be put to a viable use.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

There are some really nice stretches of Sustrans routes around Norwich. Riding on the roads for commuting is fine and I'm sure some people enjoy it, but for a nice relaxing ride out on a Sunday I'd rather not have traffic blasting past me at 60mph.

I honestly don't see how anyone could have something against an organisation that promotes cycling and helps to provide safe, traffic-free cycle routes.

 

[summerdays]

I've cycled the Bristol to Bath cycle path on a Sunday pootle with the kids, but its used for communting on too. I like the off road cycle routes and really quiet roads, its great for taking the kids on to cover any distance. My kids are between 6 and 12 in age, the little one is still on a 16", and the biggest is on a 26", so the routes allow the older ones to cycle on ahead abit without me worrying. When I cycle with them in Bristol, its a far more stressful occasion.

And to be honest I was a Sunday cyclist, who was enjoying it on these cycle trails and wanted to cycle more, who now cycles to work on the road. So they converted one person.

 

[wafflycat]

No chance I'll be voting for Sustrans. All my riding is on the road, and Sustrans don't want to encourage cycling on the road, because they seem to concentrate exclusively on segregation. No fanks.

BentMikey says it so much more politely than I do. I *loathe* Sustrans.

 

[wafflycat]

There are some really nice stretches of Sustrans routes around Norwich. Riding on the roads for commuting is fine and I'm sure some people enjoy it, but for a nice relaxing ride out on a Sunday I'd rather not have traffic blasting past me at 60mph.

I honestly don't see how anyone could have something against an organisation that promotes cycling and helps to provide safe, traffic-free cycle routes.

Such as? Would this include the route out through Taverham & on to Reepham? The route that in wet weather is only suitable for MTBs? due to the cruddy surface? NCN13 is just down the road from me. It links Thetford, Dereham & Fakenham. The bit near me is the bit from Dereham to Fakenham. There's simply no way I'd use it to cycle to Fakenham (and I cycle in that direction a lot), as it's so damn convuluted and I cannot fathom why it takes the route it does. Nice for a gentle pootle from A to B going via N, Q, and K, but not about SUStainable TRANSport. It's got nada to to with sustainable transport. Sustrans should be up for misleading advertising if it thinks it's about SUStainable TRANSport. It's not, it's about getting folk to think of cycling as a little bit of leisure stuff to stick the bikes on the back of the car - drive to the starting point of their traffic-free cycle route. Norfolk is a county with a myriad of country lanes where cycling in a virtually traffic-free environment has existed long before Sustrans has existed. Sustrans maps? Don't need them, thank you - there's these things called Ordnance Survey maps which have been around a lot longer and which clearly identify many routes I can take an enjoyable bike ride along, be it a leisure ride or if I want something more direct. Cycling in Norwich on the roads is no hassle. I'm a middle-aged matron of the parish & if I can manage to cycle in Norwich traffic, pretty much anyone can I would have thought. We already have a national cycle network in the UK, they are called roads and the vast majority are fine for cycling on.

 

[Hilldodger]

What about the huge number of people for whom cycling on the road ISN'T an option? IE, people with special needs?

 

[BentMikey]

Here in London there's been a massive increase in cycling. It's all been achieved on road, without the use of cycling facilities. Elsewhere, lots of off-road routes and quiet roads, lots of Sustrans. Drop in cycling.

I'm not saying Sustrans is to blame for the drop in cycling, but it does show that cycle facilities do not promote cycling or increase cycling use. What's more, studies back up this view. IMO giving the money to Sustrans would at best be a waste of money, and at worst will impact cycling negatively.

 

[Hilldodger]

Here in London there's been a massive increase in cycling. It's all been achieved on road, without the use of cycling facilities. Elsewhere, lots of off-road routes and quiet roads, lots of Sustrans. Drop in cycling.

I'm not saying Sustrans is to blame for the drop in cycling, but it does show that cycle facilities do not promote cycling or increase cycling use. What's more, studies back up this view. IMO giving the money to Sustrans would at best be a waste of money, and at worst will impact cycling negatively.

Urm...anything to do with congestion charging and massive amounts of money to promote cycling?

 

[Brock]

Well.. I've not seen any studies that suggest providing cycle facilities reduces cycling. I must say, I find the anti-Sustrans arguments rather selfish. So what if there are stretches that are only suitable for MTB when it rains? Lots of people have MTBs. If the route is falling into disrepair complaints should be made to the local council who's responsibility it is to maintain the routes once they've been opened by Sustrans.
The anti arguments seem to be basically 'well it won't benefit me, I'm an excellent cyclist and I'm happy to ride on busy roads, so everyone else should be'.
I simply do not buy Mikey's claim that providing these routes reduces cycling. If there are areas of Sustrans activity that have failed to increase cycling, I would assume that they had significantly mitigated a serious downward trend already present in those areas.

May I ask if you will make a point of voting against Sustrans in this thing, if you feel their activities are such a waste of money?
Also given that their name is derived from 'sustainable transport' as Waffley points out, what sort of areas should the 50 million be spent on to create an environment where sustainable transport is promoted?