[Closed] sustrans not very popular ?

They're a bloody nightmare!

With a child seat on the back of the bike I've got to pick the bike and child up to lift them both over some of those sill y gate things.

My mate has a boxbike, the only place she can ride off road with it is the fallowfield loop at the moment because they've opened all the gates. She'd love to head down the transpennine but it's completely impossible for her to lift the bike up with her son in the front

This is like on of those threads where folk complain about their local trail centre but aren't willing to help pay for, or assist with, trail repairs.

Ah right. So I imagined the monthly donations I made to Sustrans for ten years?

[quote=ransos ]

This is like on of those threads where folk complain about their local trail centre but aren't willing to help pay for, or assist with, trail repairs.

I'm no a fan. Some good bits but other sections where huge detours are taken to avoid short bits of road which aren't too bad. When the distance via Sustrans can be more than double the road route something is wrong.

[img] ?w=500[/img]

I think Sustrans were at least partially behind the "boardwalk" pathway that runs along the Itchen between Priory Road and Northam Bridge...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Northam+Bridge,+Southampton/ @50.9159939,-1.3883807,986m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4874715a0f5266a3:0xde6af452766425d3!8m2!3d50.9147092!4d-1.3860634

It's pleasant enough to cycle along for ~2mins, but I can't help but wonder how much it cost and how that money could have been used better on section of Southampton city centre that gets a lot more bike traffic. The "all-time" list is not exactly huge on Strava...
https://www.strava.com/segments/2501512?filter=overall&gender=both

Only 596 Strava users for that section and just 129 if you continue on after the "boardwalk" to the dirt track that goes under Northam Bridge.

I think the issue is that people have an expectation of a 'Sustrans Approved' route. Often these expectations are not met, even from the outset.

If there were a minimum set of standards that applied people would be able to start a ride knowing they'd be able to finish it on the signposted route.

It's not about funding, it's about standards.

And do you think all the other contributors to this thread have the same story?

Like you, I've no idea what the contributors to this thread have or haven't done. But I wouldn't criticise anyone for not wishing to donate to schemes that are unfit for purpose.

mudguards? slow down for puddles? I commute virtually every weekday all year round along a pretty damn ropey Sustrans off-road route which gets extremely muddy/waterlogged at times but never really have a problem.

Agree with you about the gates, they look a real pain with trailers & I've had to help loads of people carry their trailers over them! Thinking positively though, the "trailer stage" is only going to be for a few years, then they're on their own bikes so it's not a problem any more.

Classic "I'm alright Jack" so everyone else should be able to cope or should MTFU. 🙄

Misses the point by a country mile that for [b]Sustainable Transport[/b], you need to cater for everybody. People with kiddie trailers, laden touring cyclists, cargo bikes, recumbents, trikes, handcycles.

And it needs to be on a surface that doesn't coat you/the bike in crap. That's like calling a track across some marshland a "pavement" cos you can wear wellies.

Utility cycling, which is what this country desperately needs, has to be the same as walking or driving or getting the bus - something that virtually anyone can do without thinking about it and that takes you from A to B via the quickest easiet route, not following the meanders of a river for 12 miles instead of 4 miles of direct road. Not something that you can only do if you get dressed up in all your walking gear, hi-viz and a helmet!

[quote=n0b0dy0ftheg0at ]Only 596 Strava users for that section and just 129 if you continue on after the "boardwalk" to the dirt track that goes under Northam Bridge.Not sure if being ironic or not....

like the idea but dont like the idea that we are treated as second class citizens on a cycle path with little education to help both sides (pedestrians and cyclists) to get along together.

Having said that ive seen come graffiti on the brighouse canal which i liked last night which was smile and say hi.

No one seems to have appointed my ring twice pass nice motto though.

I'm in the 'not sure' camp.

They seem to go with trails they can afford to do, which isn't necessarily what we need. For example, IMO Cardiff badly needs a way to get into town from the East. There's a path along the river all the way to the beginning of the awful four lane chockablock retail park mess of Newport road, then you're thrown to the lions. Most casual cyclists wouldn't dream of cycling along there.

But Sustrans haven't got the money or power to put anything in - only the council could, because there's really no land on which to do it. It'd have to be part of a huge replan.

So they put cyclepaths in places like the Usk Valley which is only opf recreational use to most (lovely though it is) and fully of quiet lanes anyway.

I think they've set back cycling in this country not improved it. They forced us onto muddy gravel paths well away from other transport, rather than spend the money on things that would improve cycling for all. They've made it acceptable for government and councils to chuck some token money at something pretty useless and then say it was supported by the cycling community.

There was a section of the NCN1 route that was the scariest road I've ever cycled on. It must have been picked by someone looking at a map and not cycling it, un-excusable imo. Thankfully in the last year or two the route has been re-jigged.

fDeep swamps if it rained, broken surfaces all the time, random people wandering about on it, people who couldn't work out whether to ride on the left, the right, the middle or just randomly switch between them, dog walkers (mostly with the dog off the lead as we were "in the countryside") all made for an "exciting" experience. Even on a cross bike.

Other than the surface most of your issues seem to be with sharing this path

This is like on of those threads where folk complain about their local trail centre but aren't willing to help pay for, or assist with, trail repairs. The situation in this country is that every pound spent on cycling infrastructure has to be won from central/local government. How many of the haterz have gone out and campaigned for more funding, put this near the top of their list whilst choosing political parties or gone out and helped look after the current routes?

Fair point to be honest.
Problem is as a country we don't actually have any money for anything right now.
I'd far rather in the short term we got in a position to not spend £43bn/yr interest payments. Then all of a sudden we have plenty of cash to re-invest in path networks etc.

Classic "I'm alright Jack" so everyone else should be able to cope or should MTFU.

I think it was Bez that summed up how I feel about their work, it was something along the lines of "we need to stop pretending we've got a national cycle network and realise that what we've got it some blue signs".

[quote="thebrick"]Other than the surface most of your issues seem to be with sharing this pathNot in the slightest. I've no objection to sharing a transport link with other people using it for transport. Randomly/aimlessly roaming dog walkers/dogs who are blissfully unaware of anyone else around them and endless swampy shit does not sound like a transport link to me.

Edit: what Edlong said.

It's not about funding, it's about standards.

Actually it's about both, and other things, as always things are grey and complicated, not black and white.

I spend a fair bit of my time volunteering for a local cycling charity, who also work with the bigger ones, and local councils and the hoops, barriers and obstacles to progress are insane. Nobody wants to produce something substandard, believe me, [b]nobody[/b].

I support and donate to Sustrans (and CTC/Cycling UK and BC FWIW), I'm not 100% happy with everything they do and I do think there is scope for improvement, but as always with these things I'd rather support something and work towards improving it, than have a hissy fit, walk away from it saying it's not fit for purpose.

Someone made a very valid point earlier:

Cycling infrastructure should not really be left to a charity to provide. If you want to get angry and grumpy, get angry and grumpy at the fact that it's being left to an imperfect, struggling charity, who face many more barriers to their work than you see from the outside.

Look at the big picture, your complaint isn't really that Sustrans do a poor job, it's that the job is left to Sustrans in the first place, and then to make matters worse, they've not got the resources or authority to do it properly anyway, occasionally they get thrown a bone and can produce a little nugget of gold, but mostly they get given some glitter and a turd and told to get creative.

It's impossible to get the result you want from this setup, especially when a lot of their funding is reliant on being able to show they've made shiny things, if they stop rolling the turds in glitter then they don't get any more glitter.

Don't underestimate the importance of just having a existing route sign posted. When you are in a strange area (or sometimes your local area) frequently don't know the quite route even if it is all on back roads when all "normal" sign posts for e you onto the local bypass!

Randomly/aimlessly roaming dog walkers/dogs who are blissfully unaware of anyone else around them and endless swampy shit does not sound like a transport link to me

that is the nature of sharing a path! Most people are idiots so you will have to deal with idiotic behaviour!

[i]the job is left to Sustrans in the first place, and then to make matters worse, they've not got the resources or authority to do it properly anyway, occasionally they get thrown a bone and can produce a little nugget of gold, but mostly they get given some glitter and a turd and told to get creative. [/i]

The thing is by approving by association a substandard route Sustrans allow those with the resources to get away with providing rubbish infrastructure. Sustrans accept mediocrity and that becomes the defacto standard that councils work to.

I agree Sustrans do a good job in some areas but they should be setting a 'gold' standard in all the work they do.

Yeah. So I'll stick to using the road thanks.

If you want to see proper cycle tracks done properly, you need to get out of the UK.

FWIW I can get from where I live to the centre of Göteborg on a dedicated tarmac cycle path. Where it is shared with pedestrians it is clearly posted and marked. Where it shares the road (not much) there is a kerb and railing/posts separating the two. That's about 60km.

I can then carry on south to Malmo.

scotroutes - Member
n0b0dy0ftheg0at » Only 596 Strava users for that section and just 129 if you continue on after the "boardwalk" to the dirt track that goes under Northam Bridge.
Not sure if being ironic or not..

I appreciate not everyone uses Strava, but some us of us like me use it to monitor our own riding, I don't seriously expect to challenge segment KOMs on a fatbike. 😆

It simply gives an illustration of how little use that path gets in that Strava segment, very few cyclists need to travel between Bitterne Triangle and Northam.

I used it last Thursday to come home from buying bike bits at Aldi, first time since joining Strava ~2 weeks ago (for fun), maybe fifth time this year and <25th time since it was opened. But there are several quiet back-street routes I could have used instead.

Purely as an example, there are bike filter lanes near traffic lights on Hill Lane that need re-painting, a road that gets masses more cyclists using it everyday. Where these lines have faded, cars are now regularly blocking the filter lanes that lead to Advanced Signal Boxes (which still have decent demarcation by paint).

Personally, I think Sustrans are too willing to compromise on both surface and safety just to be able to say 'look we've linked X and Y'.

this right here.

sustrans route 33 runs right by me.. i've done the section from brean down to burnham-on-sea both on the road and the beach, and in both directions.

the road is very busy and bloody dangerous during tourist season and there are regularly car crashes, let alone this recent story : http://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/2014/brean-crash-27-05-14.php

the beach is awful to ride down, i'm sure it killed off a set of forks on my old bike. riding 7 miles on damp sand? great idea? not!

in short. sustrans, not fit for purpose and deceptive in my area. YMMV.

and.. coast wise, following around south of where i live.. there's a 50 mile gap with no sustrans route at all. (however, supposed updates to the south west coast path don't appear to have materialised yet)

I support and donate to Sustrans (and CTC/Cycling UK and BC FWIW), I'm not 100% happy with everything they do and I do think there is scope for improvement, but as always with these things I'd rather support something and work towards improving it, than have a hissy fit, walk away from it saying it's not fit for purpose.

After ten years of donating, I took the view that the standard of infrastructure had not improved. I'm now of the opinion that they should do it properly or not at all.

I'm now of the opinion that they should do it properly or not at all.

How should they 'do it properly', assuming that they can't just call on a large reserve of cash? Genuine q.

I think Sustrans is great, commute in on one if their routes to avoid traffic. Yeah, motorbike gates can be a hindrance, but so is a bunch of hooligans on unlicensed and uninsured mopeds, so I bought a CX bike for commuting to squeeze through the gates.

Re surfaces, well every sustrans route I've ridden is passable on 32mm tyres, so that covers most touring bikes, hybrids and mountain bikes. So unless you are on a pure roadie tyre, it's a non issue.

Also, Sustrans routes are not solely about bikes, they are often intended for walkers and horses as well.

Finally, yes, some of their involvement may not be to everyone's approval. They are limited to what their staff, funding and volunteers can realistically achieve. If you don't like it, make sure you have tried putting in a similar amount of time and effort before getting on your high horses.

The thing is by approving by association a substandard route Sustrans allow those with the resources to get away with providing rubbish infrastructure. Sustrans accept mediocrity and that becomes the defacto standard that councils work to.

I agree Sustrans do a good job in some areas but they should be setting a 'gold' standard in all the work they do.

Personally, I think Sustrans are too willing to compromise on both surface and safety just to be able to say 'look we've linked X and Y'.

Valid points, but ask [i]why [/i]that is, why do they accept things less than gold standard, why do they prioritise linking...

The sad answer is normally that they're being pragmatic and working within the bounds of the possible. If they dug their heels in and demanded more/better then the reality is what you would get is 'nothing' while they sit there having a standoff with local authorities and government. Either that or they would blow the entire budget making a small section of perfect route, which then ends abruptly as the money runs out.

And as for linking, pragmatically, linking A+B with a less than ideal surface 'now' with a longer term goal of improving the surface is often better than not linking A with B at all.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to give some more explanation.

Not Sustrans related but currently there is a bit of work going on in our city to get a new route designated, it's gone through many many revisions while trying to work within the bounds of the possible, and all of them are sub-optimal, we're over 18 months down the line now and the current state of play is that we're going to either end up with sub-optimal, or nothing. I'm not sure which I want :-s

Not Sustrans related but currently there is a bit of work going on in our city to get a new route designated, it's gone through many many revisions while trying to work within the bounds of the possible, and all of them are sub-optimal, we're over 18 months down the line now and the current state of play is that [b]we're going to either end up with sub-optimal, or nothing. I'm not sure which I want [/b]

indeed. And I suspect many on this thread would prefer nothing. But these people are mainly confident cyclists who don't baulk at mixing it with traffic if necessary.

There's probably a much larger group who would rather plump for 'sub optimal' if it meant being able to ride on a quiet path away from cars, even if it was a bit bumpy...

Yeah. So I'll stick to using the road thanks.

If you want to see proper cycle tracks done properly, you need to get out of the UK

I do but thanks for making the assumption that I don't. All the sustrans routes I know are shared use rather than bike lanes.

I am aware that they have a lot to improve on but for many routes just having a alternative to a duel carriageway is good. The idot factor is always there on shared use path even if it was wonderfully smoothed!

I've just completed Edinburgh to Chesterfield completely on NCN routes. Overall I think they're great but in hindsight I should have researched the route a lot more. For starters, my mileage was higher than expected - from a Google maps route using cycle option, its obvious that NCN do take a sometimes contrived route, eg 2 miles extra round a bridleway to avoid one section of B road. This oversight meant my route was 20% more on one day (127 instead of 106 miles - the latter already more than I'd ridden in a day so wasn't a pleasant surprise). That said, gravel paths still get my vote over roads when they're direct and scenic.

What I do like about them when time is no pressure is the scenic nature of the routes - I went through Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham - reputably less attractive areas. The sun was shining on a beautiful Autumnal day, but it was quite simply beautiful. If I'd have looked at a map and taken a more obvious road route I think I'd have been very disappointed. That could be a broad generalisation of those areas and applies to many other places in this country.

Co-wee, escalation of the thread already?

maccruiskeen - Member
Over the weekend we only met one other group doing the route
...
Its October

I did NCN72 in June, bit windy and rained a bit on and off too... I saw 3 people only and they were coming the other way. I did West/East.
And as said, that was June.

But I like the NCN routes, they've brought me a lot of enjoyment and taken me to places I'd never have normally gone.

The catch-22 here is that Sustrans are putting their name to infrastructure on the proviso that anything is better than nothing.

The problem is that it's then not used by many people because it's shit / doesn't go where it's needed / is not well known about and the council then use that as an excuse to carry on providing sub-standard facilities because "hardly anyone uses it".

The tragedy of it all is that transport infrastructure is funded by a charity with limited legal powers - it needs to be funded in the same way as road, rail & bus and incorporated into every new road scheme and every road repair/renovation.

I want them to reinstate the Merthyr-Brecon route. They could even send the Taff trail up the Bryn Ore tramway

Exactly. And Brecon Mountain Railway wanted to reopen Torpantau tunnel through the Brecon Beacons (historically the highest on the UK rail network) and extend the railway to Talybont. Not sure it was Sustrans who objected, but there was a generally negative response to the idea of replacing a recreational route with a rail route.

Same score, IIRC, for the Camel Trail, Plym Trail and Granite Trail 😡

I commute along a Sustran route every morning. It's a cycle path which existed long before Sustran did, yet they now claim credit for it and are endlessly hanging around on it trying to get people to join them. The irony is they hang around next to a bridge (which is part of 'their' route) on which cycling is banned.

sounds like Blackweir in Cardiff.....although cycling in the bridge isn't banned...it's not a No Cycling sign 😉

There was a discussion on a roadie forum about what the steepest road climb in Wales was - one likley suspect was a bitch of a climb round the back of pontypridd that makes roadies cry. Turns out it was part of the NCN. You can't take NCN branding/signposting as a guarantee of anything so it makes planning impossibe. If I went to a part of the UK I don't know I'd have to recce the route before deciding if it was safe to take kids on, or physically possible for my wife to ride. It's utterly unacceptable. The "its local authority fault" is weasel responsibility dodging horsecrap.

In wales new guidance has been drawn up about Active Travel routes - every cycle route that meets the minimum guidance has to be mapped - The vast majority of Sustrans National Cycle Network has failed to meet the standard and is excluded from the official mapping.

In London TFL have built new cycleways which are getting a lot of love...Sustrans have been responsible for delivering the secondary "Quietways" - from what I've heard from the people I know up in London the quietways are crap too.

TRue enough a national cycle network shouldnt be delivered by a charity, it needs to be done properly, but the reality is Sustrans have given their seal of approval for a huge amount of unacceptable dross, and that has become the defacto standard Councils aim for.

Graig to Penycoedcae???

Utter bitch

Sustrans Route 4 - up Gelliwion Road from Sardis Rd

Opposite side of the valley then... Not cycled up that one

I've worked as a volunteer building both Sustrans paths and trails in Swinley.

Folk complain that the Sustrans paths are too muddy and aren't artificial enough (not enough tarmac) and that the Swinley trails aren't muddy enough and are too artificial. You just can't win....

If you think that you can do better, get out there and show us. Otherwise quit whingeing 8)

Matrix +1

How should they 'do it properly', assuming that they can't just call on a large reserve of cash? Genuine q.

Do less. I'm of the view that "something is better than nothing" is actually counter-productive.

Do less

Awesome idea, lets do more of this, that'll get us exactly what we need!

I'm of the view that "something is better than nothing" is actually counter-productive.

I'm of the view that something IS better than nothing, even when something isn't perfect and can be improved.

I prefer some trails over no trails
I prefer signoposting over nothing
I prefer variable surfaces over no route at all
I prefer half completed routes to not-started routes

Obviously I'd prefer somethign better than all of that, but I'll take 'sub-standard and can be improved' over nothing any day of the week.

Obviously this is purely opinion and we differ in that regard, I'm OK with that, and I'd love to have 'everything' but I'm struggling to see how we get there, and I think a lot of the grump is pointed in the wrong direction.

All of the point's and complaints people have made are valid problems, but not a single one of you has offered any hint of a workable idea on how to fix those problems, I'd also be curious how many of the biggest complainers have ever tried to get involved in any way even locally.

Do it properly => how? when you don't have the money, authority or resources?

Don't endorse it = > awesome, so now we have nothing, and a charity that LA's won't engage with because they know there's no point as they can;t meet their standards. And now you also have a charity that can't demonstrate that they've achieved anything, funding? -> poof!

Do less => great if you happen to be in the location where they do something, assuming of course the funding/project *can* be allocated to a small area, there's often conditions meaning it has to do A->B, or over area X, or it's off the cards completely.

Do more => great, again, how does that happen?

So, what to do?

as for this:

It's utterly unacceptable. The "its local authority fault" is weasel responsibility dodging horsecrap.

unacceptable, yes definitely it is unacceptable when Sustrans go to a LA and say X, Y, Z need fixing or this bit isn't acceptable and nothing gets done.

But it [b]IS [/b]the LA responsibility to maintain, Sustrans can't do it (other than tiny bits of work by Volunteer rangers, but even they mostly have to report rather than fix issues).

Sustrans and volunteers and rangers can be screaming hopping mad about things but if the LA won't/can't sort it then how is that "weasel responsibility dodging horsecrap"?

The gates/posts problem is a common one, they get put up by LA to deal with an 'issue', Sustrans don't want to put them in, don't support them, and actively fight against them being put in and trying to get them removed, but ultimately all they can do is keep asking nicely, they have no authority or power to remove them.

Sustrans seem to have done a lot of good work they also seem to have done a lot of stupid stuff on trails purportedly done by them. I appreciate they may not be the ones instlling motorbike gates and insisting on shitty gravel surfaces, in which case it's a image problem. If sustrans wanna keep us onside they need to get their version of events across, "look fellas, we did the best we could but parish council insisting on the crap gates, council highway dep insisted on the shoddy surface and bolshy landowner X made us take a 3 mile detour round his duck house" But I guess that wouldn't do them any favours with The Powers That Be.

It's a fine line they are walking but if they are pissing off cyclists en masse (I don't think STW are a typical representative of cyclists as a whole) then they are failing I'm afraid.

Folk complain that the Sustrans paths are too muddy and aren't artificial enough (not enough tarmac) and that the Swinley trails aren't muddy enough and are too artificial.

*I'm assuming "swinley trails" are mtb trails

I'm of the view that something IS better than nothing, even when something isn't perfect and can be improved.

I prefer some trails over no trails
I prefer signoposting over nothing
I prefer variable surfaces over no route at all
I prefer half completed routes to not-started routes

Obviously I'd prefer somethign better than all of that, but I'll take 'sub-standard and can be improved' over nothing any day of the week.

What you have there is a recipe for putting people off cycling. And we don't have "nothing", we have the road network which is generally accessible, well-surfaced, direct, sign-posted, not littered with obstacles, gritted and swept, and not requiring me to stop and give way every 100 sodding yards.

we don't have "nothing", we have the road network which is generally accessible, [b]well-surfaced[/b], direct, sign-posted, [b]not littered with obstacles[/b], [b]gritted[/b] and [b]swept[/b]

What sort of utopian part of the country do you live in to find these conditions? Would love some of that round here - sometimes hard to tell the difference between road/forest road.