https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/feb/16/cycling-charity-launches-ambitious-plan-to-boost-uk-wide-path-network

Just seen this on guardian.

Who in their right mind is going to fund this?  Sustrans had millions from the government 20 years ago to build exactly this, and **** it up so royally we’ve been left with a legacy of poor quality and frankly dangerous infrastructure for cycling, that gets cited as good practice!

The useless chuffers at sustrans just don’t seem to see the harm they’ve done to UK utility cycling, and anything good had been in spite of their efforts, not because of them.

It really hacks me off, they should be put in their box and campaign for greenways, and leave the proper stuff to Active Travel England, or just force highway authorities to actually use the guidance available to them!

Sorry.  Bit ranty there…

I’m no big fan of Sustrans but the idea that they’ve ever had the budget and resources to create a decent national cycle network is hilarious.

The useless chuffers at sustrans just don’t seem to see the harm they’ve done to UK utility cycling, and anything good had been in spite of their efforts, not because of them.

It wasn’t really Sustrans that created the infrastructure. They campaigned and lobbied for it and when councils finally got hacked off with the constant hassle and put down a bit of paint and a signpost along a muddy old railway line, Sustrans would hail it as some sort of great success story and give it a shiny NCN number. More of a Notional Cycle Notwork rather than a National Cycle Network…

But yes, there’s the risk of a fair chunk of overlap now with ATE.

Where did the money to cover up their numbers on all the signs come from?

Well yes, the current ncn should never have been lauded as such. Sustrans should have rejected proposals and/or refused to acknowledge poor quality infrastructure.  If they’d set out design guidance like LTN1/20 and stuck to it, we could have had a functional network, but any bit of paint on the ground or blue sign on a not too narrow footpath and it got allocated to a route.  I think they basically saw it as a way to build their (both for sustrans and it’s senior management) profiles, for bigger and better things that have certainly not been realised in term of infrastructure in the past 20 years.

London’s cycle super highways really kicked off the drive for better cycling infrastructure, and while not all of it is great, it has demonstrated that not-god-awful cycling infrastructure does and will get used.

Frankly, sustrans have been shamed into taking a long hard look at themselves, their NCN and found it all wanting.  They should have been the leaders in this from the start!

I’m no big fan of Sustrans but the idea that they’ve ever had the budget and resources to create a decent national cycle network is hilarious.

This.

And before you complain, have you volunteered?

Sustrans should have rejected proposals and/or refused to acknowledge poor quality infrastructure.  If they’d set out design guidance like LTN1/20 and stuck to it, we could have had a functional network would have had nothing at all.

FTFY

I’m no big fan of Sustrans but the idea that they’ve ever had the budget and resources to create a decent national cycle network is hilarious

They may not have built it, but they approved it. Hence set the template for shoddy, circuitous infrastructure ever since.

And before you complain, have you volunteered?

Why would I volunteer to maintain a poorly conceived, badly designed, poorly constructed cycle route that is unfit for purpose?  And why should it be seen that cycle infrastructure is for volunteers to maintain?

If they’d set out design guidance like LTN1/20 and stuck to it, we could have had a functional network would have had nothing at all.

Honestly, I prefer it 8f we were starting with a clean sheet of paper in terms of the NCN.  it’s done so much damage to the perception of what cyclists want and need, it set the whole sustainable transport movement back 25 years.  Only in recent years are we seeing some examples of properly thought out and delivered infrastructure, with decent national guidance to support it.  Getting highway authorities to acknowledge it exists, let alone use it is another matter!

What I find disappointing is that their review of the NCN seems so weak. They’ve removed the sections that use 60mph A roads, which is something.

But their “design principles” are not nearly specific enough. First off “ For Network route on a quiet-way section of road, the traffic speed and flows should be sufficiently low. ”. That should have a stated volume and 85th%ile speed. (Maybe this stuff does internally but then why not publish it on the section “for professionals”). They’re still allowing 40 mph roads (though let’s hope they’re not busy).

“Have a smooth surface that is well drained, free of undulations, rutting and potholes. In, or close to, built-up areas a National Cycle Network route should have a sealed surface“

The reclassification hasn’t followed those principles – muddy rutted shit is still in there – and it’s not going to get upgraded or improved any time soon. The map just identifies as road or off road with no idea of quality. If it has any off road sections you still have to assume it needs a mountain bike in winter. And that you might have to push some of it.

All of the south east of England is close to built up areas, yet the 22 between Guildford and Dorking uses lots of unimproved bridleway. Some is soft sand in summer, some mud and roots in winter.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/national-cycle-network-design-principles/

Why would I volunteer to maintain a poorly conceived, badly designed, poorly constructed cycle route that is unfit for purpose? And why should it be seen that cycle infrastructure is for volunteers to maintain?

Absolutely it should be a part of normal Highways activity and not left to volunteers.

It’s more than just litter picking you know. The whole process is driven by volunteers, because governments have failed to own the issue. So we can all criticise Sustrans for their many and obvious faults, but it’s easy to do that standing on the sidelines while doing nothing but moan (aimed at their detractors generally, I have no idea what you may specifically be involved in to help with cycling infrastructure locally)

i did some work experience with Sustrans in Bristol and worked clsoely with them on my masters project, 22 years ago now. I work in cycle planning (not in the UK anymore thank goodness) and worked on many f the designs for LCN and Superhighways.

Anyhow, my impression of sustrans was that they had and have very knowledgable people working their,with a great deal of expertise What they didn’t have unfortunatly was land. They couldn’t act on their wishes.

So we can all criticise Sustrans for their many and obvious faults, but it’s easy to do that standing on the sidelines while doing nothing but moan (aimed at their detractors generally, I have no idea what you may specifically be involved in to help with cycling infrastructure locally)

I’ve volunteered to clear Sustrans paths and donated to them for many years. I stopped because I was beyond fed up with them putting their name to god-awful infrastructure, which is usually poorly-surfaced, barriered, indirect and inconvenient. Sometimes just plain dangerous.

I stopped volunteering when the new head honcho arrived and decided to (re)focus on urban cycling. I do get it – if there’s a limited budget, that’s going to have the most visible benefit – but it is of zero benefit to me and my interests. My volunteering time is now spent with ScotWays which is a lot more relevant to me.

The thing about the “god awful” infrastructure is that it did have incremental benefits. For example, NCN78, even though much if it is/was on-road, created a demand and, as a result, much of it was improved to be more suitable. The all-or-nothing approach will likely result in nothing.

The thing about the “god awful” infrastructure is that it did have incremental benefits. For example, NCN78, even though much if it is/was on-road, created a demand and, as a result, much of it was improved to be more suitable. The all-or-nothing approach will likely result in nothing.

A very valid concern I think.

The thing about the “god awful” infrastructure is that it did have incremental benefits. For example, NCN78, even though much if it is/was on-road, created a demand and, as a result, much of it was improved to be more suitable.

I’m not so sure. I’m relaxed about them using quiet roads, but plenty of the stuff round here is inherently unsuitable for family cycling. Think steep hills and barriers you can’t get trailers through…

I used to volunteer with Sustrans some years ago but some of their local routing was bizarre (they seemed to choose the steepest routes possible).

I think that the idea of a NCN is fantastic but it’s going to be hard and costly to achieve.

There are also a lot of grassroots organisations doing sterling work but there doesn’t seem to be any national oversight supporting and funding them.

A couple local to me (Somerset Rail to Trail and The Strawberry Line) suggest using the disused railway system into a traffic free network, which has always struck me as a good idea.

A couple local to me (Somerset Rail to Trail and The Strawberry Line) suggest using the disused railway system into a traffic free network, which has always struck me as a good idea.

You have to decide what you want to achieve with the route. Something like the Monsal Trail for example is another disused rail route and its very popular with leisure users – who all drive out to Bakewell or Monsal, get on bikes and bimble up and down the nice flat trail, through some tunnels and stop at cafes en route. It’s near useless as a commuting route because it doesn’t really go anywhere. Bakewell at one end sure but there’s not a lot along the trail and at the other end it just stops at Monsal. Getting over to Buxton is a busy main road or a quieter but very hilly route.

The Bath to Bristol old rail line is far better, it connects two major population centres and is reasonably well surfaced.

There’s a safety concern as well. Traffic free quite often means scally central. Unlit trail, no easy way off it is a muggers paradise. Fallowfield Loop in Manchester suffered with a string of quite violent muggings for a long time. There’d be a few police patrols, nothing found, and within a week of them scaling back the patrols, the muggers were back relieving people of their bikes.

And unless they’re properly surfaced, they’re not very attractive as commuter routes if you’re going to get covered in mud for 6 months of the year. But surfacing (especially on difficult to access trail) is very expensive so it’s always been go with the easiest option of having a traffic free trail but one that is unusable on road bikes (or by anyone who wants to stay clean).

Our road is part of NCN7.

At one end of road you go up steep hill, onto 60mph A-road for a couple of miles as it was cheaper than following the old railway line between the town and village (s). Oddly there are two less steep alternative 20mph roads they could have chosen.

At the other end you have a handlebar width bridge with ‘Cyclists dismount’ sign, followed by a broken tarmac path that has sharpened spike fence at about 80cm tall. Just the right height that if someone falls off a bike, they get a sharpened steel spike to the face.

I don’t think I would blame Sustrans for it, the council and private landowner should do better, but they did ‘approve’ it and actively promote it… At the end of the day the defining factors have to be lack of funding and lack of ambition – perhaps this news might start to reverse that?

I don’t understand what the new vision is really supposed to be.

They appear to want to join together every town with a population over 10k… but why? Why would I want to ride from one town with perfectly adequate shops and resources to another town with perfectly adequate shops and resources?

I would much rather be able to ride to and from surrounding smaller towns and villages, and the countryside around them.I want to be able to ride to and from school and the railway station. I don’t need (or particularly want) to ride from Melton Mowbray to Grantham.

but plenty of the stuff round here is inherently unsuitable for family cycling. Think steep hills and barriers you can’t get trailers through…

Sustrans isn’t a cycle only group, its sustainable travel, so they don’t seem to have a problem expecting cyclists to get off and walk. And you can’t alter geology, to be fair.

The barrier thing is a ballache, though they are supposed to be removing them iirc

Sustrans isn’t a cycle only group, its sustainable travel, so they don’t seem to have a problem expecting cyclists to get off and walk. And you can’t alter geology, to be fair.

No, but you can choose what should and shouldn’t be on your network. I think there’s a fundamental problem with branding stuff as “NCN” which is unsuitable for cycling.

I just signed up to volunteer with them again. Although I only wanted to clear up some local route confusion but apparently it has to be ‘official’. Again, I left last time because it got too political.

To be fair to them, they’re not aimed at commuting – it’s for leisure cycling; transporting yourself from place to place without using fossil fuels.

e.g. ‘lets go to visit X town/attraction 10 miles away and use a bike on NCNxx’

I probably get the good end of things as in Mid-Wales there are a few traffic free routes, quiet lanes and few obstructions.

I commend their signage/communication and lofty aims but agree it’s underfunded and badly executed in places.

Their origins are from a Political pressure group of some sort so really this is to be expected.

The thing that worries me is Chris Boardman has not been given much time to set up a functioning organisation expected to deliver Active Travel for an entire country.

I would much rather be able to ride to and from surrounding smaller towns and villages, and the countryside around them.I want to be able to ride to and from school and the railway station. I don’t need (or particularly want) to ride from Melton Mowbray to Grantham.

This.  Totally.  Then these local connections could be joined up with short interconnectors to make longer, low traffic, cycle friendly routes.

I live on NCN6 that goes from derby to Nottingham.  The old main road runs straight from one to the other, through a load of suburbs and villages.  But the NCN wriggles about through backstreets and a nature reserve. Popping on and off pavements like a demented skateboarder.  A good quality mainline from notts to derby would be much more valuable, and all the side routes are low traffic so could just be signed off the main route.

Frustratingly, the roads are wide enough to accommodate at least a 1.5m cycle lane along its entire length, but they’re sub-1m by me….

This.  Totally.  Then these local connections could be joined up with short interconnectors to make longer, low traffic, cycle friendly routes.

That’s more or less how the “network” was built and why so many bits of it take weird “detours” through towns when you are trying to do longer distance rides.

To be fair to them, they’re not aimed at commuting – it’s for leisure cycling; transporting yourself from place to place without using fossil fuels.

Which is reversing out the re-focus I described above – after Xavier Brice took the reins. Sustrans was going to be all about urban commuting and less of the leisure/longer-distance stuff. One wonders why that is now being turned on its head again. Of course, all the money spent on more analysis and reports means less to spend on actual infrastructure and the head honcho always has to justify his £120k salary.

Well, my guess is the change of strategy may be influenced by the remit of Active Travel England (granted it’s not UK-wide) who are supposed to be implementing policy regarding incorporation of active travel measures in new housing developments, for example.

I’d like to see Sustrans spend on maintenance e.g. hedge trimming/ tractor sweeping.
I imagine it is easily bogged down by the beaurocracy of land ownership and responsibilities but i’m sure something could be worked out – although the cost would be high and who would pay? Certainly using volunteers is cheap, but not very effective.

There’s also a good podcast on road.cc with Boardman about his new job:
https://road.cc/content/news/chris-boardman-doesnt-care-about-going-fast-now-289865

I am not sure I hold Sustrans responsible for the dire state of cycle infrastructure in the UK. We wouldn’t expect a charity to plan build and maintain our road network and I don’t think we should expect a charity to do the same for the cycle network.

Cycle infrastructure is critical infrastructure. The NL treats it as such and the results are good. In the ‘U’K we don’t and as a result our cycle routes are woeful and the car still reigns supreme.

I live on NCN6 that goes from derby to Nottingham. The old main road runs straight from one to the other, through a load of suburbs and villages. But the NCN wriggles about through backstreets and a nature reserve. Popping on and off pavements like a demented skateboarder. A good quality mainline from notts to derby would be much more valuable, and all the side routes are low traffic so could just be signed off the main route.

I know what you mean – waves from Ilkeston

I am not sure I hold Sustrans responsible for the dire state of cycle infrastructure in the UK. We wouldn’t expect a charity to plan build and maintain our road network and I don’t think we should expect a charity to do the same for the cycle network.

Exactly this – the fact that cycle infrastructure is not a national transport policy priority is the reason the cycle network is shit, not because it was left to an enthusiastic/misguided charity who rely on volunteers.

*Waves from Long Eaton – other end of the valley”.

For all my criticism, they do do some good stuff, but its interspersed with a history of lending legitimacy to shocking infrastructure.

For instance, bennerley viaduct has been reopened for active travel, more as a visitor attraction/destination than a route, but it links to a couple of existing cycle routes, and thus into the wider area:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-59974752

There’s also an “iron to iron” long distance cycle route that joins this to a similar structure in Cornwall IIRC.  Which is exactly what we need a charitable organisation like sustrans to be promoting.

Maybe they need to change their name away from a contraction of “sustainable transport” to somethng more appropriate, and refocus on creating these longer distance, leisure routes that can act as local attractions.  Leave urban transport to ATE, and the CTC to provide support for longer distance routing?

Oh hang on, that would require a joined up approach between three different organisations all trying to grab their piece of the pie….

I don’t think long distance routes through the countryside are worth that much in general*, as there are already lots of country roads that can be taken; most cyclists aren’t doing those for transport purposes; we don’t need to get people out of their cars in that situation; and it’s a harder sell to get people to ride 10 miles to the next town. We need to get people out of their cars in cities. So what’s far more important IMO is bypassing or avoiding nasty bits of urban road in ways that don’t take ages. Having to go on the pavement and work your way around a big junction traffic light by traffic light can take ten minutes, it’s absolutely shit. We need an underpass or a bridge so you can just sail through. Cycling has to be made better not simply safer but worse.

* there are exceptions to this e.g. Bristol-Bath

I don’t think long distance routes through the countryside are worth that much in general, as there are already lots of country roads that can be taken. What’s far more important is bypassing or avoiding nasty bits of urban road in ways that don’t take ages. Having to go on the pavement and work your way around a big junction traffic light by traffic light can take ten minutes, it’s absolutely shit. We need an underpass or a bridge so you can just sail through. Cycling has to be made better not simply safer but worse.

I think there is value in long distance traffic free routes, as they act as a draw for tourism and ourtdoor active leisure type stuff.  Look at Peak District with the Monsall, Tissington and High Peak trails, Cornwall with the Camel Trail, Bristol-Bath railway path.  All provide leisure activites and access to the countryside, along with employment/businesses in rural locations.  There must be loads of these across the county, and more could provide better leisure routes than trying to wiggle your way through some glass-strewn suburban backstreet.

Though I totally agree with your point about junctions etc.  Hence why it needs different groups to support teh diffferent objectives of the different infrastructure.

*Waves from Long Eaton – other end of the valley Nutbrook Trail ”.

I think there is value in long distance traffic free routes,

Absolutely – there’s a value in lots of different types of traffic free route, but their purpose needs to be clear, and understandable by users in advance.

Commuter/Utility cycling routes – need to be ridable in all weather, all year, on a Brompton in normal clothes without getting covered in mud. They need to be direct – ie by default the shortest route between destinations.
Leisure/Touring routes – Need to be passable on a touring bike with panniers. Maybe these can be for summer use only and don’t need a sealed surface – but they need to be flagged up as such. Doesn’t matter so much if these take ‘the long way around’
“Off road” leisure routes – maybe these need a mountain or at least a hybrid even in summer. Again, needs to be clearly flagged. I just had a look at the map and NCN8 takes you along about half of the ‘Gap’ ride from Talybont. Now I know the first section of the loop I do is on a flatish old railway track, but can you avoid the stuff across the moor that’s bike swallowing 4×4 holes or grassy bog even in summer?

I don’t think the three functions above (and your classification may be different) are the same thing and I dont think they should be branded as the same thing. Theres a world of difference between ‘traffic free’ and ‘muddy, rutted, impassable in winter bridleway’ – the NCN map makes no distinction

What used to be NCN7 just north of Aviemore had two alternative routings – an on-road one and a shorter off-road option. The latter was clearly marked as such with a MTB.

The off-road route is no longer signed at all. The on-road is no longer NCN7, it’s now the Lochs and Glens route.

We have a stub running from Kilwinning to what appears to be the north end of Ardrossan, I have no idea as the map is hosted on the new OS maps site and doesn’t work. The cycle paths north of there vary between pavement, off road and the A78 trunk road going through villages (usually the steepest, narrowest and most poorly visible parts of the road). They have made a multi-use path through Fairlie but some genius thought putting that right on the shore was a good idea (you could spit from it to the water on a really low tide) in an area that frequently sees high winds. Once you hit Largs it’s either the A78 all the way to Wemyss Bay, the back road up and down hills (including a short stretch on the A78 where two parts fail to join) or the really back road with a circa 6 mile incline before you can head to Wemyss Bay, Inverkip, Kilmacolm (via an unmade road) or Greenock.

Fine for roadies in a group but honestly, utterly hopeless for more casual cyclists and not something I’d want to take anyone on. The proper back road north is great once you crest the hill but I’d imagine is about enough for someone not used to it and certainly not fun.

We still need to address the fact that everything has to be paid for somehow – even if it just uses existing roads.