Sustrans gripe

[2Tubs]

We used quite a few Sustrans tracks on our recent JOGLE. Some of the ones in Scotland are excellent. We managed to ride right across Glasgow from Balloch at the foot of Loch Lomond to Hamilton in the east without hardly ever riding on a road. The path going eastwards from the city centre following the river was particularly good.

The route south from Hamilton to Lockerbie was also a Sustrans route. It's follows the B7078, which is the old main road before the M74 was built. On long stretches, one of the former dual carraigeways had been turned into a cyclepath which provided miles of traffic free cycling on a direct route.

However, some of the paths in England left something to be desired. We followed the Granite trail from Sourton Cross near Okehampton - an old railway line, which is fine for a couple of miles, but you're then directed off the old railway onto a steep and rocky bridlepath, unsuitable for anything but a full susser MTB.

If they can't provide a decent, full route from A to B, then they shouldn't bother at all.

I think I used the same NCN route from Balloch to Glasgow (we went JOGLE). We had to traverse a mud bath over a field in which our feet sunk ankle deep in cow dung.

That aside, the route was OK if you ignore all the broken glass along the Clyde (not the fault of Sustrans, obvioulsy).

But they really should lay a track across that field!

Gazza

[Mick F]

If they can't provide a decent, full route from A to B, then they shouldn't bother at all.

Exactly!

To be honest, even if they could, I'd rather be on a road. If all cyclists went on roads, we'd have a louder voice, and motor vehicle drivers would have to accept us.

If we hide away on "facilities" the drivers and the general road-user will object strongly if we dare to ride on the road!

[pq]

No, I disagree with that. It's not possible to produce a complete route overnight, so "works in progress" are inevitable.

My experince of sustrans routes (and I'm not talking about shoddy council facilities) is that sections of them can be very useful - maybe a section of old railway track, a safe route across an unfamiliar city etc. I rarely follow one for long distances but often appreciate jumping on them for a few miles.

And there is the odd excellent one - I was very impressed with the section from Glasgow to Pitlochry.

And yes, of course I'd rather drivers were all nice to me and I could just ride on the road without having to worry. But they're not and that's not likely to change any time soon so Sustrans can be a useful add-on to the road network, and I wouldn't be surprised if they create new cyclists.

I often criticise sustrans on public forums, but I'd rather they were around than not and I do find their facilities useful sometimes.

[Ivor Tingting]

If they can't provide a decent, full route from A to B, then they shouldn't bother at all.

Exactly!

To be honest, even if they could, I'd rather be on a road. If all cyclists went on roads, we'd have a louder voice, and motor vehicle drivers would have to accept us.

If we hide away on "facilities" the drivers and the general road-user will object strongly if we dare to ride on the road!

++1.

Sustrans are just another quasi government body hoovering up cash and delivering very little. They cater for leisure cycling not every day cyclists. We have a cycle network already it's called the roads. The best route planning is to get an OS map and read it trouble is few can these days.

[jochta]

We used quite a few Sustrans tracks on our recent JOGLE. Some of the ones in Scotland are excellent. We managed to ride right across Glasgow from Balloch at the foot of Loch Lomond to Hamilton in the east without hardly ever riding on a road. The path going eastwards from the city centre following the river was particularly good.

The route south from Hamilton to Lockerbie was also a Sustrans route. It's follows the B7078, which is the old main road before the M74 was built. On long stretches, one of the former dual carraigeways had been turned into a cyclepath which provided miles of traffic free cycling on a direct route.

However, some of the paths in England left something to be desired. We followed the Granite trail from Sourton Cross near Okehampton - an old railway line, which is fine for a couple of miles, but you're then directed off the old railway onto a steep and rocky bridlepath, unsuitable for anything but a full susser MTB.

If they can't provide a decent, full route from A to B, then they shouldn't bother at all.

I think I used the same NCN route from Balloch to Glasgow (we went JOGLE). We had to traverse a mud bath over a field in which our feet sunk ankle deep in cow dung.

That aside, the route was OK if you ignore all the broken glass along the Clyde (not the fault of Sustrans, obvioulsy).

But they really should lay a track across that field!

Gazza

I think they have. There was a brand new tarmac track along the beginning of the riverside path after Dumbarton on our LEJOG last month. The cycletrack alongside the A77 and the NCN route through Glasgow to Balloch via the Forth and Clyde canal were superb. Some broken glass around Clydebank though.

We saw some crazy NCN routes though, one alongside the B817 near Alness was nuts. It went into the woods on a narrow, rough winding path and crossed the road via gates two or three times expecting riders to dismount. It just dismays me to see that as it just encourages drivers to not overtake properly and tell you to get on the f'ing path. Sadly it looked brand new as well.

The one up to the Granite Way at Lake was also crazy and I can see how annoying that would be to encounter if you were heading SW. Basically a steep stony path which was virtually impossible to cycle on using tourers.

I'm very wary of NCN routes in areas I don't know because I know how bad and stupid they can be around where I live. To be fair there are some excellent ones though, I usually use the NCN 5 to get to Abingdon or Didcot for example (Hanson Way) as it's much nicer than the road alternatives.

The NCN 5 through Didcot and Abingdon to Oxford is pretty good overall, it has a few mad moments but generally not too bad. The footbridge with steps it expects you to use to cross the railway in Didcot is pretty mental and it goes a long way around to go over Wittenham Clumps up a narrow steep road when there is a perfectly adequate road nearby that cuts off about 4 miles. Fine for leisure cycling, not so fine for commuting in the rain.

John

[Mick F]

The one up to the Granite Way at Lake was also crazy and I can see how annoying that would be to encounter if you were heading SW. Basically a steep stony path which was virtually impossible to cycle on using tourers.

Yes. It's a stupid excuse for a cycle track, though ok for pack-horses!

I keep saying this, and I should really start a new thread on it. If you come from Okehampton on the Granite Way, DON'T follow the signs off the track and under Lake Viaduct and down that stupid rocky path.

GO STRAIGHT ON instead. The signs say that it's a dead end and only goes to a picnic area. Wrong!!!

Keep going past the picnic area, and follow the track. It changes to fine gravel for 100 yds, then at a "No Entry" sign in front of the railway bridge on a gate, turn left, go up a slope, and alongside a fence. 100yds later, you'll pop out at a layby on the A386.

Follow the main road to your left (south) for less than half a mile. Busy road, but it's fine and level with no pinch-points. Quite safe. You'll get to the Fox and Hounds Hotel at a road junction. Turn right there towards Bridestow on a lovely quiet tree-lined lane.

100yds or so downhill, you'll find the other section of the Granite Way on your left. You can carry on down the hill into Bridestow if you want. Pretty village with a shop and a pub - The Whit Hart.

[meic]

I am quite happy to have a debate with you EF, I am not a Sustrans "loyalist" if they take a step too far in the direction you say then I could well "hand in my badge".
At the moment I feel that the good outweighs the bad.

The last time I was told to get off the (word refering to copulation removed) road, I was stood on the pavement outside my house 6 miles from any cycle track, Sustrans or otherwise. I would bet a large amount of money that the creature in question would not have heard of Sustrans.

Now MickF you are a sucsess in Sustrans terms because you do use your bike for day to day traffic. So in brutal marketing terms, what you think doesnt matter, far more important to pay attention to those who will not ride on the roads and create an environment which will coax them out of their cars.

[Mick F]

Now MickF you are a sucsess in Sustrans terms because you do use your bike for day to day traffic. So in brutal marketing terms, what you think doesnt matter, far more important to pay attention to those who will not ride on the roads and create an environment which will coax them out of their cars.

Wise words indeed.

[thirdcrank]

meic

Your case seems to be based on it being better than nothing. In the heady days of 1997, when Mandy and Two Jags (now known as Two Bogs) were singing 'It can only get better' New Labour came to power at a time when there was a feeling that official talk about promoting cycling might be genuine. Bearing in mind that they inherited the National Cycling Strategy from the outgoing lot, there was, in theory at least, a bipartisan agreement that there should be a policy of encouraging people to cycle as an alternative to driving for short journeys (NB This is not the same as driving half way across the country with the bikes on a roof rack so the kids can ride a couple of miles up the Walrus Trail or whatever.)

The National Cycling Strategy went nowhere because there was absolutely no political will to implement it. Transport was one of the many things that Blair was not interested in and was lumped with all the rest of the stuff that bored him in Prescott's grandiose but unwieldy empire. At the same time, the huge sum of Lottery £££ (sufficient to build a few hundred yards of motorway) was shoved towards Sustrans and the rest, as they say, is history. Among other things, as the NCS targets for growth in numbers were missed, the CTC just rolled over to be tickled. (It's called 'incorporation.')

I think you are simply wrong that off-road provision (be it near or far from actual roads) does not detract from the right of cyclists to be on the roads. Somebody above mentioned roundabouts. I still have my copy of the Sustrans Publication 'The National Cycle Network ' Guidelines and Practical Details' (Second edition) 1997, from the days when I too briefly fell for the Sustrans propaganda. Page 87 shows, in a composite picture, various recommendations for dealing with roundabouts on the NCN. One of these is an "unsegregated cycle/pededestrian facility" AKA shared use path removing cyclists from the carriageway. It still has my pencilled remark "This is rubbish" from when I first saw it. I even wrote to the Ivory Tower in Bristol, predicting how that diagram would be used by the highway authorities. I no longer have the reply but I do not think it would be inaccurate to summarise it as 'you don't know what you are talking about.' The shared-use path + 'CYCLISTS DISMOUNT' signs is now the Highways Agencies standard provision for cyclists at roundabouts.

The really clever part of the official wheeze here is that quite a lot of our campaigning energy is dissipated on this sort of futile discussion, rather than putting pressure on the authorities. They laugh at us.

[Mick F]

They laugh at us.

My point, I think.

If all cyclists got on the roads rather than pavements or cycle ways/tracks, we might be taken seriously.

If we hide away, are frightened by the traffic, we will be laughed at.

[Ivor Tingting]

It really irks me that Sustrans get the level funding they do. Often I see NCN Sustrans routes that are no more than rough farmers tracks or alternatively quiet B-roads or unclassified roads that anyone with half a brain can find on an OS map. As for the Sustrans routing on the C2C most is on quiet B or unclassified roads or when approaching Consett they actually route you into and round the shopping arcades. If they want to be taken seriously as genuine cycling facility provider they must improve their choice of cycle routes and the infrastructure of them. Currently most of them are not fit for purpose so I remain on the roads.

[byegad]

The sort of roundabout avoidance routing that the OP complains of is rarely a SUSTRANS issue.

Sedgefield council put in such a route to 'avoid' two adjacent roundabouts and it's plain stupid, crossing the main road twice and a two side road.

As the OP states I too can ride a roundabout and in this case give way twice to traffic approaching from my front and right rather than give way six times (there are islands on two of the roads the route crosses) to traffic approaching from my right at 90 degrees or more, plus negotiating a bus shelter! Whoever 'designed' this has spent a lot of money on dropped curbs, red paint, blue signs and all of it is wasted. Plus if anything is designed to heighten the perception that cycling is dangerous then this tortuous 'solution' to a none problem is THE one to make most new cyclists park their bike in the garage and leave it there.

This is miles from the NCN route one and not connected to it other than the fact that all roads are connected.

[fatboy]

I posted this on the slow cycling thread

"So what we need are town roads that allow "slow" cycling in all towns with no gaps in where you can get to and to prioritise the people living in the town over people driving through."

The key issues that we should be campaigning on are not whether Sustrans should convert an old railway or not but how towns etc can be made better for cyclists and the people who live in them rather than motorists passing through.

Where I think that cycle paths should have a place is when they create a dual carriageway that eats up a standard road. There is one like this near me and it irks me that I have to go miles to get back home rather than use the dual carriageway (which I'd never do unless absolutely desperate).

Now the idea of cyclepaths has unfortunately brought about a further conflict between motorist and cyclist that needs to be addressed by goverment, police, CTC etc. However this matter is not Sustrans's fault IMHO.

[rapidfire72]

I use a section of the NCN for going to work, which I think it's great. Otherwise I would have to cross a very busy roundabout in the peak-time or use the notorious A19, many thanks to Sustrans for the hard work over the years. It did also produce a coast to coast namely the C2C and saved the local post office along the route from closure and pumped a lot of money into the local economy.

[ANTONISH]

I've got to be with Mick F on this one.
Although there are odd usable sections of the NCN and Sustrans, the former often leads cyclists into ludicrous or dangerous situations and sustrans paths often have virtually unridable surfaces.
My own opinion is that they are a gift to the motorised transport lobby. It's galling to see the CTC expend it's efforts on "facilities" and clinging to the coat tails of Sustrans instead of concentrating on improving road safety for cyclists.
I've come to the point like many others of keeping my CTC membership for insurance purposes and not much else.