Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: rogerzilla on 12 November, 2018, 12:24:17 pm

Title: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: rogerzilla on 12 November, 2018, 12:24:17 pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46179270
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 12 November, 2018, 01:23:28 pm
Here's the report in full: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_content_type/ncn_review_report_paths_for_everyone.pdf

Hopefully this represents an end to the Pokémon approach to NCN routes, with a shift in focus to improving what they've got.  They seem to be prioritising traffic-free routes over accessibility and social safety, so convoluted dog-emptying leisure routes are still the order of the day.

Funding left as an exercise for the reader.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: mattc on 12 November, 2018, 02:22:03 pm
I can't work out who is making these comments - it reads like:

Sustrans: Sustrans found that Sustrans has made some crappy, unsafe routes. Sustrans hopes that Sustrans will get their shit together.


EDIT: I only read the BBC page, not Kim's link, sorry!
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: rogerzilla on 12 November, 2018, 02:25:23 pm
I read it as "Yes, our paths are crap.  Give us funding to build more."
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 12 November, 2018, 02:33:39 pm
The report is mostly stats and spin (53% of our network is 'good'!), interspersed with lots of smiley photos of atypical[1] network users.  The crux of the report is a list of 15 recommendations, which "Sustrans will now work in partnership with local authorities, private and charitable landowners, national governments, agencies, users, local communities and all the many organisations that make the Network possible to turn [...] into reality":

Quote
1. Set the tone for harmonious use of the Network by everyone.
2. Remove or redesign all 16,000 barriers on the Network to make it accessible to everyone, with no barriers in place for continuous travel.
3. Transform the Network by replacing existing on-road sections with new traffic-free paths or by creating quiet-way sections so it is safer for everyone.
4. Ensure that where the Network is on a quiet-way section the speed limit is 20mph in built-up areas and 40mph in rural areas.
5. Improve safety at crossings where the Network crosses roads or railways.
6. Adopt a new quality standard to ensure path widths and surfaces are built for everyone.
7. Improve signage so everyone can use the paths without a map or smartphone.
8. Deliver over 50 activation projects across the UK by 2023 to improve the Network and demonstrate change.
9. Introduce a process for de-designation of parts of the Network that cannot be improved – and a clear process for incorporating new routes that fill gaps or make new connections.
10. Make it easier for people using the Network to feed back on its condition – and use this insight to improve it.
11. Promote the Network to new users.
12. Encourage greater community involvement in designing, developing and maintaining the Network.
13. Provide open data on the Network.
14. Report regularly on the impact of the Network in improving everyone’s lives and places.
15. Establish clear governance to bring together land managers, funders, users and others to deliver these recommendations in partnership.

I can't really fault that list, but - with the exception of signage and perhaps data provision - the the things that will actually make a serious improvement to the network (widening, resurfacing, lighting, removal of barriers) are going to be politically difficult and prohibitively expensive.


[1] Only one person has a dog, and it's on a short lead and not in the process of being emptied.  None of them are loitering teenagers.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: rogerzilla on 12 November, 2018, 02:42:54 pm
Tarmac the routes and sweep them regularly.

It ain't gonna happen, is it?
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: hulver on 12 November, 2018, 03:01:47 pm
The report is mostly stats and spin (53% of our network is 'good'!), interspersed with lots of smiley photos of atypical[1] network users.  The crux of the report is a list of 15 recommendations, which "Sustrans will now work in partnership with local authorities, private and charitable landowners, national governments, agencies, users, local communities and all the many organisations that make the Network possible to turn [...] into reality":

Quote
1. Set the tone for harmonious use of the Network by everyone.
2. Remove or redesign all 16,000 barriers on the Network to make it accessible to everyone, with no barriers in place for continuous travel.
3. Transform the Network by replacing existing on-road sections with new traffic-free paths or by creating quiet-way sections so it is safer for everyone.
4. Ensure that where the Network is on a quiet-way section the speed limit is 20mph in built-up areas and 40mph in rural areas.
5. Improve safety at crossings where the Network crosses roads or railways.
6. Adopt a new quality standard to ensure path widths and surfaces are built for everyone.
7. Improve signage so everyone can use the paths without a map or smartphone.
8. Deliver over 50 activation projects across the UK by 2023 to improve the Network and demonstrate change.
9. Introduce a process for de-designation of parts of the Network that cannot be improved – and a clear process for incorporating new routes that fill gaps or make new connections.
10. Make it easier for people using the Network to feed back on its condition – and use this insight to improve it.
11. Promote the Network to new users.
12. Encourage greater community involvement in designing, developing and maintaining the Network.
13. Provide open data on the Network.
14. Report regularly on the impact of the Network in improving everyone’s lives and places.
15. Establish clear governance to bring together land managers, funders, users and others to deliver these recommendations in partnership.

I can't really fault that list, but - with the exception of signage and perhaps data provision - the the things that will actually make a serious improvement to the network (widening, resurfacing, lighting, removal of barriers) are going to be politically difficult and prohibitively expensive.


[1] Only one person has a dog, and it's on a short lead and not in the process of being emptied.  None of them are loitering teenagers.

Lots of "or" in that list that give them cop outs between what's right and what's cheep.

Remove or redesign all 16,000 barriers
Transform the Network by replacing existing on-road sections with new traffic-free paths or by creating quiet-way sections

And there's nothing in that list to say "make routes that go directly between places people want to go"

At the moment I see NCN signposts as warnings that the route will most likely be crap and I should use the road. I can't see that changing in a hurry.

Now if they did something bold like "we will remove NCN designation from any path not meeting our new standards" I might have hope. For now, I doubt much will change.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 12 November, 2018, 03:19:26 pm
Lots of "or" in that list that give them cop outs between what's right and what's cheep.

Remove or redesign all 16,000 barriers

Indeed.  I accept that some barriers exist for legitimate purposes (controlling livestock, or keeping cars off the path) and might reasonably be replaced by a more accessible gate/cattle-grid design or the now legendary single bollard, that's a lot of weasel-room if they want to take it.


Quote
Transform the Network by replacing existing on-road sections with new traffic-free paths or by creating quiet-way sections

And there's nothing in that list to say "make routes that go directly between places people want to go"

This is the big one, I think.  While they do commit to a traffic level for their definition of 'quiet', any traffic at all is a barrier to some path users (particularly independent children), and a strong disincentive to less confident cyclists.

And there's the fundamental lack of commitment to whether they're building a transport network (as the name suggests) or a series of leisure routes (what the NCN has actually achieved).  Personally, I think they'd be better off accepting that they're doing the latter.  Proper cycle paths for transport are - for the most part - going to be boring, direct stretches of tarmac/concrete alongside main roads, and that's surely the domain of local councils, rather than a railway-path-reclaiming charity.  The off-road paths that are actually useful transport routes in urban areas are treated as useful paths by local users, not part of some network that takes you from A to B via C, D, F and J.

There are some lovely on-road sections of NCN in rural areas, but since The National Byway is a thing, why obfuscate the issue by including them?  And us cycle-tourist types can see the yellow lines on OS maps just fine without little blue signs (though I accept they may function to publicise the network).


Quote
Now if they did something bold like "we will remove NCN designation from any path not meeting our new standards" I might have hope. For now, I doubt much will change.

That's point 9 in the list.  I suspect the sticking point is the new standard will be too low.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: hulver on 12 November, 2018, 03:57:57 pm
Now if they did something bold like "we will remove NCN designation from any path not meeting our new standards" I might have hope. For now, I doubt much will change.

That's point 9 in the list.  I suspect the sticking point is the new standard will be too low.

Ah, I'd missed that.

And there's the fundamental lack of commitment to whether they're building a transport network (as the name suggests) or a series of leisure routes (what the NCN has actually achieved).  Personally, I think they'd be better off accepting that they're doing the latter.  Proper cycle paths for transport are - for the most part - going to be boring, direct stretches of tarmac/concrete alongside main roads, and that's surely the domain of local councils, rather than a railway-path-reclaiming charity.  The off-road paths that are actually useful transport routes in urban areas are treated as useful paths by local users, not part of some network that takes you from A to B via C, D, F and J.

I think you're right on that.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: hulver on 12 November, 2018, 05:19:01 pm
Our National Cycle Network.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qTBdcWHYCg

A railway bridge with 5ft height clearance.

You might think that's safe from other vehicles, but no a car drives through as well.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 12 November, 2018, 05:31:15 pm
It's the vehicle access to a marina, IIRC.

Anyway, having to duck under a low bridge is relatively accessible by NCN standards.  At least nobody has to lift anything.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Hot Flatus on 12 November, 2018, 06:18:03 pm
I've always regarded Sustrans as similar to the CTC.

Both a bit pointless, as they dont really make much difference.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: grams on 12 November, 2018, 07:14:13 pm


Anyway, having to duck under a low bridge is relatively accessible by NCN standards.  At least nobody has to lift anything.

It has a half-hearted and completely-ignored cyclists dismount sign on it. It's also part of the Transport for London's newly designated Quietway 2, which also includes a gravel section and an old canal bridge with a barely-cycleable gradient.

Quote
Now if they did something bold like "we will remove NCN designation from any path not meeting our new standards" I might have hope. For now, I doubt much will change.

That's point 9 in the list.  I suspect the sticking point is the new standard will be too low.

It says "de-designation of parts of the Network that cannot be improved". Everything *can* be improved! Whether there's a hope of it happening in anyone concerned's lifetime is another matter...
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Jurek on 12 November, 2018, 07:21:52 pm
I've always regarded Sustrans as similar to the CTC.

Both a bit pointless, as they dont really make much difference.
Sums it up for me.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 12 November, 2018, 07:35:54 pm
Quote
Now if they did something bold like "we will remove NCN designation from any path not meeting our new standards" I might have hope. For now, I doubt much will change.

That's point 9 in the list.  I suspect the sticking point is the new standard will be too low.

It says "de-designation of parts of the Network that cannot be improved". Everything *can* be improved! Whether there's a hope of it happening in anyone concerned's lifetime is another matter...

Theoretically, sure, but in the absence of compulsory purchase, there are going to be sections of the network where land-owners are unwilling to cooperate (eg. with barrier removal or surface improvements), and removing that section from the network is a pragmatic approach.

A detour or gap in the route that you can see on the map is better than a route that leads you on for n miles then traps you with an impassable obstacle.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: sizbut on 12 November, 2018, 08:23:04 pm
But you do agree they make a difference, even if not much in your opinion. Personally, they do a lot better than doing nothing which is what we would have without them.

In the last two years of travelling we've ridden some great Sustrans dedicate bike paths and some lovely quite roads I wouldn't have found for myself. Yes, we've also been directed along several miles of beach (great fun but certainly not for everyone useful cycle route) and along a section of NCN where on another day I might have hated the sheep shit cover grass track). So yes, its a mixed network but what do you expect on a fraction of the road networks budget.

My gripe if any would be better signage. There is no distinction between well surface routes and off-road, car free and mixed. And I have been at junctions where there's been two blue signs correctly pointing left and right but no hint of which was going to X and which to Y. 
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: grams on 12 November, 2018, 08:46:02 pm
Theoretically, sure, but in the absence of compulsory purchase, there are going to be sections of the network where land-owners are unwilling to cooperate (eg. with barrier removal or surface improvements), and removing that section from the network is a pragmatic approach.

Errr, that's my point. If I had my druthers I'd have them remove all signs from anything that isn't *currently* tarmacced and passable on a laden Dutch bike until such time that they are.

But it sounds like they're only talking about removing signs from routes after they've concluded they can *never* be improved, which seems a very high bar.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: ElyDave on 13 November, 2018, 06:17:20 am
New traffic free paths!

The biggest problem on my Scottish adventure was the traffic free paths right through the prom, or a dog-emptier territory.  Traffic free may be one thing, but what about cycle-ped separation? Or the routes that take you half a mile out of your way, to avoid a traffic light?
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Peat on 13 November, 2018, 09:00:31 am
It'll take alot to give me some level of faith in the NCN. It's just so inconsistent. I have tried, to my detriment, to use it on various touring trips and was often burned. If I was to user the ONLY NCN route local to me, it'd double my commute and i'd need a mountain bike for it 9 months of the year.

I'm also bitter that the meager funding rarely seems to make it out of Bristol & Bath. Some fabulous facilities around there - then it just becomes a wasteland further east.

I toured through Normandy this summer, ended up using the EuroVelo routes more than i had planned. Such a pleasure.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: toontra on 13 November, 2018, 09:23:35 am
It'll take alot to give me some level of faith in the NCN. It's just so inconsistent. I have tried, to my detriment, to use it on various touring trips and was often burned.

This reflects my own experience.  I now actively avoid them. They may be OK for a local 2-mile trip but are practically useless for a joined-up route of any length, and (as pointed out above) some are so illogically convoluted you would be quicker walking.

Could it be said that Sustrans is actually a negative force, in that it allows governments a fig-leaf of respectability for doing something for the cycling cause, thus avoiding the bigger picture of real infrastructure commitments?
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: ElyDave on 13 November, 2018, 09:34:08 am
I criticise the West Coast Ardrossan to Ayr section, but I am pretty happy about NCN 11 which passes through my village running Cambridge to Kings Lynn, the Wicken Fen section can get a bit cut up in the winter, but is still road bike passable adn the off road sections are generally there for a rational traffic avoidance.  Lots of thought seems to have gone into this one, but there does seem to be a lot of inconsistency
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: djrikki on 13 November, 2018, 09:38:22 am
@toontra

Absolutely correct, if you are the average club rider or a rider that does more than the average commute they are just not convenient to use.  Personally I do a lot of long distance cycling and find it difficult (without local knowledge because that's what you need 99% of the time) to use them as I just don't know a) what the surface is like or b) what obstacles I might find along the way.

When route building I use Strava route builder often and would love to integrate more of those yellow lines which I see all the time they look like great shortcuts!  Jumping on Kamoot you often soon find out they are walking or MTB territory.  I find Kamoot helps a lot in that respect - just wish that more of these cycle paths were made of asphalt as you are never quite sure what you are getting into until you arrive.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: mattc on 13 November, 2018, 10:05:53 am
...

Could it be said that Sustrans is actually a negative force, in that it allows governments a fig-leaf of respectability for doing something for the cycling cause, thus avoiding the bigger picture of real infrastructure commitments?
Possibly!

Then there's the "Get on the cycle-path!" problem. If there was only a road - and no shite cycle-path - drivers would tolerate cyclists more readily.

(This is a tangible issue on my commute, where I usually stay off the road for about a mile of Sustrans, then rejoin the same road (same drivers) for another mile. We get very little shit on that second section. QED )
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Oscar's dad on 13 November, 2018, 01:00:37 pm
A few years back I spent 2 or 3 years working voluntarily as a Sustrans NCN Ranger.  I jacked it in after concluding that the NCN was largely pointless and Sustrans' approach at the time was flawed.  Basically I became frustrated that they were keener on pursuing objectives which were expensive largely unachievable flights of fancy rather than focusing on making the best of routes and resources which already existing, even though some of these outcomes were far from perfect but better then nothing or the least worst option.  I've no idea what Sustrans' approach is now, perhaps its better.

We will never have anything approaching the cycling environment you see in the Netherlands and other enlightened European countries as there isn't the political will in the UK as Joe and Josephine Public are too wedded to their cars.  Nor is there the budget.

However, good news!   We already have a fantastic cycle network, its called the UK's roads.  Obviously they need to be made safer for vulnerable road users like cyclists so we need  presumed or strict liability (https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice).  However, bad news!  I doubt this will ever happen as there isn't the political will in the UK as Joe and Josephine Public are too wedded to their cars.

Ho hum  ::-)
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 13 November, 2018, 01:15:58 pm
Then there's the "Get on the cycle-path!" problem. If there was only a road - and no shite cycle-path - drivers would tolerate cyclists more readily.

Nahh, they just tell you to get on the pavement (or "off the fucking road") instead.  They don't actually care where you are, as long as you're not In The Way.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: sojournermike on 13 November, 2018, 05:39:16 pm
I still struggle with the lack of any reasonably direct and protected cycle route/infrastructure between Harrogate and Leeds. There a people asking for ever more leisure routes - all good - but why should a route intended to avoid most of the fast early morning traffic increase my commute from 17 to 30+ miles...

Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: bobb on 13 November, 2018, 06:59:29 pm
At least they're getting better. It's slow progress, for sure - but the signed routes are way better now than they were say 15 years ago.

I've slagged them off many times in the past, but at least they're doing something. Do people really think they should just give up?
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 13 November, 2018, 07:11:05 pm
Nope.  Making the NCN an accessible and appropriately mapped/signposted collection of leisure routes and circuitous urban traffic-free routes is a worthy enough objective.  It's unlikely to be a transport solution for all but the most traffic-averse cyclists, but that's still potentially valuable for children etc, and there's nothing wrong with leisure routes.

It's just not sustainable transport.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 13 November, 2018, 07:59:08 pm
I don't think they should give up on the "transport" idea, just identify which routes are family leisure oriented (most of them) and which are going somewhere (some of them). Bearing in mind that those which are reasonably direct and well surfaced, suitable for commuters and transport, are also great for mum dad and kids on a sunny sunday.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 13 November, 2018, 08:03:33 pm
Yeah, there's always some overlap - especially at a local level.  But unless they want to re-purpose some of those Silly Sustrans Gates™ to achieve filtered permeability, or get involved in road planning, they seem quite detached from cycling for transport.

There's also a not unreasonable argument that turning some of those lovely railway paths back into railways would be a win for sustainable transport.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: mattc on 13 November, 2018, 08:09:17 pm
Nope.  Making the NCN an accessible and appropriately mapped/signposted collection of leisure routes and circuitous urban traffic-free routes is a worthy enough objective.  It's unlikely to be a transport solution for all but the most traffic-averse cyclists, but that's still potentially valuable for children etc, and there's nothing wrong with leisure routes.

It's just not sustainable transport.
Quite.

I think they could do more for "Sus Trans" by getting into road planning; better still, getting the minor modifications done that create very usable routes for ALL cyclists at a fraction of the cost of full-on traffic-free well-surfaced infrastructure.

I do fear that the crappy stuff they produce does more harm than good. Promoting
- drive-n-ride, and
- the idea that bikes shouldn't be on the roads. It's unnatural! It's dangerous! It's a nuisance!
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 13 November, 2018, 08:14:49 pm
I think they could do more for "Sus Trans" by getting into road planning

AIUI they do provide consultation on cycling-related schemes for local government.  As far as I can see this appears to be an exercise in giving their seal of approval to any old bollocks[1] in exchange for some fee or other.


[1] Their proposal for King[']s Heath High Street a few years ago - while undeniably an improvement for pedestrians - seemed to use cyclists as traffic-calming.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: ian on 13 November, 2018, 08:20:58 pm

However, good news!   We already have a fantastic cycle network, its called the UK's roads.  Obviously they need to be made safer for vulnerable road users like cyclists so we need  presumed or strict liability (https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice).  However, bad news!  I doubt this will ever happen as there isn't the political will in the UK as Joe and Josephine Public are too wedded to their cars.


People generally aren't going to cycle on the roads. End of story. Even assuming some weird bizarro universe of benevolent drivers, it's just not fun for most people mixing it up with lorries and vehicles doing a multiple of their speed. They're not going to do it. It's just not fun or pleasant.

I hate the entire 'things won't ever change' thing. Things do change. Things are always changing.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 13 November, 2018, 08:22:13 pm
One of the problems is that Sustrans has become like "hoover". We call anything a sustrans path even if Sustrans had no part in its design, construction or maintenance. Of course when we're riding along it we don't care who made it, just what it's like, but it does mean that badly thought out local authority paths do their bit to discredit the sustrans name and thereby the whole concept.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 13 November, 2018, 08:23:49 pm
One of the problems is that Sustrans has become like "hoover". We call anything a sustrans path even if Sustrans had no part in its design, construction or maintenance. Of course when we're riding along it we don't care who made it, just what it's like, but it does mean that badly thought out local authority paths do their bit to discredit the sustrans name and thereby the whole concept.

Given that Sustrans have been happily sticking their NCN signage on them, I don't think they're entirely innocent in that.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 13 November, 2018, 08:23:58 pm
There's also a not unreasonable argument that turning some of those lovely railway paths back into railways would be a win for sustainable transport.
That's a whole other problem that we collectively fail to get a grip* on.

*Pun intended, for those who get it.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 13 November, 2018, 08:25:15 pm
One of the problems is that Sustrans has become like "hoover". We call anything a sustrans path even if Sustrans had no part in its design, construction or maintenance. Of course when we're riding along it we don't care who made it, just what it's like, but it does mean that badly thought out local authority paths do their bit to discredit the sustrans name and thereby the whole concept.

Given that Sustrans have been happily sticking their NCN signage on them, I don't think they're entirely innocent in that.
There are zillions of paths and "facilities" that are not part of NCN. Some good, some crap, some useful, some fun, a few both, many neither.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 13 November, 2018, 08:43:16 pm
I think I'm reasonably consistent about them locally.  Indeed, I tend to forget that some of the towpaths are actually part of NCN routes, so in my mind it's only really NCN5.  There are a couple of other local greenways that fit the NCN stereotype (vis surfaces, silly barriers, dismount signs, etc) that aren't anything to do with Sustrans, but I tend to blame the council for those directly after their repeated ignoring of Pushbikes' advice[1] on surface treatment.

But faced with J Random Greenway in an area I'm less familiar with, the assumption is that it's part of the NCN.  This seems to be a better heuristic than it ought to be, because most of the time[2] its presence in the NCN is what's made me aware of it.  Credit where it's due, that proves there's merit in a national network.  They just need more consistent standards.


[1] "When you've covered it in lovely smooth tarmac, instead of wasting money sprinkling chipseal on top, leave it as lovely smooth tarmac."
[2] When I'm not in pedal-and-follow navigation mode, basically.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: mattc on 14 November, 2018, 10:28:08 am

However, good news!   We already have a fantastic cycle network, its called the UK's roads.  Obviously they need to be made safer for vulnerable road users like cyclists so we need  presumed or strict liability (https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/dutch-cycle-because-strict-liability-made-everybody-drive-safely-and-play-nice).  However, bad news!  I doubt this will ever happen as there isn't the political will in the UK as Joe and Josephine Public are too wedded to their cars.


People generally aren't going to cycle on the roads. End of story. Even assuming some weird bizarro universe of benevolent drivers, it's just not fun for most people mixing it up with lorries and vehicles doing a multiple of their speed. They're not going to do it. It's just not fun or pleasant.

I hate the entire 'things won't ever change' thing. Things do change. Things are always changing.
Not all roads are the same - reducing speed limits, the right kind of traffic calming, sensible priorities at junctions etc can all add-up to make roads acceptably pleasant for almost everyone to ride on.

(I haven't ridden in the promised lands of Copenhagen/Nederlands yet, but ... ) I've seen this work in Belgium cities. Loads of cyclists on "proper" roads.

If you and I pray hard enough, Ian, perhaps it will happen over here!
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: vorsprung on 14 November, 2018, 10:41:27 am

(https://i.imgur.com/vMSaaCH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/jOAY5UT.png)
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Oscar's dad on 14 November, 2018, 10:47:05 am
I agree with mattc, it is possible to ride safely on roads and as mattc also points out there are things which can be done to make them safer for cyclists and peds.

Despite ian's optimistic tone I still don't think we will see a rapid adoption of measures that are prejudicial to the interests of motorists but help cyclists and peds.  Remember the Dutch only got their cycling infrastructure in the 60s because public opinion drove political will.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: SoreTween on 14 November, 2018, 01:28:26 pm
Highways England have found some change down the back of the sofa and will use it towards the improvement of the ncn.
Assuming the £3m is from one years budget it is 0.13% of their declared 2017-18 funding.

#betterthannothing #onlyjust
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: vorsprung on 14 November, 2018, 02:09:20 pm
One of the problems is that Sustrans has become like "hoover". We call anything a sustrans path even if Sustrans had no part in its design, construction or maintenance. Of course when we're riding along it we don't care who made it, just what it's like, but it does mean that badly thought out local authority paths do their bit to discredit the sustrans name and thereby the whole concept.

See my twitter exchange with Sustrans.   They say we've failed to be a catalyst or provide a quality control or however you look at it, so suggest ways we can carry on getting money.  I think a better approach would be to abandon the Sustrans model.

Dunno if that means only badging paths that met a standard or getting more funding for proper facilities or taking a different approach entirely like legislating aggressively against cars.  What Sustrans have been doing for the last 30 or 40 years is part of the problem and not a solution
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 14 November, 2018, 03:02:22 pm
There's even less chance of legislating aggressively against cars than having a nationwide network of direct, barrier-free, smoothly surfaced cycle paths.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: quixoticgeek on 14 November, 2018, 03:57:28 pm
Nope.  Making the NCN an accessible and appropriately mapped/signposted collection of leisure routes and circuitous urban traffic-free routes is a worthy enough objective.  It's unlikely to be a transport solution for all but the most traffic-averse cyclists, but that's still potentially valuable for children etc, and there's nothing wrong with leisure routes.

It's just not sustainable transport.

This.

It really annoys me how far from transport infrastructure sustrans' network actually is. Around Canterbury they opened several routes with much fanfair, but half of them are flooded for 3 months of the year, and in all but summer they are basically comedy off roading experiences. If you try to plan a cycle route from Canterbury to Sandwich, it's exceptionally hard to get any route planner to choose NCN1 over any other route.

Sustrans, the longest route between two points. (May require a canoe).

J
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: MikeFromLFE on 14 November, 2018, 04:28:53 pm
After seeing the headlines I was positive and enthusiastic.
After looking at the reports I am sceptical and downcast.
I wonder at the quality of the condition reports, and question how the data was collected. The analysis looks spot-on, but if the data is suspect then it's a pile of straw. (Part of this relates to my current volunteering with Canal & River Trust, and none of my supervisors (fairly senior) know about any Sustrans audit of the towpaths in our region in the NCN)
I wonder at the will - particularly given the pathetic timetables - to deregister routes. Surely giving land owners, and more to the point, local authorities something of an ultimatum would help to focus minds (yes, I know about budgets, but hey! austerity is at an end.....)
My key sceptical moment was when I looked at the pathetically low number of 'Activation Projects' (great name  :sick: ) for my area - East Midlands - and thought that if Sustrans are serious, this would be a catalogue of ambitious projects. If Sustrans are really committed to change then there should be scope for a lot of new volunteer input, in new and exciting ways, and on new and interesting projects. But, I look at their volunteering opportunities pages, and what do I see? Zilch about the new vision.
I hope this pans out into a new vision - or a pair of visions - for high quality leisure routes and for high quality transport routes, but I'm unimpressed at the moment.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: DuncanM on 14 November, 2018, 04:38:27 pm
One of the problems is that Sustrans has become like "hoover". We call anything a sustrans path even if Sustrans had no part in its design, construction or maintenance. Of course when we're riding along it we don't care who made it, just what it's like, but it does mean that badly thought out local authority paths do their bit to discredit the sustrans name and thereby the whole concept.

See my twitter exchange with Sustrans.   They say we've failed to be a catalyst or provide a quality control or however you look at it, so suggest ways we can carry on getting money.  I think a better approach would be to abandon the Sustrans model.

Dunno if that means only badging paths that met a standard or getting more funding for proper facilities or taking a different approach entirely like legislating aggressively against cars.  What Sustrans have been doing for the last 30 or 40 years is part of the problem and not a solution

The question is - why are the Sustrans paths crap?

If it's because sustrans are rubbish, and other organisations would be much better, then kicking them out of the way and allowing the others to do it sounds like a great plan.
On the other hand, if it's because there's no money to do more than half a job, and the money is all local, so you can't have half the paths done well, then it seems that sustrans aren't the problem, and the lack of funds is the problem.
I don't think there is the political will at a local or national level to deliver good cycling provision and to set aside sufficient budget to do it properly (and I certainly don't think there's the political will to "punish the hard working motorist" to tilt the current balance significantly against cars. Unless the political will to change things exists, (or some wealthy philanthropist pours money into it) I'm not sure that any organisation can achieve a really good level of cycle provision.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: MikeFromLFE on 14 November, 2018, 04:46:53 pm

The question is - why are the Sustrans paths crap?


It's a very good question. I think it's one that the recent report goes some way to start to address - although it doesn't go far enough.
Firstly there is no consistent design manual - leading to Sustrans* accepting almost any old carp.
   *I don't know if the Sustrans acceptance of the worst of the implementations is at a local or national level - if it's local/regional then the central management needs to get a grip on the provincial kulaks and give them some re-education sessions
Secondly it's probably down to a desire to expand the Sustrans empire as quickly and widely as possible - leading to (1) above. The National Byway was/is a counterbalance to this, and maybe Sustrans needs to give way to other providers where Sustrans cannot commission routes deliver to the required high standards. Equally, I wonder if too many local authorities were too keen to have the Sustrans badge of approval on their crap paths, and Sustrans were too quick to oblige.
And, yes, funding.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Wanlock Dod on 14 November, 2018, 05:47:46 pm
I can't help but feel that the point of Sustrans has been to make it appear to the bulk of the population (i.e. people who rarely if ever ride bikes) that everything is really great for cyclists. I always seem to find the on-road sections have relatively pristine tarmac, whereas I am not aware of any off-road sections that have ever had any resurfacing. Perhaps we are only prepared to spend the money where it is likely to be of greatest benefit to motorists, either by having fewer potholes or getting the bloody cyclists out of the way of the important traffic. The bits of the network that people actually want to use (i.e. away from traffic) are generally utter crap, and most people are only prepared to use their cars on the rest of it. None of these things seem to have promoted active travel in any way but as long as nobody complains, and nobody will because they all have better things to be doing with their time, nothing will happen to improve the situation.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: vorsprung on 14 November, 2018, 05:57:22 pm

The question is - why are the Sustrans paths crap?


Because that is what a Sustrans path is, how it is conceived, nurtured and realised.

In the rare cases that the paths are fabulous, I'd like to see a full analysis of how this miracle occurred.  For example the paths on the North Bristol ring road

Mostly they do these things
1) take an existing back lane that is quiet and put signs on it.   Usually said back lane goes up and down like a yo-yo and is covered in gravel and mud.  Great example: out of the back of Moorbath

2) take a very very short section near a new development or road change.  Build an A1 grade separated facility but only for 100 metres or so.  An example in Exeter on the hill between the park n ride and Aldi

3) take an existing off road path of some sort and add signage and some way of getting on and off it.  If there are problems with safety or basic use add signs such as "dismount to pass under the bridge"  Example: the Tiverton - Burlescombe canal path.

4) paint some lines on the edge of a road.  Join up various sections with step kerbs.  Example, most of Bristol

That is the Sustrans approach, the tokenism, the inadequate, the unsuitable - much of it has a "NCN" sign on it

Dunno why I am saying this for the 100th time :) I guess you asked.....
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 14 November, 2018, 08:50:18 pm
I can't help but feel that the point of Sustrans has been to make it appear to the bulk of the population (i.e. people who rarely if ever ride bikes) that everything is really great for cyclists. I always seem to find the on-road sections have relatively pristine tarmac, whereas I am not aware of any off-road sections that have ever had any resurfacing. Perhaps we are only prepared to spend the money where it is likely to be of greatest benefit to motorists, either by having fewer potholes or getting the bloody cyclists out of the way of the important traffic. The bits of the network that people actually want to use (i.e. away from traffic) are generally utter crap, and most people are only prepared to use their cars on the rest of it. None of these things seem to have promoted active travel in any way but as long as nobody complains, and nobody will because they all have better things to be doing with their time, nothing will happen to improve the situation.
When I was in Gloucester a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that the Sharpness canal towpath was being tarmacced. I doubt that's anything to do with Sustrans but it is part of NCN41. The trouble with surfacing off-road sections is that locals object on 'environmental' grounds.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 14 November, 2018, 10:28:13 pm
Since I've been living here all the towpaths within the Birmingham City Council area have been resurfaced (stupidly, but that's another story).  As has a section of the Rea Valley route south of Cannon Hill Park.  So that's bits of NCN5, 535, 533 and possibly a bit of 81, depending on where they actually stopped at the Smethwick end (it's been ages since I've been out that way).

Nothing to do with Sustrans, but there you go.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: mattc on 14 November, 2018, 11:19:35 pm

(https://i.imgur.com/vMSaaCH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/jOAY5UT.png)
Summary:
We've pretty much wasted all the money we've had so far on crap projects. As anyone can see, they need sorting out.

Can we have some more money please?
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Jaded on 15 November, 2018, 01:06:53 am
How much cycle track could be built for 1 mile of Managed Motorway.

?
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: ian on 15 November, 2018, 09:21:02 am
I agree with mattc, it is possible to ride safely on roads and as mattc also points out there are things which can be done to make them safer for cyclists and peds.

Despite ian's optimistic tone I still don't think we will see a rapid adoption of measures that are prejudicial to the interests of motorists but help cyclists and peds.  Remember the Dutch only got their cycling infrastructure in the 60s because public opinion drove political will.

I probably shouldn't have to explain that I don't mean every road. But the moment you're dumped on a main, busy road, it's game over as a far as practical cycling is concerned. I can cycle to the end of my hill. Then it's a narrow heavily parked road into town. Like all such roads, it throws you into conflict with motorists who can't get by. Unless you like having a car revving behind or having to get out of the way of oncoming cars, it's not fun. Then you get to town, which is clogged with traffic going elsewhere, have to find the hidden bike-racks that aren't anywhere useful. Etc.

And it's not just about safe, it's about pleasant. It might be safe to get to from (a) to (b) by walking by the side of the motorway, but it won't be fun or pleasant.

The mistake is to think that cyclists can change any of this. They can't because generally they're non-existent and as an other group (one that really goes out of its way to dispel any sympathy), no one cares. If you want to know how effect cycling organizations are, read the Cycling UK vs. BC thread herein and despair.

It's almost like there aren't many, many people who ought to share the aims of cyclists. Pedestrians. People who have seen friends, loved ones, relatives killed and injured on the roads, people who actually want a liveable environment rather than a dormitory in a carpark. They're the ones who would have the numbers and attitude to make change that benefits us all. Sadly, I think a lot of cyclists don't want that, they like being an other, fighting it out on the roads, telling their war stories.

But anyway, because it is for cyclists and because of the reasons above, Sustrans is fated to be crap.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 15 November, 2018, 09:45:44 am
I'm not entirely sure about that. Would anyone really be tarmaccing old railways if it was only for pedestrians and dog walkers? Look at footpaths out in the countryside, from one village to another via that hill and a muddy field – they're most definitely not, nowadays, transport links, and they're not going to get any sort of upgrade or any more money spent on them than maybe a signpost at each end.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: hulver on 15 November, 2018, 10:02:22 am
I see "The Five Weirs Walk" in Sheffield as a great example of a sustrans route. (Yes, the "Walk" is a cycle route. I guess cycling was first priority when designing it)

It's part of "National Route 6".

Here's a blog post by somebody who tried to ride it.

http://sheffieldcyclechic.tumblr.com/post/804659810/fiveweirswalk

Part of the route is closed at night as the landowner shuts the gates, so there's an on road section instead.

Overall, this is the sort of standard I expect from sustrans, and the reason I avoid any NCN sign posts and just take the road instead.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: ian on 15 November, 2018, 11:03:05 am
I'm not entirely sure about that. Would anyone really be tarmaccing old railways if it was only for pedestrians and dog walkers? Look at footpaths out in the countryside, from one village to another via that hill and a muddy field – they're most definitely not, nowadays, transport links, and they're not going to get any sort of upgrade or any more money spent on them than maybe a signpost at each end.

That'd be fine if Sustrans remit was the occasional leisure route, but I'd assume from the name it's actually getting people from (a) to (b). I don't think the fault is entirely theirs, hence the fated.

Footpaths are a different thing – they've always been there and people expect them to be there. Plus undoing rights of way would be a political and legal nightmare. And ultimately they'd don't cost much to maintain.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 15 November, 2018, 11:14:31 am
The point was that Sustrans got those routes created (to the extent they have created them – many are nothing more than mapping and signage, really) for cyclists. I don't think going out to create something similar for pedestrians would have gathered sufficient momentum. None of which means that cyclists are going to change the world or get people out of their cars.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: bobb on 15 November, 2018, 01:21:09 pm
Forgive me for being a bit of a dunce, but what does "Sustainable" actualy mean? The NCN has been improving over the years and they obviously get money to make those improvements. In fact, I would guess that many of the improvements are actually paid for by local councils. There's a 3 mile stretch (of NCN1) in my home town that has been resurfaced loads of times in my lifetime (it had always been a cycle/foot path long before Sustrans had been invented) infact just a few months ago they resurfaced a section in the middle of town. I doubt Sustrans paid for it, but they get to stick their blue signs on it....
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Jakob W on 15 November, 2018, 01:29:27 pm
In the Sustrans context, human-powered (as opposed to fossil-fuel-burning*)?

*At least to a first order; e-bikes probably count as well...
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 15 November, 2018, 01:31:55 pm
Forgive me for being a bit of a dunce, but what does "Sustainable" actualy mean?

It's a word that you find in job titles that means that it won't be a permanent contract.   :D

To borrow from Fully Charged, and with a nod to Sustrans' origins in the wake of the 1970s oil crisis, "without burning stuff" would be a reasonable definition.

I note that the Sustrans website talks about walking and cycling, rather than sustainable transport.


ETA: While it's easy to make pointed comments about their attitude to, say, electric trains, I think I respect them more for not going through a We are Cycling UK style rebranding.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Cudzoziemiec on 15 November, 2018, 01:36:13 pm
Sustrans grew out of the Beeching railway cuts, indirectly.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Oscar's dad on 15 November, 2018, 01:36:48 pm
... There's a 3 mile stretch (of NCN1) in my home town that has been resurfaced loads of times in my lifetime (it had always been a cycle/foot path long before Sustrans had been invented) infact just a few months ago they resurfaced a section in the middle of town. I doubt Sustrans paid for it, but they get to stick their blue signs on it....

There's a lovely refurbished bit of shared usage pathway round the back of Primark, which might be the section you're referring to.  We used it last night in the dark and its even got illuminated trees which change colour, very fancy.  But obviously feck all to do with Sustrans and I doubt psychedelic trees are more sustainable - still, we thought they looked great - well done to whoever installed them  :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: bobb on 15 November, 2018, 01:40:34 pm
... There's a 3 mile stretch (of NCN1) in my home town that has been resurfaced loads of times in my lifetime (it had always been a cycle/foot path long before Sustrans had been invented) infact just a few months ago they resurfaced a section in the middle of town. I doubt Sustrans paid for it, but they get to stick their blue signs on it....

There's a lovely refurbished bit of shared usage pathway round the back of Primark, which might be the section you're referring to.  We used it last night in the dark and its even got illuminated trees which change colour, very fancy.  But obviously feck all to do with Sustrans and I doubt psychedelic trees are more sustainable - still, we thought they looked great - well done to whoever installed them  :thumbsup:


That's exactly the bit I was talking about. But would prefer to call it "The cycle path through Central Park" than "Round the back of Primark". You're showing your class  :P
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Oscar's dad on 15 November, 2018, 02:04:35 pm
 ;D
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: markcjagar on 15 November, 2018, 03:08:20 pm
I see "The Five Weirs Walk" in Sheffield as a great example of a sustrans route. (Yes, the "Walk" is a cycle route. I guess cycling was first priority when designing it)

It's part of "National Route 6".

I'd rather slog down Brightside Lane than use that shite
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: hulver on 15 November, 2018, 03:19:02 pm
I see "The Five Weirs Walk" in Sheffield as a great example of a sustrans route. (Yes, the "Walk" is a cycle route. I guess cycling was first priority when designing it)

It's part of "National Route 6".

I'd rather slog down Brightside Lane than use that shite

Indeed. I wonder how many times the provision of better cycling facilities hasn't even been considered because that route already exists.
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: arabella on 20 November, 2018, 12:21:44 pm
It really annoys me how far from transport infrastructure sustrans' network actually is. Around Canterbury they opened several routes with much fanfair, but half of them are flooded for 3 months of the year, and in all but summer they are basically comedy off roading experiences. If you try to plan a cycle route from Canterbury to Sandwich, it's exceptionally hard to get any route planner to choose NCN1 over any other route.
Having grown up round there it would never occur to me not to use the A257, which is what I assume you end up on.  Or detour via Staple if you have a mind.  It's probably a bit busier nowadays which is the whole problem with any roads - too many people wanting to drive too far and too often.  Perhaps we should re-launch "Is your journey really necessary?"
Title: Re: Sustrans paths crap - official
Post by: Kim on 22 November, 2018, 12:37:34 am
Site where Sustrans invite you to document exactly what's crap about the NCN:

https://nationalcyclenetwork.commonplace.is/

Obviously it's unlikely that much of this will lead to remedial action, but it could result in a useful database of local knowledge for those planning routes.