Sustrans - oddly named imo

downfader

Having a gander at their website a few times and speaking to a few people it seems they brag a lot about useless lanes they help impliment. Now surely as the sustainable transport charidy (LOL) perhaps their efforts would be better served helping public services like hospitals and government buildings improve cycle parking.

Most of their routes seem to be leisure based, are they not? If so then why are they a transport charity, surely they'd be better calling themselves a leisure walking and cycling charity.Their routes seem to be well out of the way of getting from a to b. :?

deptfordmarmoset

I agree about the name - it also sounds very ''corporate'' to me.

It's a mixed bag - I live on the NCR21 which gets a fair bit of use on the trip from SE London to Docklands and, of course, people who commute south. At the weekend, the users change to ''leisure'' cyclists. In all though, commuters would take that route with or without Sustrans because it's a natural quiet way through. But the weekend riders would be fewer if it hadn't been put on the map. (I know this because I've witnessed Sustrans volunteers staring at maps of a weekend wondering which way to go - and I've stopped and helped them.) So its effectiveness is all very, very limited.

ynyswen24

Generally I think they've done a lot of good. Round hereabouts there are a lot of people riding bikes on Sustrans tracks that wouldn't go near the open road but as an entity - trying to communicate with Sustrans is like talking to a brick wall, no idea of how to respond to the public or any kind of contact. Their telephone manner is absolutely atrocious.

downfader

ynyswen24 wrote:

Generally I think they've done a lot of good. Round hereabouts there are a lot of people riding bikes on Sustrans tracks that wouldn't go near the open road but as an entity - trying to communicate with Sustrans is like talking to a brick wall, no idea of how to respond to the public or any kind of contact. Their telephone manner is absolutely atrocious.

My father has been a volunteer for them for hte past 2 years abouts. Even he finds it hard to communicate with them tbh.

alfablue

I think the work they do is probably of more apparent benefit to the leisure cyclist and tourist. In a way the leisure cyclist is probably the prime target. Convert someone from a non-cyclist to a leisure cyclist, and they may then become a utility cyclist.

Hopefully (I have no knowledge) they are making a difference with the safe routes to schools project - making future cyclists (of all kinds). And the Connect2 project has the potential to make big differences to individual communities.

To a fast road cyclist with sporting aspirations, the cycle routes are probably valued less.

Living in Bath and working in Bristol I am fortunate to be able to use the Bristol/Bath Railway Path, probably their flagship route. It is not without its problems, but without it, life would be a lot poorer. As a cycle tourist I have also enjoyed many long distance rides in different parts of the country, made simpler and more pleasant by virtue of their efforts.

My question would be, if we didn't have Sustrans, what would we have? Would we miss it?

ynyswen24

Sounds about right, the volunteers i've met seem like tidy folks but head office in bristol and even the regional centre in south wales, forget it...

deptfordmarmoset

Slightly underhand perhaps but see their cycle parking facilities at their Brizzle headquarters

Odelay!

I get the impression the NCN is just the most visible part of their work, and happens to be more suited to leisure cyclists, but their work is much broader. The NCN contributes a lot to their profile and is a reason for many people supporting them. However, I get the impression things like policy advocacy are an increasingly important part of their work.

LittleB0b

IIRC the NCN was/is project funding.

BiggerBoat

I could be wrong but I hear that to get on the board of Sustrans you have to be appointed by the board of Sustrans. Not very democratic for an organisation that uses public money. Yes, they do only concentrate on fairly useless "leisure" routes because it is easier for them to get grant money to keep themselves in a job and get lots of notice in the media.

The organisation seems to be only interested in keeping itself going these days. I have yet to see a Sustrans project that is targeted solely at commuting, which should be the main focus if we want more people out of cars and on bikes.

Our Connect2nothing scheme here is a prime example. Two towns that are easily commutable by bike, one full of business and industrial works, the other full of houses. So, Sustrans want to build cycle paths to connect the parks of the two towns and do nothing to connect the works! Hilarious.

Oh and the NCN is just a bunch of signs, pointless.

jgsi

SUSTRANS relevance to me

NIL

:roll:

eh

Useless organistation, I have to wonder if they ever ride the routes they mark out. Close to me the NCP1 goes along one of the scariest bits of road I've ever ridden, and I've ridden on some pretty iffy dual carrigeways and the like before.

Also when are they going to wake up to the fact that "safe routes" don't work if they are miles longer than the direct route, or use areas that in the dark are very iffy.

IMO they have set back cycling in this country more than any other organisation or person.

simple_salmon

BiggerBoat wrote:

I could be wrong but I hear that to get on the board of Sustrans you have to be appointed by the board of Sustrans. Not very democratic for an organisation that uses public money. Yes, they do only concentrate on fairly useless "leisure" routes because it is easier for them to get grant money to keep themselves in a job and get lots of notice in the media.

The organisation seems to be only interested in keeping itself going these days. I have yet to see a Sustrans project that is targeted solely at commuting, which should be the main focus if we want more people out of cars and on bikes.

Our Connect2nothing scheme here is a prime example. Two towns that are easily commutable by bike, one full of business and industrial works, the other full of houses. So, Sustrans want to build cycle paths to connect the parks of the two towns and do nothing to connect the works! Hilarious.

Oh and the NCN is just a bunch of signs, pointless.

So you don't use 'leisure routes'; many cyclists do including some who will progress to giving up their cars and riding on the roads, or don't they matter. Or kids learning to ride who are our cyclists of the future, or don't they matter?

And, if I understand the situation correctly, the Bristol to Bath cyclepath that was built by Sustrans carries a large number of commuters daily.

And what is pointless about a bunch of signs that direct cyclists so they can choose pleasant, quiet routes to ride on. Out cycling with family I find them rather useful.

MrChuck

If the leisure routes get 'non-cyclists' on bikes it's a start. And if that helps to break down the them-and-us attitudes that a lot of these people will probably have as drivers then that's also a good thing.

So I'm broadly in support of Sustrans although like JGSI I don't see that much of what they do directly affects me at all.

I'm also not a big fan of the actual implementation of the NCN in general- there aren't enough signs! Sure, I can read a map but for me having to stop and get the map out or cast about picking up the route again when you inevitably get to a junction with no signs drastically reduces the attractiveness of these routes. Again though maybe I'm not in the target demographic.

IMO they should either be waymarked, or not. 50-50 just makes them a PITA.

simple_salmon

eh wrote:

Useless organistation, I have to wonder if they ever ride the routes they mark out. Close to me the NCP1 goes along one of the scariest bits of road I've ever ridden, and I've ridden on some pretty iffy dual carrigeways and the like before.

Also when are they going to wake up to the fact that "safe routes" don't work if they are miles longer than the direct route, or use areas that in the dark are very iffy.

IMO they have set back cycling in this country more than any other organisation or person.

Are you serious? More than the motoring lobby? More than speeding cars that frighten and kill? More than the Top Gear mentality? More than poor sentancing of motoring offences that allows people to keep their licences when they really shouldn't be allowed to drive any more?

BiggerBoat

Salmon - So spending £1.4 million on 3 mile muddy path so you can take the little kids on it maybe a couple times of the year is money well spent? There is no evidence that leisure cyclists will progress to commuters and continue to do so. And how could they if the paths do not connect to places of work? The topic is "Sustainable Transport" and how Sustrans is performing, poorly by my reckoning. Leisure is something for the councils.

How about "here is a fast, safe, and direct route to work for thousands of working residents."

As for following the NCN signs, you're better off with standard road map. Waste of money.

simple_salmon

Thanks for your advice BB; very useful.

There is plenty of evidence that providing cycle routes encourages people to cycle to work; see Making Travel Plans Work: lessons from UK Case Studies by the DfT, for real-life examples.

As for progressing to using the roads, well that comes with confidence and experience or did you learn to cycle by going up and down your local A-road with your stabilisers on?

And why does transport have to be only about commuting? Do you think all the traffic on the roads is going to work? What about shoppers for example?

MrChuck

I agree with BiggerBoat about some of the routes. At the weekend I rode the canal from Birmingham to Wolverhampton, which is on 2 NCN routes (although I didn't know this when I started).

Most of it is a narrow muddy track though some not particularly great parts of the West Midlands, and I did find myself wondering just who would use it? We saw a couple of other cyclists in 15 miles.

It's not pleasant enough that you'd take the kids along it on a nice day, and it's hard to see many commuters using it either. I sure wouldn't want to be on it after dark.

Obviously it''s an easy one in some respects- you don't have to build anything and it follows the ready-made canal network, so all Sustrans have to do is put up some signs. But it is hard to see how it's part of a useful national cycle network.

A while ago I was thnking of riding from Birmingham to Cambridge for Christmas using the NCN, with the idea that it would be easy to find an easy-to-follow route on quiet and/or traffic free routes without having to get out all the OS routes and sort it out myself. My experience of the NCN so far though is that I'd be better off making my own way.

richk

BiggerBoat wrote:

...There is no evidence that leisure cyclists will progress to commuters ....

Well, I'm one for starters.

If you find my first post about my on road commuting route (I can't remember if it was here or cyclechat) you'll seee I described it as "a bit lairy" or suchlike.

If it wasn't for the existence of NCN5, then I wouldn't have cycled to work today as I'd have stopped pretty quickly.

BiggerBoat

Are we not all bike riders? Did we not progress to roads without Sustrans? I seem to remember so. Are we incapable now of progressing to roads without Sustrans?

The point of the matter is does Sustrans work toward sustainable transport. And moreover do they provide alternative transport routes that will have the largest impact to a community as a whole (including shoppers etc.) My argument is that they don't. They are only targeted at a relatively small portion of the community. Does leisure=transport? Providing a leisure path, such as Connect2 schemes do not actually connect anything useful and only serves Sustrans in getting column inches. I am concerned that they are only accountable to themselves and no longer target the millions of car users they are trying to entice out of their motors.

simple_salmon

Mr Chuck - at least three people were using that route (including yourself) and as you say it doesn't cost much so why not advertise it as suitable for bikes?

I have said on here many times that some cycle routes are woeful and some people prefer to ride on the roads but some routes are very useful (I have one near me) and some people will never want to ride on the road.

If the aim is to get as many people as possible cycling (and for me it is) then we must realise that different people want different things so we need to listen to them and provide for them and Sustrans do that.

If you're at work now and surrounded by non-cyclists ask them what would encourage them to cycle to work and see how many people say more cycle routes. Usually it's a pretty common response.

nicktheluddite

@deptfordmarmoset - do they not have some secure bike storage out of the way somewhere? If not then I apologise. I vaguely know a couple of people who work there - they are keen cyclists and are probably wondering how/if to respond.

Overall I'd say Sustrans good - probably of more benefit to weekend/leisure riders, but they are the keen cyclists of the future.

simple_salmon

BiggerBoat wrote:

Are we not all bike riders? Did we not progress to roads without Sustrans? I seem to remember so. Are we incapable now of progressing to roads without Sustrans?

The point of the matter is does Sustrans work toward sustainable transport. And moreover do they provide alternative transport routes that will have the largest impact to a community as a whole (including shoppers etc.) My argument is that they don't. They are only targeted at a relatively small portion of the community. Does leisure=transport? Providing a leisure path, such as Connect2 schemes do not actually connect anything useful and only serves Sustrans in getting column inches. I am concerned that they are only accountable to themselves and no longer target the millions of car users they are trying to entice out of their motors.

We may have progressed without Sustrans but the reality is that not many have and not enough people are cycling and maybe these routes will encourage them. As you say, we are all bike riders but remember, Sustrans is partly about encouraging those who aren't to give it a go.

I'm not sure there is any possible scheme that will ever have a large impact; far better to go for a series of smaller impacts in my opinion. It works for team Sky, why not in the real world also?

MrChuck

I meant it's relatively cheap compared to actually having to go out and build some infrastructure, I've no idea how much it actually costs to claim it as part of the NCN.

I'm not trying to knock Sustrans too much here, as you point out I suppose it's highlighting that it's possible to ride the canal from Brum to Wolverhampton, and some people do.

My issue is more with the idea of a National Cycle Network in the context of sustainable transport. Maybe I have unrealistic expectations (in fact I know I do!) but to me a NCN suggests a network of routes I can use to get me around to places I may be unfamilar with and make it maybe a bit easier for me to use my bike as practical transport. So it'd help me expand the range of trips I do by bike without it being a major undertaking. IME this isn't what it is.

Now clearly such routes couldn't go past everbody's front door and deposit them just outside their office, but at the same time a muddy canal path with poor signage when it leaves the canal is not IMO a practical way to get from A to B.

And I appreciate that doing it 'properly' (i.e. building what I'd like to see ) would be a massive undertaking- hence my unrealistic expectations. But (to me anyway) that's what sustainable transport is, and in my (admittedly limited) experience that's not what Sustrans are supporting.

As I said though, in the wider context anything that makes it easier or more attractive for people to get on bikes at all has got to be worth supporting so I don't want to be too down on Sustrans.

simple_salmon

Many people on here will argue (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that we already have a NCN that covers much of where we want to go called roads. It's certainly true that if driver behaviour was improved then for most of us on here that would be the case although it obviously wouldn't suit many younger or less experienced riders.

Personally I think we'd be worse of without Sustrans and those moaning about poor cycle routes should get involved with the decision making and stop whinging without acting.

MrChuck

Many people on here will argue (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that we already have a NCN that covers much of where we want to go called roads. It's certainly true that if driver behaviour was improved then for most of us on here that would be the case although it obviously wouldn't suit many younger or less experienced riders.

Well, that's sort of my point- it's not clear to me what Sustrans are providing that the road network and a few OS maps don't.

Again, this is in the context of a sustainable transport network, not cycle advocacy efforts in general. I agree that we would probably be worse off without Sustrans in general.

BiggerBoat

There is no point in building poorly targeted infrastructure when smarter infrastructure could be built or at least we can strive to achieve something close to it. There is always room for improvement and constructive criticisms, but if the largest organisation we have is only accountable to itself, do we just quit? No, we are uniquely placed to offer our thoughts if they are open to listen.

Of course encouraging all to cycle through leisure is a great goal and only increases our numbers. But, providing infrastructure that only caters to that when it could cater to a larger majority as well may be a better option. Many Sustrans schemes could cater to far more but they choose to focus on leisure. Why?

deptfordmarmoset

nicktheluddite wrote:

@deptfordmarmoset - do they not have some secure bike storage out of the way somewhere? If not then I apologise. I vaguely know a couple of people who work there - they are keen cyclists and are probably wondering how/if to respond.

Overall I'd say Sustrans good - probably of more benefit to weekend/leisure riders, but they are the keen cyclists of the future.

Nick, to be honest I don't know the answer to your question. I remembered seeing some comments a while ago about the lack of Sustrans bike facilites at their head office and while searching for them, came across this photo on cyclestreets.net. If you bump into your contacts you could ask them and if the pic is misrepresenting them, I'll edit it or delete it. But it does chime with my experience of them: overreach on the big NCN idea, very patchy on the smaller details.

And I'm not anti-Sustrans either. I just think that they're a bit half-ars€d about how they do things - still, in the land of the constipated, half-ars€d is better than no-ars€d...

simple_salmon

MrChuck wrote:

Many people on here will argue (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that we already have a NCN that covers much of where we want to go called roads. It's certainly true that if driver behaviour was improved then for most of us on here that would be the case although it obviously wouldn't suit many younger or less experienced riders.

Well, that's sort of my point- it's not clear to me what Sustrans are providing that the road network and a few OS maps don't.

Provision for those who don't want to/can't cycle on the road in an ideal world.

BB - I cannot comment on accountability as I don't know the situation but I agree that they should listen to the views of cyclists. However, if BR is anything to go by then agreement from all sides will never be truly reached.

I guess they're limited to mainly 'leisure' riders because the existing roads have monopoly on the most direct routes. Having said that we have very useful provision around where I live for getting into the city and out-of-centre shopping if you don't want to use the roads - not sure if Sustrans were invloved or not though.

BiggerBoat

Salmon - We have f-all provisions here but are getting a Connect2nothing scheme which connects to well, nothing, but could easily link up 2 large centres of employment, but doesn't.

MrChuck

simple_salmon wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

Many people on here will argue (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that we already have a NCN that covers much of where we want to go called roads. It's certainly true that if driver behaviour was improved then for most of us on here that would be the case although it obviously wouldn't suit many younger or less experienced riders.

Well, that's sort of my point- it's not clear to me what Sustrans are providing that the road network and a few OS maps don't.

Provision for those who don't want to/can't cycle on the road in an ideal world.

That might be what their aim is but that's not necessarily what they're providing. Again this is all in my limited experience, but the NCN routes I've been on either have ended up on the roads anyway, or been a poorly-signed trudge along an unwelcoming muddy track which I doubt is the alternative that those who can't/won't cycle on the road are looking for.

I know it's moon on a stick stuff to expect otherwise though, and as I've said I'm broadly supportive of Sustrans in general so I'll leave it there.