The Problem with Sustrans...

wobblychainring
Posts: 38
Joined: 23 Feb 2007, 12:25pm

Post by wobblychainring »

The problem is that "Britain" does not want to have the room or want to have the money to spend. Do the Dutch really have more room, I think David Hembrow's excellent blog (I know it's been posted elsewhere on the forum) rather shows they often don't have more room, just the political will, and that same political will ensures that money is available:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/

These photos of Assen from David's site show that back in the 1960's things looked frighteningly similar to the UK, no extra room needed to create a more civilised environment...
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/assenverandert.html
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Post by glueman »

EdinburghFixed wrote:...road infrastructure that we pay for through general taxation, that seems eminently suitable for the job, albeit with tweaks to calm vehicular traffic.

It isn't though, is it? In urban areas at least roads have been designed around motor vehicles for at least the last half century. I won't list every aspect of highway provision that takes no account of the cyclist but a few traffic calming tweaks on the existing network wouldn't come close to making the average non-cyclist get on a bike.

Even on boards like this where the typical poster has adapted to the viccisitudes of the situation run in's with cars and vans are continual. Even cycle training is no more than a sop unless it's matched by motorist education backed up by law.
Rural roads are little better - in many cases they're actually worse - because highway engineering compounds the swift flow of traffic through confined spaces. When the average cyclist can use a bike for a year without a confrontation with other traffic we can say road cycling is safe. Until then Sustrans will muddle along making Sunday afternoon routes that go nowhere and be paid to do so.
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

It's hard to equate our country to the Netherlands because it is culturally so different (on this I agree with our many detractors).

Just think about how likely we are to get it:

- presumption of guilt on the part of any motorist involved in an accident
- all urban roads limited to 20mph
- all rural roads limited to 40mph
- virtual pedestrianisation of all built-up areas (for starters, where would all the existing cars go, after we removed urban on-street parking provision?)
- creation of a parallel road network and redesign of every junction to force motor traffic to yield in each circumstance.

And this only scratches the surface. The one thing I will say for Sustrans is that they appear to be working on a more realistic basis. :)

In reality I do think we can make relatively small changes that will make cycling far more pleasant without requiring the removal of cars, or a huge network of segregated paths.

For example, 20mph speed limits in built-up areas with aggressive full-width speed bumps (this is becoming more common, although often with less effective 'cushions' instead).

Average speed cameras on arterial urban routes to keep traffic to the 30/40mph limits.

Etc.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Post by Simon L6 »

I think Sustrans is a scam. Pure and simple. It might have started as something noble, but it's now a means of getting government grants that fund a self-serving organisation. The GOAL 2012 thing was a real eye-opener.

Having said that, there are far worse things happening in the world. It's not worth getting worked up about. We only care because we know better and expect something different, but the DfT's motorway-by-stealth projects are a real blight upon this country, whilst a bunch of cycle routes that are not entirely without merit, even if they have cost a fortune, are scarcely worth getting het up about.

And, yes, as CTC members we should be worrying about our own organisation, rather than somebody else's.
User avatar
essexman
Posts: 641
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 8:31am
Contact:

Post by essexman »

Wow harsh words Si!

personally i suspect the majority of Sustrans staff are keen cyclists and are pro bike. I'm sure a lot of them do a lot of very good work.

I suspect 'the organisation' is driven by funding like all organisations and is like any other evil capitalist organisation.

I agree with many of the points from that blog post. I am no fan of sustrans today. I am concerned that people eg traffic planners, judges etc think sustrans routes are ok. I do think many off-road routes in the UK are very dangerous. I do think sustrans media behaviour can be very underhand.

I would like to put one balancing point in favour of sustrans\cycle lanes that i dont think anyone has mentioned.

-The more cyclists there are , the safer all cyclists are.
-A primary barrier to cycling for newbies is fear.
-Cycle paths help overcome the fear factor therefore get more people on bikes.
-Therefore cycle paths make all cyclists safer.

From a personal level i see a lot of new cyclists using new (ok ish for Uk standards) cyclepaths round my way, in places they get pushed onto the road, so i am seeing a personal benefit.
I hate snow.
Ru88ell
Posts: 76
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 5:36pm
Contact:

Post by Ru88ell »

Well said Simon.

Just to add something else....

Our local Sustrans Ranger is also the Vice Chair of the Local Access Forum. He's unilaterally submitted a report to the Local Access Forum objecting to local cyclists' calls for a number of barriers to be made cycle friendly. Some of our elderly members have difficulty getting their bikes through, as do our members with children, tandems, trailers, panniers, etc. One member rides a hand crank recumbent trike since he's disabled - but the report suggests that since he knows the barriers exist on this promoted cycle route, he should make alternative plans. I'm sure that's discrimination.

more at www.stourbug.org.uk
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Post by thirdcrank »

meic

I'm sure that the individual points you make are all separately valid but you really do seem to be missing the wider picture.

The authorities, national and local, have been able to chuck a relatively small amount of money (in comparison with the national road transport budget and peanuts compared with what would be needed for a Dutch level of provision) towards Sustrans and then point to all that £££ whenever anybody says nothing much is being done. (I count lottery funding as government money.)

On the other hand, when some off-road route degenerates into an overgrown mess, it's nothing to do with Sustrans, they only facilitate etc etc.

The feeling that once campaigning charities have accepted the Queen's Shilling they lose their will to campaign (if ever they had one) is hardly new. You deflect criticism of Sustrans by comparing them with the CTC - I've made no secret on here of my view that the CTC's own campaigning, notably the Highway Code revision, has been blunted in the same way.

Of course, it would be open to Sustrans as a high profile cycling organisation to publicise that the official side has not delivered on a lot of fine words; I'll not hold my breath.

-----------------------------------------------------------

On the specific point about the Sustrans Ranger in Telford, he seems to have got his fame, such as it is from being a Sustrans Ranger, rather than as an individual. Of course, he has no more standing on the issue than the Lone Ranger, but I'd be interested to know if Sustrans published any clarification of his status.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Post by Simon L6 »

the barrier thing is a wierd one. They were put in as part of the 'upgrade' of the Wandle Way, and, yes, if you have a trike, or a tandem, or if you're getting on they are nigh on impossible to traverse. I simply do not understand.
toontra
Posts: 1190
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Post by toontra »

EdinburghFixed wrote:Famously in Edinburgh, it is impossible to cycle to Fife by road because the contempable NCN1 offering runs parallel and cyclists are actually banned from the road by by-law. However well-intentioned Sustrans may be, you'd think that if a "facility" was going to do this much damage to cycling as a whole, it would be better for it not to exist in the first place.


I have to agree that the stretch of NCN1 from Edinburgh to the bridge is a disgrace and does Sustrans no favours. They should refuse to co-operate when forced into using "facilities" like this.

This was actually the first time I'd used a Sustrans route (through force because of the road ban). Because of a lack of signposting I ended up in a farmer's field at 4.30am, cursing the name of Sustrans to the bewildered cows.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Post by Mick F »

Yes, I remember the field!!!

On my Grand Tour last summer, I was ready for it, having learned from my double E2E in 2006. The signposts were hidden behind trees. If you weren't ready for them, you carried on down the lane and ended up in a field ........
I had no problem with the A90, I didn't want or need any "facilities".

The most rubbish design of a cycle way I have ever used.
Mick F. Cornwall
Richard Fairhurst
Posts: 2030
Joined: 2 Mar 2008, 4:57pm
Location: Charlbury, Oxfordshire

Post by Richard Fairhurst »

My goodness me, that's one of the most unhinged blog posts I've ever read.

Where do I start? It's a hard choice, but I think this is the best bit.

"I rang up Sustrans' Oxford office and volunteered to work toward a continuous high quality pathway along the entire Kennet and Avon from London to Bristol, potentially the first long distance completely off-road cycleway in the UK."

Mr Hart, you are a complete and utter fruitcake. There is no way, at all, you would ever have a chance of getting a "high-quality pathway along the entire Kennet & Avon". There are, believe it or not, other users out there. Boaters, walkers, anglers. They would rather the K&A towpath, built between the 1720s and 1800s and restored with £30m of Heritage Lottery money (oh, and 40 years of volunteer labour), wasn't turned into a tarmac highway throughout. They might, actually, have a point. I'm awfully sorry to be the one to break this news to you.

He asks "how many times has someone with a good idea for a new cycle path contacted Sustrans and received this kind of response?". Well, our local cycle campaign group has only tried it once so far. Sustrans have been really keen to help and have organised a meeting with all the relevant regional staff. Given that this support is coming out of the Oxford office so dismissively referred to by Mr Hart, you will understand my scepticism about his claims.

The bit about the busway proposal for a Bristol-Bath path is a magnificent piece of selective quoting. He claims that Sustrans went "on record in the Evening Post saying essentially that they had 'no comment' about the plans". And he links to the EP article, either in a rather flamboyant attempt to hope people will take his claims on trust, or (more likely, I suspect) because he is so wound up with his own rhetoric he Hasn't Actually Read The Article.

What they actually said, as anyone who does click through can see, was "we are seeking clarity on the exact proposals from the West of England Partnership so we can base any action we take on the full facts". I read that as "we want to know what's happening before we respond". I realise that being in possession of the full facts before rushing to judgement isn't exactly Mr Hart's style, but still.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Post by meic »

The barriers are not very popular with a lot of Sustrans people though some do support them. Barriers are mostly there courtesy of the local council who insist on their prescence through a paranoic fear of motorcycles.

Sustrans are constantly at war with councils about the shape of the cycling provision. In my area the council have tried to rewrite the connect2 project into being a dual-carriageway widening project. I am pretty sure that Sustrans will pull the plug on this idea and the money will leave Carmarthen and go somewhere else.

This particular lump of funding was awarded to Sustrans by popular vote from the British public and Sustrans is making the local government bend to the cyclists wishes if it wants the benefit of it.

I am not really trying to deflect criticism of Sustrans, I am often encouraging people to complain about things like the barriers. I was mearly pointing out, like Essexman, that the same criticism could be levelled at just about every modern club or organisation. I am not aware of many organisations that are led by their grass roots members.

Can anyone name a group that listens to its grass routes?
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Post by Simon L6 »

that's a fair question, meic.
User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10801
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Post by Cunobelin »

I have only ever contacted Sustrans twice - and both times they were fine.

The first time was to ask about toilet and disabled facilities on a route.
I received an apology for the omission, a meticulously hand amended map of the route, and future maps for the route had them added!

The second time was about the status of a route when it was closed.The explanation was again detailed and explained why (ocal council decision - beyond their control)

I was impressed both times.

What needs to be a realisation that Sustrans simply links agencies - they neither own or run the Network
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

Simon L6 wrote:the barrier thing is a wierd one. They were put in as part of the 'upgrade' of the Wandle Way, and, yes, if you have a trike, or a tandem, or if you're getting on they are nigh on impossible to traverse. I simply do not understand.


This is, I think, part of 'An Initiative' (Capitals intended.) to cut down on Yoofs on minibikes using cycle paths.

The key to unlock them (Pun intended too!) is access for the disabled. The way to go forward on this is to get a wheelchair user to object to the barriers. As an enforced (recumbent) Trike rider due to balance issues it's one I would use.

The downside of removing barriers will inevitably mean that there will be some minibike use to contend with. The real answer to this is a Police response. In County Durham the number to call the Police (inevitably not 999) re motorcycle use of the Railway Paths of which we have several, is to be seen at various entries to the paths. Durham Police have some off-road motor bike mounted officers to enforce the ban. The irony of which they fail to see as the Police will indeed need to ride along the path to catch the culprits.
Post Reply