National Cycle Network sees 50 million more journeys in 2013

I think the closest parallels to sustrans I can think of are the turnpikes and the pre nationalised railways.

Both were swept away when it was realised that you need to plan the whole system and not rely on local interests.

Whilst Sustrans may be national, we need cycle paths to be considered at the same level as the rest of the transport network and not as an afterthought. If Sustrans want to work as advisors, fine, although the current advice seems to be wanting. We need someone in government to say every road must be built in a certain way, that developments must consider cyclists and pedestrians from day one and not as an afterthought.

Why don't cyclists want to use cycle paths, so why do the same crap paths keep on being built! How hard is it to understand the issues and then deal with them, rather than keep on repeating the same mistakes and expecting something to change.

I guess on the anniversary of the first world war it is quite fitting that we have learnt so much about changing results.

Interesting comments, and although the below comments are anecdotal and personal they are valid and show that Sustrans is not all bad.

I use part of the C2C and other sustrans paths as part of my daily commute from Tyneside to either Durham or Stanley.

The commute although doable, would be so stressful and dangerous, that I'd not bother.

The "off road" sections are now sealed tarmac with the exception of about 1/4 mile, and with very few barriers (only at getting on points).

Where it does fail is the local access onto the C2C. At several places it passes near villages or roads, but there is no access. That needs to be changed, and the route clearly signed. Almost as a "motorway" for cycling. That will make it more visible and accessible to the public as well.

Related to my comments above, this is a blog post I read awhile ago, that I've just gone searching for.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/sustrans-connect-lon...

It's a good description of the difference between the Sustrans "Connect London" project and the quietways proposed by the mayors office. In one sentence "Quietways will be direct", whereas the Sustrans routes weaved around in great big circles that seemed to be designed to maximise mileage rather than actual usefulness

Meanwhile, Sustrans seem to be claiming credit for the whole idea rather than recognising their faults, http://www.sustrans.org.uk/connectlondon

Sustrans is in danger of becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.

I'm a long way off being an apologist for Sustrans but lighten up a little. It's true that we are now ready for serious high quality infrastructure for cycling and they've not been providing tht. On the whole this will have to come alongside the road network. Roads follow a route for a reason; It's where people need to travel between.
What Sustrans have done is stake a claim on some great long sections of land. It's created a lot of rubbish infrastructure but it's got our name on it at least. It's now up to us to use it and push for the spending required to upgrade it. True, much of it is only really of use for leisure and touring but that is still important. I wouldn't let them off the hook for putting their name to some very dodgy compromises on new build schemes and they are still repairing gates that make some parts of the NCN unusable for families with trailers, tandems etc. and the surfaces…

claim it, use it, upgrade it

Judging by what they think as acceptable for bike facilities, one can only assume the trips they are referring to are of the LSD variety.

It would be interesting to understand what Sustrans mean by 'trips'. I'm not convinced by Sustrans' routes as a viable alternative to the roads, mrmo's example is a good reason why but a lot of their routes are good for leisure/family/pootling rides/walks and I wonder if this use is counted as a 'trip'.

The measure of success on the NCN should be how many trips are made on it for practical/utilitarian reasons i.e. as transport. If leisure use is included we might as well include laps of the velodrome and BMX track as 'trips' too which would be very misleading.

Wonder how many car trips are taken by dog walkers driving to a sustrans path....

Quote:

Until Sustrans understand that a muddy path without paving or tarmac is by no measure a "national cycle network", I have zero interest in them.

I agree with this. Ideally, cycle routes would not exclude road bikes because of poor surfacing, and force people to buy another bike to use them. If you want to encourage people to cycle, you should make it as easy as possible. I suppose it's a question of cost.

Until Sustrans understand that a muddy path without paving or tarmac is by no measure a "national cycle network", I have zero interest in them.

Most of their network should be labeled as trails for mountain bikes only, not a cycle network. How many of us have heard of a new cyclist trying to follow one of their routes, and rapidly giving up.

Their approach seems to be years behind the debate (in some cases, about 200 years!), and it's probably worth taking a good look at exactly how they are spending their budget.

I would imagine that a lot of the routes along a lot of the distance make more sence as footpaths than cycle paths, and where footpaths, before sustrans made it part of their network.

The longer distance ones out of weekends, you see plenty of dog walkers but not much if any one else.

I regularly use a Sustrans walk and cycle path. It's great in many ways, and when I use it, I know what the rules are - slow down or often stop for walkers and dogs. I don't have a problem with that.

However, I don't think walking (and dogs) and cycling mix brilliantly well on narrow paths. Do Sustrans always lump walkers and cyclists together, or is there scope for cycling only paths in some cases?

Quote:

National Cycle Network

Quote:

convenient and welcoming walking....

What is the annual change in horse riding on the motorway network out of interest?