In most cases a railway path will offer much better value for money than any sort of rail use so again it would be foolish to systematically abandon railway paths in favour of rail.

Really, Jake? Could you name one?

Sustrans has consistently opposed the re-opening of light and heavy rail links at every opportunity.

Mr Dagley said that his office was ‘far too busy’ to take up some of my ‘good ideas’, but I had proposed these as volunteer activities!

Perhaps the charity commission needs to look into Sustrans (if it has jursidiction)?

“I ran into Phil Insall, one of the top staff at Sustrans- loading his bike on top of his car, to drive it into the countryside for a ride.”

Actually – I’m not been funny here – that really did appal me.

I tend to regard my own eccentric travel behaviour (I’ve mostly commuted on foot for decades now; in the last year I was in a car once) as a sort of private ‘conceptual art project’ which I don’t expect other people to emulate. But I do expect people who get PAID to promte active transport to be exemplary in their behaviour.

Of course, if there was a phone in campaign to get funding CARTRANS would win over anyone else. But would people care enough to come down and put in the hours to build new car parks?

CARTRANS chuggers would hang around at desolate motorway service stations accosting the occasional motorist to recruit them as supporters, bewailing the fact that the Department of Sustainable Transport (DfST) just isn’t interested in unsustainable modes of transport anymore, what with all the access barriers to be negotiated and the MOTORISTS GET OUT AND PUSH signs at every junction with a Greenway, not to mention the lack of maintenance and gritting making the motorways so hazardous in the winter.

Sometimes references are inserted to criticisms and sometimes these are removed. Notable are attempts to point out that the NCN is largely on existing minor roads with nothing more than some (often poor) signing.

ational Cycling Network:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cycle_Network

Sustrans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans

In the voluntary sector I have heard the term “Sustrans Hoover” several times. Basically, any grant funding comes along and on goes the vacuum cleaner! Sustrans scoops the lot and the little groups can go hang!

Like you Josh, I applaud a lot of what Sustrans has achieved. But they know nothing about building links with other cycling orgs or engaging with the cycling community. Sadly I think they’ve become very arrogant, remote and self-centred.

1. I don’t know whether Sustrans merging with the DfT would make it more effective, but it would at least be more honest- in recent years Sustrans has become more like a consulting firm than a charity, but still collects money from the general public who desire change. Best of both worlds for them, really- but as I said not entirely honest.

2. No I don’t want Sustrans to become the same as the CTC- I simply would like them to regain their initial vision for a continuous, priority network of cycleways throughout Britian- this vision has unfortunately been compromised for expediency and funding.

3. Yes democracy is a pesky critter- it would be a lot more convenient to seize control and do what we know to be right. The truth is that democracy is a two way street- it involves leadership and vision. If Sustrans had the guts to clearly and respectfully articulate to its membership why driving two cars (much less one) was a behaviour inconsistent with the climate crisis we face, and to demonstrate why restrictions on car use, not just disjointed cycle paths, are necessary and desirable for everyone, then perhaps these “2-car owning males” would be convinced and brought along for the ride- as it were.

The hallmark of an effective democracy are leaders who look at the facts and do what is right and what is just, rather than being blown by the political winds and living in fear. In that respect, Sustrans is taking a page out of Bristol City Council’s book. No wonder they work so well together.

I’m reminded of one of the first days I lived in Bristol- I was riding along the road in Bishopston handing out leaflets for Bristol Critical Mass, and I ran into Phil Insall, one of the top staff at Sustrans- loading his bike on top of his car, to drive it into the countryside for a ride. We had met in 2005 when I visited Bristol, and he was sort of sheepish and embarrassed when he saw me ride up.

I think that says a lot about why the organisation has to coddle its members with the idea that mass car use is compatible with a sustainable society- because their leadership has to convince *themselves* that this is true. They don’t have to suffer the poor conditions that we’ve created for cyclists and pedestrians in urban areas- they can just pop their bike on top of their car, and drive to their nearest traffic-free cycle path……

The other extreme is a stifling bureaucracy where what little that gets done is done by the book and with full and extensive consultations involving all the stakeholders (those with nothing better to do than waste their lives sitting in endless meetings). If anything material eventually emerges from these processes it will be so compromised by the desire not to offend anyone that it will be tokenistic and impractical.

So it’s unlikely that the Bristol & Bath Path (and others) would have materialised but for someone like John Grimshaw. No one’s ever accused him of being easy to work with and many, like myself, have retired hurt along the way, but that’s the price we pay for getting things done.

1. Do you really think Sustrans merging with the DfT would make it more effective at achieving transport reforms?

2. Do you want Sustrans to become a campaigning organisation – and do exactly the same as the CTC?

3. The average Sustrans supporter is a 2 car-owning male. If they had a democratic voice in the organisation, do you think they would ‘boldly advocate a set of transport and planning reforms in the UK’?

He makes some good points, especially:

“Both Josh and I acknowledge the benefit that cyclists (and walkers) have derived from some of Sustrans’ better paths, most notably the Bristol & Bath Railway Path (below). In this area we also enjoy the Kennet & Avon Canal towpath from Bath to Devizes and the River Avon path from Ashton to Pill. But all these were created or upgraded in the 1980s. Since then there has been little of significance done in this area, although the funding now channeled through Sustrans is vast by comparison with the meagre shoestrings of the early years. That paradox merits some investigation.”

So when Sustrans was operating on a shoestring, they managed to get a lot accomplished, at least here in the Bristol area. Now that they are flush, it’s hard to see the benefit to local cyclists. I suspect that much of the money has disappeared into bureaucracy, exactly what many fear will be the ultimate outcome of the Cycling City project…

What exactly is it that sustrans “do well”? They built some cyclepaths back in the 80s, and currently they annoy me by blocking my way when I actually try to use said cyclepaths so that they can beg money off me. They also suck up National Lottery cash and campaign for the rights of cyclists to be driven off the roads.

Recently, here in Croydon, Sustrans have been supporting plans to direct cyclists along narrow steep footpaths past my home.
http://crapcyclelanesofcroydon.blogspot.com/2007/09/connect2-in-croydon.html

The CEO of Sustrans is on around £70k, rather more than most of the ’supporters’, some of whom I happen to know lead very abstemious lives on very modest incomes indeed. That’s one aspect that I find hard to stomach.

Sustrans’ overall income is around £25 million a year but much of that is earmarked for specific projects so cannot be spent as they see fit. The income from supporters is presumably available to spend at their discretion, so could be used to mount a more effective campaigning side if they wanted to.

An organisation which supports development on the Bristol-Bath Greenway surely says it all. Bristol has a history of corruption as regards companies securing contracts with the council. It’s time this was stopped, especially when it concerns something as important as the environment.

I’m not expecting Sustrans to be a “radical cycle campaigning organisation.” I’m quite aware that they are not. I am expecting them to enact policies that are consistent with their marketing materials, and if they insist on representing cyclists and making funding decisions with public money then they must become more democratic.

As you can see in the “disclaimer” I do support some of the work Sustrans does. The problem is when they work closely with local authorities and together exclude other sustainable transport interests from the process and undermine the good work of local advocates. This is unfortunately the reality of how Cycling City has unfolded.

When I ask the station manager at Temple Meads if we can get more cycle parking installed (as it’s packed every day and sometimes impossible to find a space), he says “oh well Sustrans says there’e enough cycle parking…”

When we ask the Bristol City Council why they’ve made Prince St. Bridge dangerous and inconvenient for cyclists using Cycling City money, they say, “oh well Sustrans supported the plan.”

I agree that there needs to be a broad church, with many approaches needed. However, if one obese churchgoer is sitting in the front row eating up all the bread and drinking the wine,
funneling all the church’s charitable funds into their own pocket, then it’s time for the other parishioners to intervene…

It seems to me you’ve slightly misunderstood what Sustrans is all about. It’s not (and never really was) a politically radical cycle campaigning organisation. It may have started at the grass roots level, but it has a long and successful history of working with the establishment rather than against it to promote all forms of sustainable transport and not just cycling. For example through informing and shaping health policy through its Active Travel project, or working with local government and communities on the Connect2 project.

I do agree that there is room for both approaches – working with the establishment and campaigning to change it. But as you mention, there already is a national charity which does all the things you ask for – cycling advocacy, political lobbying and campaigning, standing up for the legal rights of cyclists, supporting the right to ride on the road instead of being forced onto segregated cycle paths, having democratic structure: the CTC.

You should be careful not to over-criticize Sustrans for failing to be something which it doesn’t even aim to be. Support the work which it does well, and leave the other work to others.

Jake

The Netherlands has been doing this for decades, it is no pipe-dream, it just needs vision and investment and the decision to get on with it.

The result is an excellent network that ordinary people actually use with huge social and health benefits.

BTW – Have you noticed how annoying Sustrans’s chuggers are? They actually block the way on cycle routes to get you to talk to them, to the point of actually being quite dangerous. I’ve nearly been in collision with other cyclists and pedestrians because of this practice, and when I finally gave them a lecture, they actually had the brass neck to say that it was “their” cyclepath, and how “they” built it. Great eh?

As for naivety, the first proposals for cycle routes put forward by Sustrans’ precursor Cyclebag in the late 1970s were seen as naive and unrealistic by many at the time, but now we know better. All new ideas have to break through the same reactionary attitudes, so good luck to Josh with the Cycle Expressway initiative.

When a Light Rail Transit (LRT) route was proposed along the same Path back in 1990 Sustrans couldn’t await to get in bed with the private promoter (Advanced Transport for Avon – ATA) to carve up the Path between trams and bikes. It was left to the local cycling campaign group (Cyclebag) to fight the proposal all the way to the House of Lords. Their Lordships rejected the ATA proposals which resulted in the demise of ATA so Sustrans never got their consultancy fee in the end!

Sustrans did provide support for the RP campaign, including technical support -mapping- as well as political advice. They didn’t want the BRT, but I think were constrained by not wanting to upset local or national government. The issue about whether they knew about the plans in July 2007 is another thing. I think what happened there is someone on the BRT committe asked someone at Sustrans what they thought, and took some silence “I’d need to know more” as acquiescence.

-SteveL

You’ve put into words the reservations I have long felt about this organisation.