CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
“
The move follows a 2018 review by Sustrans, the charity that created the NCN, which found that 42% of the network’s routes were “poor”, with substandard crossings, signage or main road sections, and 4% “very poor”, taking cyclists on roads with heavy traffic. In addition, urban roads with speed limits in excess of 20mph and rural roads faster than 40mph are being taken out of the network.
“
Affects "around a third of the Scottish NCN".
If only someone was willing to, you know, bring these sections up to standard.
Probably a good idea, but the article isn’t terribly clear as to what status long distance routes like the C2C will actually have.
Yes, I think this is a good idea. Then people will be able to see where the gaps in the network are, and fund appropriate improvements
Or they’d rather discard their existing network rather than bring it up to standard. I’ll remember this the next time I see their chuggers on the Meadows
Sustrans were the pioneers,
Once they were co-opted into government they lost an edge.
They have big funding from govt. so no need to donate to the chuggers.
Still think Daisy N is a good egg.
Mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, it is refreshingly honest of Sustrans to take this step and declare that much of its network is not fit for purpose, abandoning the pretence that it is.
On the other, potential touring cyclists will lose easy access to mapping and way finding for routes which are usually safer than the alternatives. Also it can be seen as Sustrans throwing in the towel, giving up on making roads safer for cycling, effectively banishing cyclists to off-road routes: out of sight, out of mind.
The worry has to be that, once the routes are "reclassified", general apathy from central and local government sets in. Thus leading to the loss of even the aspiration to have any kind of national network of cycle routes.
“Thus leading to the loss of even the aspiration to have any kind of national network of cycle routes”
Think we need to know if Sustrans decided/gave up after discussions with Govs, or if this is unilateral.
IF there have unsatisfactory discussions with SG/TS it needs to be clear whether it was before CV. Also whether discussions involved ‘tourism’ as well as ‘transport’.
Tourism/hospitality is in crisis, SG STILL plans more road building.
This is all too important to just go ‘oh well it’s understandable why Sustrans has done this’.
Sustrans is a UK organisation. I have never been clear how much decisions (like this) are taken in Bristol with or without adequate local input.
Sustrans in Scotland (as has been mentioned) is mostly funded by SG and is (almost) a secret arm of the Gov.
Did Sustrans tell SG/TS that it was going to do this but would prefer if some routes were (funded to be) upgraded?
Did Sustrans warn affected LAs this was about to happen?
Etc.
Sort of official line -
“
@sustrans + partners are working together to deliver a core network of #pathsforeveryone, scores of projects underway and we will still promote iconic routes like C2C and Caledonian Way.
“
https://twitter.com/_xavierbrice_/status/1284769322045505536
(Not that he got the name right.)
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/find-other-routes/the-caledonia-way
This actually sounds like quite a shrewd and clever move to me. The NCN is well known and very popular. Hopefully this is Sustrans acknowledging and saying that some parts of it (still) use roads with faster traffic that aren't really ideal for cycling, and so are throwing the ball firmly at local and national transport departments and telling them that they need to make the investment to either make those roads safer for cycling, or to fund appropriate cycleways in the general road corridor? It really shouldn't be for key transport links (leisure or utility, it's still transport) to be developed by a charity.
The NCN was always designed as an evolving network, tackling the lower hanging fruit first, and improving more difficult parts later as and when possible, and as a strategy that has worked well, otherwise for almost all routes we'd still be waiting for missing more optimal links to be completed and they would never have opened at all.
But, as we all know, the pace of progress by transport authorities has not always been as fast or as high quality as it should be, and with the recent massively increased momentum for better urban streets for cycling, now is probably exactly the right time to make those same demands for rural roads as well.
(Having said that, I didn't find the Hartside Pass a problem when I did it, it's a sufficiently popular route with both cyclists and motorcyclists that drivers know they have to be aware. That's not to say that a parallel cycleway wouldn't be an improvement, however.
And I'm also very unhappy about the idea of NCN signage being removed from substandard sections of route. People will still want to follow the routes and surely faster busier sections of road are the last places where you will want to have to keep stopping to refer to the map. A better interim workaround step would maybe be to add, say, strips of yellow tape to the top and bottom of signs on those sections of route to indicate that they are "interim diversion" routes until the corridor is brought up to standard?)
“This actually sounds like quite a shrewd and clever move to me“
Yes, but the point is - has Sustrans had discussions with various levels of Gov?
How did they go?
Any commitment from any to fund/improve any of the bits that Sustrans is backing away from?
How quickly will signs be removed?
Etc.
"throwing the ball firmly at local and national transport departments and telling them that they need to make the investment to either make those roads safer for cycling, or to fund appropriate cycleways in the general road corridor"
Good luck with that!
Without Sustrans to push local councils, many will do nothing or the bare minimum for cycling. Passing the buck to them will not be a successful strategy.
Fair enough if the organisations feels it is too stretched, or that a national network is impractical in the current climate, this is understandable. However we then will end up with even more of a localised hodge-podge of whimsical off-road routes that don't connect to anything else, than we do at the moment.
To which the retort could be, well it can't get any worse. Oh yes it can...
Hmmm...removing a third of a transport network to save the network. Something familiar about that idea, can't quite place it. Anyway, I'm sure it all worked out well. Sorry, must dash - bunch of us catching the train into Princes Street from Merchiston station...
“catching the train into Princes Street from Merchiston station...“
Shorter walk to Morningside Road Station.
@Morningsider, indeed. The new Beeching...
@Morningsider - But if Merchiston Station was marked as part of the current rail network, leading people to try planning holidays based on the idea that they could safely and easily get a train there, that'd be pretty daft too.
I'm maybe pushing this analogy far too far, of course.
Or perhaps if the train you were planning on catching is actually a freight train coming through at 20km/h and you need to jump on Brave Dave style.
I really don't get why they would remove directional signage as that's still going to be useful. Could put a sticker over the NCN number and add a "via busy/very busy roads" like some of the CEC signs.
In the great film My Childhood, the boy Jamie playing the director (Bill Douglas) as a young boy - escapes from Newcraighall by jumping on to a coal train wagon.
@chdot - yes, but (assume the whiny tone of an arch pedant) the South-Sub passenger services were under consideration for closure prior to the Beeching report.
@Frenchy - a fair point.
What many people forget about Beeching is that the report consisted of two parts. The first covered closures and the second "The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes". Turns out that it was far easier to close things down than invest in what was left. If Beeching has any real relevance to the NCN proposals, it is that grand promises to develop new routes or upgrade existing ones made as significant cuts are announced should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Well the net result is that there is no longer any sort of network. Sustrans are having a laugh.
Some people find my sense of humour a bit dry dry but I am now in awe of Sustrans. A ten year publicly funded shaggy dog story with a truly anhydrous punchline.
They've heard that Cancel Culture is the new new thing and applied it to their routes.
Wonder if their recent parking-vans-on-the-Hawthornvale-path surveys where some of the volunteers appeared to not know about Spokes and thought that Sustrans built the NEPN had any input to this.
Updated Ordnance Survey map of the reclassified NCN now live:
https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/55.93538,-3.18040,12
Click the National Cycle Network layer
So general consensus Sustrans routes are a dog's dinner, but that's better than no dinner?
I've done a lot of tours on their routes, and yes, there are lovely stretches mixed with rubbish, but I'd rather have them than nothing.
How do I get that 40% of my money back from these people?
I can see why this is such a controversial move but I think it's broadly positive and is another step forward in institutional recognition that the NCN (and UK cycling infrastructure generally) is largely unfit for purpose.
I can't think of a single NCN route I ever follow without carefully researched diversion. I suppose NCN 1 from Haymarket to the FRB? But even then I've started avoiding the increasingly obstructed and bizarre section after Dalmeny. (The latest hazard I spotted was an encroaching wire fence.) NCN1/775 to Perth is mostly nice, but I tear my hair out trying to find a route avoiding the awful infra in Dunfermline and I seem to recall that the bit at Bridge of Earn has claimed at least one life.
Surely, then, this a network significantly failing to meet its goals? I struggle to imagine the cyclist who could actually happily tour NCN routes on trust without fear or frustration. Someone riding a fairly chunky hybrid, equally comfortable on big busy roads as well as muddy unlit paths behind housing estates, but who also has the fitness and strength to lift their bike over unexpected hazards and steps where necessary. It's certainly a breed! Not a mainstream one though I don't think.
Fundamentally it feels like a lot of the problem - both generally and around this particular issue - is that sustrans is trying to fill many roles which should really be delivered by almost as many different individual bodies. Its roles often mutually hamper each other, and its structure makes it difficult to achieve success for many of them.
It has many roles which should be fulfilled by one or many well-funded fully (non-charitable) public bodies...
- Mandating national standards for cycle infrastructure
- Identifying investment opportunities for cycle route upgrades
- Identifying, maintaining and signing a "national standard" accessible route network
- Maintaining and signing substandard but otherwise useful cycle routes on roads and paths
- Identifying and investing in general streetscape improvements in cities and towns
...as well as some which should probably be owned by enthusiast clubs/charities which sometimes work with landowners and public bodies, or a National Park authority-style public body...
- Identifying, signing and grading mostly off-road routes
- Identifying and promoting longer routes for more experienced and hardy touring cyclists (eg. C2C, maybe Caledonia Way)
...and finally some which probably fit better inside pressure groups like Spokes or even Critical Mass, rather than a quasi-public body which has to be careful what it says...
- Vocally promoting large-scale investment in cycling at a national and local level
- Lobbying for major law changes to protect and promote cycling
- Lobbying for radical measures to generally reduce motor traffic
To take roads equivalents of these, you're essentially taking bits of the MoT and Highways England, combining it with some motor tourism publishers and topping it off with a sprinkle of that guy who's always quoted in news articles criticising speed cameras and parking charges. They don't do it that way for cars, so why should they for bikes?
When I look at it this way, it's easy to see why there's such debate. Everyone will have a different 'idea' of what Sustrans and NCN is meant to achieve based on a combination of the goals above and will either see this as a betrayal or a step forward. I'm pretty hopeful its the latter, but much bolder changes are needed to really unlock the benefits.
I had the dubious pleasure of riding a chunk of Route 76 back from Bridge of Allan to Edinburgh last night. That still seems to be part of the updated network.
Given that large sections (Alloa and Limekilns I'm looking at you) involve the usual weaving round houses, tours of grim industrial areas/schemes, crossing boulder fields, a quick jaunt on the A985, cycling round 90degree bends then immediately up a steep gradient (and so on) I am struggling to imagine how bad the deleted routes must be.
Also I find it bizarre that the 765 doesn't go through the beautiful countryside and empty roads in Carse of Lecropt then direct onward travellers onto the B8032. Instead it rats around in Dunblane for a bit just to get you onto the old railway trackbed which then evaporates just outside Doune so you are straight onto A84 unless you happen to know better. Really odd.
“I can see why this is such a controversial move but I think it's broadly positive and is another step forward in institutional recognition that the NCN (and UK cycling infrastructure generally) is largely unfit for purpose.
...
I'm pretty hopeful its the latter, but much bolder changes are needed to really unlock the benefits.“
Yes, but.
Which bit of Gov (UK/Scot/LA) is going to go ‘oh dear, Sustrans has given up on (...) we’d better step in’?
As a charity or ‘arm of Govs’ it has MONEY and STAFF unlike most cycle and campaign groups.
IF Sustrans suspected there was going to be a change of wind and Govs ‘getting serious about active travel’ I don’t think they would have walked away.
I don’t blame Sustrans for accepting the inevitable/their limitations, but I doubt if ‘someone will do it better than us’ is part of their thinking.
I don't understand why people are upset about this. Were sustrans ever really responsible for improving/maintaining the routes they labelled? I thought they were mostly just sticking signs on other people's roads/paths.
I saw this as them no longer endorsing something which isn't fit for purpose. Should make the maps more easy to use without having to cross reference the whole thing with other sources.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts