""The Network has been criticised for sometimes creating new car traffic as users drive to access points for recreational cycling, and the network is yet to meet its target of being 60% utility cycling" needs sourcing... who has criticised it? Snooo "

That awkward sentence was created by the clumsy Steinsky, who added the criticism bit to a simple statement of fact that Sustrans did not meet the agreed conditions of millennium funding, eg that the network would be for 60% transport cycling.  There has been other extensive vandalism here by Steinsky, who also removed the very significant piece of information that Sustrans are not a membership organisation.  That is verifiable via the Charity Commission, but a most inconvenient fact for those who want to imply that Sustrans is in some way democratic and accountable.  There may be as few as three actual members, and they are notorious for listening to no one and steamrollering counterproductive schemes despite valid objections.

It's really unfortunate that the Sustrans disinformationists have made this page read like a Sustrans publicity flyer, they should be ashamed of themselves.