Campaigners have been lobbying the government to establish clear targets on active travel in line with other long-term transport strategies.
More than 50 groups – including British Cycling, Cycling UK and the British Medical Association – have signed a letter calling for the Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander, to “move from good intentions to a clear, long-term, fully deliverable national plan comparable to other strategic transport programmes,” the Guardian reported.
The paper also quoted campaigners saying that “other transport modes operate with predictable five-year cycles and transparent progress reporting; active travel can and should match that level of maturity.”
“Long-term targets, with interim reviews, will give local leaders the confidence to plan networks, support larger projects, unlock private sector investment and demonstrate how devolved investment and progress contribute to national missions,” it added.
The letter comes as the government is continuing its consultation on its third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy. The strategy promises a “fundamental shift” in active travel policy but is criticised in the letter as presenting objectives that are “not measurable”.
The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (formerly Sustrans) were also one of the signatories to the letter, telling the Guardian that the strategy “has never quite lived up to” fulfilling its intended shift “from stop-start funding and priorities to a long-term framework for investment and change.”
The letter and fall-out over the government consultation risks undermining the messaging around its latest active travel funding announcements. Today, the government has announced £626 million in active travel funding for local authorities in England to fund approximately 500 miles of new walking and cycling infrastructure.
The government also re-graded the active travel capabilities of each authority, allocating funding roughly in accordance with the authority’s population and capability rating. Greater Manchester and the West Midlands each receive approximately £35 million, the Isles of Scilly receive £140,000. London does not receive direct funding, per the terms of its devolution agreement.
In total, nine authorities saw their capability rating upgraded, reflecting stronger local organisation towards planning and executing an active-travel oriented transport network. One local authority, the Tees Valley, has had its rating downgraded and will receive additional targeted support.
It is one of 39 local authorities that is given a Level 1 rating, meaning that active travel plans lack “strong local leadership”, and “isolated” schemes “do not yet form a plan for a coherent network.” No authority has yet received a maximum Level 4 rating which would reflect an “established culture of active travel”.
> “Mind-blowingly good” cycle lane proposals unveiled by local council
Announcing the new funding, Alexander’s junior minister Lilian Greenwood said the government’s investment “demonstrates our clear commitment to making walking, wheeling and cycling safer and more accessible for everyone. By backing councils with the funding and support they need, we are helping to create healthier communities, safer streets and greener local transport choices.
“It is especially encouraging to see nine councils improve their capability rating this year, reflecting real progress and dedication across the country. Together, we are delivering the high-quality infrastructure that enables people to travel more actively, helping cut NHS waiting lists.”
Chris Boardman, National Active Travel Commissioner, said their “innovative funding approach is proving effective, consistently raising the ability of local authorities to deliver the level of quality needed to achieve that ambition. This is evidenced by nine authorities improving their capability rating this year, showing what’s possible when investment and levels of support are carefully tuned to local needs.
“We are not just building infrastructure — together, we are creating communities: places where parents feel confident letting children travel independently, and where older people can reach local shops with ease. We are building life back into our streets.”
21 thoughts on “Government must “move from good intentions to a clear long-term plan” for cycling, campaigners warn, as £626 million active travel investment announced”
They need better oversight on
They need better oversight on what local authorities are doing, and to be able hold to account those which aren’t effectively implementing the NTS.
What’s happend to the delayed
What’s happend to the delayed National Road Safety Strategy? That will make far more difference than little bits of infrastructure here and there (which is all current Gov funding can pay for). We need to push hard for that. We as a nation are signed up the Stockholm Declaration on road safety 5-years ago. It calls for enforced 20mph speed limits on all roads shared with vulnerable road users amongst other measures that could be very effective. Helsinki leading the way with zero road deaths lastyear. https://www.roadsafetysweden.com/contentassets/b37f0951c837443eb9661668d5be439e/stockholm-declaration-english.pdf
It is hard to understand why
It is hard to understand why Active Travel funding isn’t treated the same way as other transport strategies, especially when the people involved have been demanding exactly that for decades.
Perhaps if all the readers here were to write to their MP, and encourage others to do so, we might finally get the funding stream that we deserve.
I wrote to my (former) MP
I wrote to my (former) MP [Labour member of Transport Committee when Reg.110 introduced] over ten years about the dangers posed by distracted drivers (eg phones/infotainment etc), providing video/photographic/TRL/Court Cases evidence, I didn’t get a single letter in reply. By recorded delivery in July 2019 I asked a simple question “Did he support the Transport Select Committee’s recommendation to remove the distinction between Handsfree and Hand Held devices?” TOTALLY IGNORED.
The fundamental problem is most voters are now drivers, and their votes are more important. Remember under the last Labour Government, half of speed cameras were removed and the rest painted orange.
To all the Road.cc members who have previously posted stating that all the road safety woes were attributable to the Tories, you need to open your eyes!
Heidi Alexander as deputy London Mayor opposed Heathrow expansion, now she has just approved the plans!!
Mr Anderson wrote:
As a left-leaning cyclist, I’m well aware that Labour are as bad as the Tories for ignoring cyclists. It could be argued that Boris Johnson has been the most cyclist-friendly PM for quite a while, though he was obviously a very bad choice to be given any kind of power.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Is this related to the condition Zoolander suffered from?
mdavidford wrote:
It’s a safety thing as it’s safer to turn left than to turn right. I’m the opposite of a UPS truck.
Probably true about the
Probably true about the cycling and definitely true about suitability for power (and responsibility). He also inadvertently did a lot to allow cycling between differently rated COVID zones.
There may have been prime ministers in the early part of the 2th century that encouraged exercise including cycling to ensure that young men were fit enough to die in wars
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Were there prime ministers nearly 2,000 years ago?
There were certainly less
There were certainly less cyclist fatalities.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Fewer.
What do you expect from
What do you expect from politicians? There’s a word to describe them. It begins with c and isn’t too long but wouldn’t be appropriate to use here.
Surreyrider wrote:
Cynic?
Shared cycle / pedestrian
Shared cycle / pedestrian paths are a complete waste of money as they add to the danger to pedestrians with no benefit to overall travel times. Politicians use them to free up road space to cars which wins votes but they do nothing to improve an integrated effective green infrastructure. If Denmark, The Netherlands and most other mature European countries can do it why can’t the UK?
I’m not a fan of shared use
I’m not a fan of shared use either, except as a last resort – which is pretty much what the much-ignored guidance says.
Amen. Having said that the
Amen
Having said that the best infra in Edinburgh (and by far the most extensive) are the former railways which are shared-use.
They mostly “work” simply because they’re not so narrow (for the UK). Plus they’re normally lightly used, especially not by pedestrians. Think that’s because while nice in the daytime they can feel a bit “isolated” / once in a section you can’t “escape” because cuttings / embankment.
Yesterday Road.cc published a
Yesterday Road.cc published a link to Wunderlin’s post about Deptford Church Street.
Just around the corner there is a cycle lane death trap in Deptford Broadway.
In 2016, this disappearing cycle lane very nearly sent me under the wheels of a 40T muckaway lorry. Lewisham Council ignored my complaint. F**kwits!!
Too much money is wasted on cycling “de-frastructure”.
It is long overdue that
It is long overdue that Highways Engineers should be Statutorily held accountable for thier implimentations!
Heidi Alexander’s junior
Heidi Alexander’s junior minister Lilian Greenwood said the government’s investment “demonstrates our clear commitment to making walking, wheeling and cycling safer and more accessible for everyone
Lilian Greenwood is the one who, in response to my MP’s questioning on the hopeless ineptitude and idleness of DVLA (that was the essence of my letter, not what my MP wrote!) twice came up with the catchy phrase ‘we make VED easy to pay and difficult to avoid’. The first of many cases of VED evasion around Garstang which I cited with photographic evidence and copies of DVLA’s own page on the ‘offending vehicles’ was BF64 TGE, which you will see has been untaxed since 30.11.21. I happen to know the address where the vehicle is kept in Garstang and I reported it to DVLA in early 2022-the report went straight in the bin, as do all reports to DVLA about untaxed vehicles- especially where the reporter doesn’t know the address where the vehicle is kept. DVLA won’t let you report if the address is unknown – even when THEY know the address! They won’t let you send photos of untaxed vehicles on the road, because they mostly definitely don’t want to be told about them. You can see the vehicle on the photos section of Lux Developments and Electrical Facebook page, because the owners were so unconcerned by DVLA that they had the company name painted on. You can find the company at Companies House and STILL DVLA don’t do anything about the 4 years unpaid VED. DVLA and Lilian Greenwood are hopeless- might as well have the Tories in! At least we now know that MPs are fobbed off with nonsense by ministers, just like the rest of us. In addition, I also now know that the VED database can’t just be fraudulently altered to say that people have paid when they haven’t just to silence annoying members of the public like me- otherwise, they would have already done so for the numerous VED evaders I have reported.
1) The groups are right about
1) The groups are right about CWIS 3, it is weak.
2) This is a reannoucement of funding that was already announced in the Spending Review. And while it sounds like a big number, in reality it is about £2.50 per head per year, when we need more like £20.
3) I disagree with Chris Boardman on this occasion. ATE’s ‘innovative funding approach’ is not proving effective, certainly not in North Yorkshire where nothing is getting done.
HarrogateSpa wrote:
I think the more “rural” authorites (even ones with sizeable urban areas) are a tough one to crack.
Obviously it’s in the details and there will be numerous issues across a local authority.
Wondering if this relates to the “choice to do nothing”? Chris has mentioned this as a technique in his lectures.
Ultimately ATE simply don’t have a big stick or levers to *force* LAs to do things.
About the best they can do is not give them extra money.
As far as I understand they’ve tried not to be naïve. So they have been working on recognising and fixing some of the “rules that implicitly favour facilitating driving”. And they have worked on checking “capability” eg. not just accepting an overambitious plan and handing out money. I *think* they’ve done a bit on not handing out more money where it’s been misspent or hasn’t delivered results, but I’m less sure about that.