Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s first budget delivered today has been met with mixed reactions from active travel campaigners and charities, with Cycling UK giving the new administration credit for “recouping additional £100 million funding for cycling and walking infrastructure”, while at the same time, saying it is “disappointed” to see fuel duty frozen yet again, which could further incentivise driving.
While presenting the Autumn Budget, Reeves didn’t spare any mentions for active travel, however, the full document says that the budget is intended to provide “increased investment in local roads maintenance and local transport” by “providing an additional £100 million investment in cycling and walking infrastructure in 2025-26, to support Local Authorities to install cycling infrastructure and upgrade pavements and paths”.
The budget also aims to provide a nearly 50 per cent increase in funding for local roads maintenance to fix an additional one million potholes across England each year.
However, the fuel duty is also set to be frozen, extending the temporary 5p cut for one year “to support hard-working families and businesses” and “save the average car driver £59 in 2025-26”.
Responding to the Chancellor’s Autumn Budget statement and how it relates to transport and active travel, Sarah McMonagle, director of external affairs at Cycling UK, said: “Credit where credit’s due; today the Chancellor has helped to recoup funding for active travel that was cut in March 2023 by committing an additional £100m to cycling and walking infrastructure.
“However, much greater investment is needed if the government is to achieve its ambitious health and economic growth missions. We know that for every £1 spent on cycling and walking schemes, £5.62 worth of wider benefits are achieved. This far surpasses the return on investment for road building.
“We were disappointed to see that fuel duty has been frozen yet again, which means the cost of driving is not increasing in relative terms. Research suggests that in the past, savings from the fuel duty freeze have not been passed down to consumers. Revenue raised from an increase in fuel duty could make public transport more affordable, and cycling and walking much safer through more investment in active travel.
“Increasing investment in walking and cycling stands to benefit us now and in the future. There’s still time to take bold action, and we will continue to impress upon the government the potential for cycling to transform our communities into greener, healthier and more prosperous places to live.”
> “A backward move” – Government slashes active travel budget for England
Yesterday, Cycling UK and British Cycling, along with a host of academics, health groups and cycling organisations wrote to Reeves calling for active travel funding to be increased to 10 per cent of the overall transport budget.
The organisations concluded: “With the right commitment, together we can transform our villages, towns and cities into healthier and more liveable spaces. Investing in walking and cycling won’t just help to balance the budget — it would be a promise to prioritise our health, our economy, and our planet.”
Xavier Brice, CEO of walking, wheeling and cycling charity Sustrans said: “Amid a tight spending landscape, it’s great to see investment in transport. Alongside investment in buses, rail, and fixing potholes and pavements, we welcome the additional £100 million investment in cycling and walking paths, reversing previous cuts. This will boost the economy, improve people’s health and help us all get around.”
Transport journalist Carlton Reid wrote: “Budget provides additional £100 mn for cycling and walking infrastructure in 2025-26. This is NOT the “unprecedented level of funding” that Transport Secretary Louise Haigh told Laura Laker was coming. Meanwhile, motorists get yet another fuel duty freeze. Climate change anyone?”
In August, newly appointed Transport Secretary Louise Haigh had pledged “unprecedented levels of funding” in cycling as the Labour party got to work after its landslide election victory earlier in the summer.
Meanwhile, Green Party co-leader and MP for Bristol Central Carla Denyer expressed her frustration at the discounted fuel duty on social media. “Fuel duty staying frozen and discounted for another year, at 10x what it would have cost to keep the £2 bus fare cap, Make it make sense,” she said, referring to the Prime Minister’s announcement that the bus fare cap will increase by a pound in England at the end of this year.
Trade consultant Mark Sutton said: “£100 million extra for walking and cycling in 2025-26 budget for active travel. It’s a drop in the ocean accounting for the reality of change needed & urgency, plus the fact that potholes alone got £500m extra, but at least it’s not a cut.”
In other news from the 2024 Autumn Budget that could affect the UK’s bike shops adversely, Reeves also announced that the business rates relief would drop from 75 to 40 per cent, while National Insurance contributions from employers would increase from 13.8 to 15 per cent from 2027.
The £100 million additional funding comes after the former Conservative government decided to slash the budget for active travel schemes in England outside London in March last year, in what was described as “a backward move” by the Walking & Cycling Alliance (WACA), which estimated that two-thirds of previously promised funding will be lost, making it “impossible” to meet Net Zero and active travel targets.
42 thoughts on “Cycling UK lauds Rachel Reeves for recouping additional £100 million for cycling & walking in Autumn Budget, but “disappointed” with another fuel duty freeze”
So after all the hints and
So after all the hints and “official unofficial” leaks the fuel duty hike and bringing in pay-per-mile simply didn’t happen. neither did any increase in VED. This could have been the start of a move away from our car-centred society and towards one which encouraged the use of active travel and public transport. Instead motorists come out of it better than bus passengers. I’ve no doubt whatsoever that political expediency played a part in this. Very disappointing.
There is absolutely no chance
There is absolutely no chance of managing ourselves out of the environmental polycrisis; at least booze is cheaper.
Not while we’ve got a
Not while we’ve got a spinless govenment like this. Any claim they make to being environmentally friendly is now completly discredited. Already written to my MP. The more of us that do the same the more they’ll realise that action is needed.
biking59boomer wrote:
I know it’s a typo but a spinless government sounds marvellous. Not that the last few have been any good at spin.
booze in pubs will be around
booze in pubs will be around 20% more expensive after this budget, so much like this 100m announcement, or the announcement to fund electrification of a railway line thats already been completed, the real devil is in the real details, not the soundbites.
Yeah… and it’s not
Yeah… and it’s not selecting reverse gear on the face of it (quite).
But what was the ratio of the active travel budget to the road budget again though? And how many normal junctions (say proper Dutch was the same price for argument’s sake) can you get for 100 million?
I’d love to see a commitment to something like we were aiming at * in Scotland eg. a sensible fraction of the transport budget funding every year on active travel, ramping up to start (ATM as Chris Boardman points out we probably can’t even spend the money usefully, lack of staff and knowledge never mind will amongst the councillors).
Even this is ignoring the massive “infra debt” we have in terms of all the routes we didn’t make accessible to all and public transport we canned to make space for motor vehicles.
But this would be wild dreaming in the UK…
* we didn’t quite reach and didn’t spend a well as we could have.
chrisonabike wrote:
I don’t know those numbers, but I did see this graphic showing that the cost of motoring has gone up less than the cost of bus travel has gone up faster than the cost of rail travel, which has gone up faster than the cost of motoring.
Via this twitter post – https://x.com/i/bookmarks?post_id=1851616883096633752
stonojnr wrote:
How so?
The budget also introduced a
The budget also introduced a number of measures around business rate relief, employers NI, minimum wage as well as putting non draught alcohol (which is often between 1/3rd to half of pubs trade) duty rates up by RPI.
Consequently pubs are looking at between 20k to 75k in additional costs to pay somehow.
The 1p cut on draught beer will be kept by the brewer, it won’t be passed onto the pub.
Those in the pub trade I’ve spoken to estimate a minimum 20p to 30p per pint rise will be needed just to keep operating.
And this is without accounting for more inflation, instability in energy prices or what the IHT changes to farms does, the farms being the ones who grow one of the core ingredients in beer
It seems to me there’s been a
It seems to me there’s been a lot of misinformation and confusion surrounding Inheritance Tax and farming, but regardless – I don’t think that a theoretical future increase in the price of beer due to a handful of farms maybe paying inheritance tax is top of my things to worry about.
The increase in the price of all food, incluing barley because of extreme weather because of the climate and nature breakdown on the other hand …
Well I specifically said
Well I specifically said without accounting for such things yet, just to highlight some policies impacts might not be felt for a while and might not even be considered a factor, so im not sure what point you were trying to make there.
biking59boomer wrote:
There have been some increases, e.g. on the first year VED rate, which will at least double. VED will also be payable for EVs, though that was already planned.
quiff wrote:
I think a lot of that was lurid speculation, with a few leaks. The Daily Telegrunt went full on fruitloop, and have been running fake poverty-porn narratives even about pensioners with quite sizable portfolios of Buy to Let properties.
But that’s the Telegrunt in its new putrid edition.
I’m still trying to work this
I’m still trying to work this one out. RAF pension, work pension, 2 state pensions but they are hard hit with their 60 buy to lets !!
Hirsute wrote:
I’m not sure that this couple are representative of a typical pensioner…
Reminds me of the people complaining about VAT on private schooling because they are so hard done by and just scraping through, yet can currently afford to pay tens of thousands of pounds per year to send their kids there.
brooksby wrote:
It can sometimes be a question of priorities though. Reading one BBC report I was surprised at how much of their income some people spend on school fees. In this report one family spent £8k a year on school fees out of a combined household income of £70k. I know that’s not exactly scraping by, but it gave me a different view of private school demographics.
100 million is nothing – but
100 million is nothing – but it’s better than nothing. Freezing fuel duty to save the average motorist £59 over 1 year is also pathetic. But it’s politics and everyone knows that cars come first.
100 million? Wow.
100 million? Wow.
How much is just the M25/A3 junction work costing again?
Wisley Interchange is £300m,
Wisley Interchange is £300m, but remember it isn’t a cost it’s an investment ?
£300m today, so the actual
£300m today, so the actual final cost….. who the F knows. All so as drivers we can sit stationary in more lanes than before. Sweet.
I’m disappointed with the
I’m disappointed with the response from CUK and Sustrans, but I suppose they have to deal with the government in the future and don’t want to prejudice those dealings, but Carlton Reid nails it.
The £100m doesn’t even approach restoring the tory cuts, which the chancellor could easily have done, justifying it by the huge return on investment, and as Mark Sutton says, it’s just a drop in the ocean, not uprecedented levels of funding.
The only positive thing to be said is that it isn’t a cut, but given the increasing pace of climate change, obesity and the cost to society of car obsession, it should have been ten times that.
I’m equally underhwelmed by
I’m equally underhwelmed by the money for active travel and the reaction from Cycling UK and Sustrans, but agree the response is most likely to be a pragmatic one with the calculated hope that staying positive will reap more rewards in future budgets. Building a healthy working relationship and having the ear of those in power is important at this stage of the electoral cycle.
What would have been/will be good is if there is a reassurance that investment will be ramped up in the future, and this year’s money is more seed funding to get things moving in the right direction with more to come down the line.
On the other hand, there’s no defence for the continued freeze on fuel duty while increasing the cap on bus fares by 50% And I’m sick of well off people insisting the fuel duty freeze is required to protect poor people.
FionaJJ wrote:
— FionaJJIt’s like the argument against pedestrianising town centre streets, when drivers protest about how will disabled people get to the shops? But they didn’t give a flying f**k about disabled (or any other) people beforehand, especially ones that don’t drive or are using the bus, which is stuck in a queue of traffic. It’s solely about their own convenience.
And I’m bored of drivers complaining about the cost of fuel while not even beginning to consider how they could reduce their mileage or get better MPG (I see lots of inefficient drivers who seem to have a heavy right foot).
Yeah, its amazing how many
Yeah, its amazing how many drivers care deeply about the disabled when something they don’t want to happen is being proposed. They don’t care about not blocking pavements by parking on them. They don’t care about parking over dropped pavements that allow wheelchairs etc to cross the road. But suggest that somewhere should be an LTN or anything else that inconveniences them and magically the disabled are something they worry about. Not themselves obvious. No no no.
A little bit of tarring all
A little bit of tarring all drivers with the same brush going on there. Not all drivers block pavements, not all drivers park on dropped kerbs and not all drivers complain about the installation of LTN’s.
I, for one, drive for a living, don’t park on dropped kerbs nor park on footpaths. What I do find irksome is where a local authority installs an LTN without notifying any of the mapping authorities as to where the navigable routes are. What we couriers face is simply a road blocked by a multi-tonne planter or a set of impassable bollards and are left to figure a way around them. Now I know there is a way around them because the authorities tell us so. However that frequently means extra mileage in, usually, densely populated areas; so no CO2 or NO2 savings to be had there then. Oh, and your parcels are liable to be later than you expect.
So, in short, bring on the LTN’s: just advertise the bloody things!
A liitle bit more consideration for the pro drivers, if you please. And, by the way, all rat runners (especially wankpanzer drivers) should have their vehicles confiscated and crushed.
The freezing of fuel duty to
The freezing of fuel duty to help poor people is a ridiculous argument considering that they have increased costs for people who rely on buses due to not being able to afford a car. I can’t even see any improvements to access to public transport. The more I think about it the worse I feel.
The freezing of fuel duty
The freezing of fuel duty doesn’t help poor people: genuinely poor people cannot afford to run a vehicle, so the freezeing of fuel duty is no argument on their behalf at all. It (the fuel duty freeze) allows your suppliers to keep delivery costs as low as they can (get away with). Every time the cost of fuel goes up, delivery costs go up. Trouble is that once they have gone up they never come down again. (Look at what happened after the invasion of Ukraine – delivery costs went up like a rocket {with the fuel costs} and have yet to recover).
In the short term it’s the owner drivers who bear the cost, straight off thier bottom line and months, sometime years before delivery rates (to the OD’s) goes up to compensate. The delivery companies, however have no compunction in raising their rates straight away.
I, too, deplore the kowtowing
I, too, deplore the kowtowing to the motoring/ Torygraph/ Mail/ Sun etc. lobby. Now was the time to bang 10-20p /L on fuel, and ignore all the taxi drivers etc. complaining about the end of the world. They’re all voting Tory anyway.
Taxi drivers are more likely
Taxi drivers are more likely to vote Reform than Tory. As for kowtowing to the motorists and the right wing press I totally agree wih you. Reasoned argument has failed to get the petrolheads to change their ways and embrace active travel. Unnecessary short term journeys are just as numerous, worse now schools are back and the school run has restarted. 10p on a litre would have brought the average UK price to 145.99 and made some of them think about how much they drive.
biking59boomer wrote:
I think we’re far beyond that. Because *I HAD to drive*.
Why? That’s the main mental tool we have for “doing things”.
So that needs changed, but without different “things” (shopping, taking the kids “safely” to school, doing activities “in reach” of say 30 minutes’ drive) OR some alternative transport which not only has to meet certain minimum requirements * but ALSO has to be relatively better than the car…
… then just adding cost will simply get you protests, if not riots – but certainly your time in power shortened!
* Necessary but not sufficient: feels safe, is convenient, is flexible AND reliable (unlike much public transport ATM), seems cheap per journey **, doesn’t make you an “other” / lower your status like cycling does in the eyes of some, is a social activity eg. you can do it side-by-side with your family etc.
** car is costly but once the tax etc is paid (which you can’t avoid – well, outside of Lancs…) the fuel per trip seems cheap compared to eg. train ticket for the journey – assuming there is a station near either end!
car is costly but once the
car is costly but once the tax etc is paid (which you can’t avoid – well, outside of Lancs…)
In fact, Lancashire Constabulary is only too keen to declare that VED evasion is nothing to do with them. This is why WU59 UMH, which I have bored you with many times, is only a month short of achieving 7 years of glorious tax-free motoring despite being reported to LC and DVLA many times and often spending whole nights, New Year’s Day etc. parked outside the Eagle and Child only 150 yards from Garstang Police Station. DVLA must be largely staffed by ex-LC coppers, because they’re a load of useless tossers as well- their own database shows them numerous vehicles in the Garstang area alone without VED for years, but which are getting regular MOTs (don’t know why, because they must know that LC regards MOTs as optional extras and simply refuse to do anything about MOT evasion either).
I wonder if the events in
I wonder if the events in Spain will start to shift perceptions? For once, the msm is blaming climate change, but this might lead to more emphasis on electric cars rather than the much preferable Active Travel.
Has it been noted here that
Has it been noted here that the tax break on large Tonka Trucks (ie crew cab pickups payload >1 tonne) has been removed, and they will now be taxed as family rather than commercial vehicles, and will not provide illicit family transport. So the financial preference will now be smaller Tonka Trucks or something else such as a trailer or a small van.
Looking at the thread on Pistonheads, members there are not too unhappy about it.
Larger high emissions vehicles have also been hit quite hard in the first tax year, which will also work to keep limits on how many people get Tonkas.
The other one I want is to stop the Usonian deathtrap light truck builders from mass exploitation of the Individual Vehicle Approval loophole, which is one of their current targets. That needs new IVA vehicles to be required to meet UK safey standards.
Not enough, but good baby steps.
The non=uprating of Fuel Duty is the most terrible failure in a very political budget which generally starts in most of the correct directions imo, where RR went out of her way to spike potentian Tory guns. IMO next year’ budget will be larger, with all kinds of strategic reforms needed.
Suburban men with micropenises and terminally out of self-control Drunk Driver Jordan are obviously upset, but I’m happy with that.
But that’s another couple of Rishi Sunk save-my-butt Hail Mary Passes that have been reversed.
Easy fix petrol pump meet
Easy fix petrol pump meet industrial split pin = reduction in operational pump and I give it 6-8 months before they back out of the capped travel fair … Which still isn’t a big help for those with travel restrictions due to physical health I’ve two wheelchair using neighbours and they’ve both stated they haven’t used public transport since they started using them as there’s never room and the drivers are reluctant to get out and put the ramp down. Yet these are the people Starmer wants to put back in work? Clearly working for the government means you need a common sensectomy…. Numpty thinking of what?!
Problem is if we don’t
Problem is if we don’t address the amount – or prioritisation – of private motor transport we maintain a situation where “no-one uses the buses” so it “doesn’t make sense” to direct resources there. (Same goes for cycling of course).
Because buses are a) going to be less reliable (stuck in traffic) and b) going to be stumped for custom because they’re unreliable, have low coverage and low frequency (because there’s not enough demand).
Of course as motor traffic increases it tends to be no quicker than using public transport – assuming there is any…
Exactly. I have some sympathy
Exactly. I have some sympathy for the ‘but we don’t have any/many buses’ commentary on the £2/3 bus fare cap, but the best way to improve, or at least maintain, bus services is for people to use them. The bus fare cap seemed to be working well in at least some parts of the country for boosting certain rural routes.
Unfortunately the cap was introduced as a temporary measure, so not much incentive for bus companies to plan for long-term increased uptake of buses. Extending in some form is clearly better than nothing, and the £3 cap is presumably still worth something for many longer, rural routes, and would constitute good value for those who can afford a £6 return. My preference would be to keep the £2 cap, and use revenue from fuel duty to support it (and much, much more), but if they felt pressure to reduce the subsidy then a £2.50 cap would mean a return wouldn’t just save £1 per trip, but keeps it as no more than £5, which psychologically feels a lot cheaper than £6.
Ideally the Chancellor would have kept the £2 cap, and used some of the other monies raised from fuel duty to give to councils so they could subsidise AND ADVERTISE enhanced services in areas that are stuck with just one or two buses per day.
Born_peddling wrote:
My instinctive reaction to this was “aren’t the ramps all deployed at the push of a button now?” but I guess that’s quite a metrocentric view.
The Government could have
The Government could have used the money raised by a 10p rise in duty to keep the fares cap to £2 or at least to limit the rise to under £3. The financial arguments for a duty increase were unanswerable not to mention the environmental ones. I had hoped for a more environmentally friendly attitude from Labour. Sadly I was mistaken.
biking59boomer wrote:
— biking59boomerThis Labour government is not interested in the environment. Only a minority of them give a shit about issues such as road safety, air quality or active travel.
Putting the 5p back is the minimum they could have done; and it could be justified as reversing a temporary cut. But they have friends in high (fossil-fuelled) places and despite the thumping majority know that they will be ‘held to account’ by the media in a way that the Tories never were.
Or more accurately, they will be punished severely if they go against the wishes of the magnates, non-doms etc that control the media (and I fear that includes the BBC nowadays). And there are plenty of lobbyists on behalf of fossil fuel interests at work:
https://www.desmog.com/2024/07/31/new-mps-worked-for-oil-and-gas-lobbyists/
https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/fossil-gas/new-labour-mps-take-over-45000-from-oil-and-gas-lobbyists/
I wonder how disappointed
I wonder how disappointed Louise Haigh is with this budget? Fuel duty freeze, so no change there. Has nothing to do with poor working people. £100 mn won’t pay for anything of note to get more people cycling. Probably not enough to improve our current shambles of a network.
Hugely disappointed with this.
I guess Louise Haigh is still
I guess Louise Haigh is still on the naughty step with Keir Starmer over calling P&O a rogue operator just before his prestigious investment conference, not really how a minister should act just before a budget when they want extra departmental funding.
Read that and thought “that’s
Read that and thought “that’s active travel in the bin…” TBF I suspect that big change in that direction from “we’re the party of the driver too!” Labour was unlikely anyway.