- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cycleway 9 on Chiswick High Road (picture credit TfL)Cycling and walking targets “in tatters”: Damning report finds government almost certain to fail on active travel objectives in England
Cycling campaign groups have claimed that plans to boost cycling and walking in England are “in tatters”, after a damning report by the government’s official spending watchdog found that the Department for Transport (DfT) is almost certain to fall short of its active travel targets, thanks to its inability to influence the poor design and “patchy” delivery of some local schemes.
According to the report published today by the National Audit Office, the Department for Transport is highly unlikely to achieve any of its four goals for active travel by 2025, including doubling the number of cycling trips, increasing the proportion of primary school children cycling, ensuring that almost half of short urban journeys are walked, cycled, or wheeled, and having an average of 365 ‘walked’ stages of travel per person a year.
In fact, with the exception of the last of these targets, the report found that the levels of activity for these measures are lower than they were when the government published its first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy for England in 2017.
The damning report comes in the same week that it was revealed that the government is facing a legal challenge from a campaign group over its cut to investment in walking and cycling in England, which some estimate will lead to two thirds of the previously promised funding being lost.
> “A backward move” – Government slashes active travel budget for England
Published today, the NAO report concluded that, despite spending £2.3bn funding councils to build active travel infrastructure between 2016 and 2021, the DfT – thanks to the lack of, until recently, guidelines for how this infrastructure should be implemented – “knew too little” about what was being delivered, and therefore was not able to influence the quality of these local schemes.
The DfT, the report says, “does not know the totality of what local authorities have achieved through this funding and has identified that infrastructure it has funded may not have been good enough quality, including where interventions were largely cosmetic and did not provide a safe space for cycling.”
It continued: “This resulted in some poor value schemes and potential adverse impacts on active travel in some cases.”
The failure to properly assess the quality of schemes implemented by local authorities is compounded by the recent review, noted in the NAO’s report, from Active Travel England – the government body set up last year for that very purpose – which found that 56 percent of councils possess “low capability and ambition” for cycling and walking initiatives.
The report also criticised the department’s decision to rush out active travel schemes during the Covid-19 pandemic, a decision – made in part to facilitate social distancing – which “led to some poor investments”.
By focusing on the speed of delivery (councils were expected to start working on the schemes within four weeks of receiving the funding), the report says initiatives were poorly implemented “in places where plans had not been developed before the pandemic and local communities were not adequately consulted”.
The report also noted that “some active travel schemes were removed prematurely before they could be tested properly because they proved controversial”.
> Campaigners lose High Court case against council over “premature” cycle lane removal
However, the watchdog did conclude that, despite the DfT’s failings over the past seven years, the formation of Active Travel England can prove a “catalyst” for boosting walking, cycling, and wheeling numbers.
Emphasising the need for a stable and long-term approach to active travel funding, the report said that “Active Travel England has made good early progress and is well-placed to address many of the issues that can lead to poor quality active travel schemes. Maintaining this early momentum from the set-up of Active Travel England will be important to securing the benefits for transport, health, and the environment and achieving value for money from government’s investment in active travel.”
Is the government “backpedalling on its promises”?
Nevertheless, despite this apparent cause for (relative) optimism, cycling campaign groups across the UK have responded to the NAO’s report by arguing that years of “stop-start” funding have left the government’s cycling and walking ambitions “in tatters”, leaving behind a legacy of unsafe roads, poor air quality, and reduced public health.
Members of the Walking and Cycling Alliance, which includes groups such as British Cycling, Cycling UK, and Living Streets, welcomed the report and called on the government to publish its own evidence for the funding required to achieve its objectives for 2025 and 2030.
“It’s clear the Government has backpedalled on its promises, and is missing an easy win on the path to achieving Net Zero commitments, with proven benefits for public health,” Sustrans CEO Xavier Brice said today.
“This report reveals that active travel objectives are in tatters, and only serves to highlight that long-term and ring-fenced investment can transform lives, if done well.”
Sarah Mitchell, the CEO at Cycling UK, added: “The National Audit Office has confirmed what Cycling UK and others have been saying for years, namely that the government hasn’t committed adequate funds to achieve its own targets to increase walking and cycling.
“However, we’re pleased the report recognises the formation of Active Travel England as a positive step in the right direction. The government now needs to publish its own evidence on the level of funding needed, and then increase existing funding to enable Active Travel England to deliver the government’s goals.”
Earlier this week, we reported that the government is facing a legal challenge from a campaign group over its decision to slash investment in walking and cycling in England, as lawyers acting on behalf of Transport Action Network (TAN) have written to the DfT seeking a judicial review into the cuts.
TAN claims that the active travel budget cuts bypassed legal processes and risk undermining commitments about air pollution and the climate emergency.
The cuts, announced in March, were slammed at the time as “a backward move” by the Walking and Cycling Alliance (WACA), who estimated that two thirds of previously promised funding would be lost, making it “impossible” to meet Net Zero and active travel targets.
As pointed out in Parliament by SNP MP Gavin Newlands a month later, the slash to the active travel budget means that less than £1 per head will be spent in England outside of London versus £50 per head in Scotland.
> Government faces legal challenge on cut to cycling investment
Responding to the NAO’s report, a DfT spokesperson said today: “We are committed to ensuring that more people choose to walk, wheel and cycle across England and that’s why we are investing £3bn up to 2025, more than any previous government, to help people choose active travel.
“ATE was established last year to drive up standards of active travel schemes, working closely with local authorities to make sure they deliver high quality schemes which work for, and encourage, local residents to travel actively.”
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- don simon fbpe 0 sec ago
And? Your neck don't work?
- Backladder 2 min 44 sec ago
Does anyone have the KSI stats for penny farthings for the last 5 years, I suspect they are lower than for these so called Safety bicycles!
- lonpfrb 6 min 29 sec ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 53 min 9 sec ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 20 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 1 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 2 hours 41 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 3 hours 38 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 53 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
- HoarseMann 5 hours 25 min ago
Decathlon have the Garmin Varia RTL515 on offer at the moment for £129.99: https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/rearview-radar-varia-rtl515-65-lumens/_/R-...
Add new comment
14 comments
The conclusions of this report will come as no surprise to anyone who reads road.cc or belongs to any cycling group. Neither will the fact that it will be ignored by the media, which is currently in a frenzy about obesity, without mentioning Active Travel, like the BBC R4 news prog this morning, which only mentioned diet and drugs.
Perhaps if they got rid of all these senseless electric scooters then people would be more inclined to walk or cycle. I was driving into my city yesterday and went past one of the matrix signs on the A road which said "for cleaner air try cycling" and directly below it was a scooter rack!
People would be more inclined to walk and cycle if fewer people drove in to cities.
" for cleaner air try cycling or use one of the electric scooters below rather than driving into our city " !
There'll never be enough money, space, ability, time or will to build a cycling and pedestrian infrastructure additional to the roads and pavements we have now - a new infrastructure that will enable traffic-free cycling and walking between all the As & Bs we can now journey between on two wheels or foot using the extant transport infrastructure.
What to do, then?
It seems so obvious - make the very good existing roads and pavements better and safer for cycling and walking (and perhaps even horse riding). How? Apply the already extant laws concerning the use of motor vehicles so that the penalties are a serious discouragement to aggresive and dangerous driving.
This means a lot more traffic police, traffic courts and judges willing to apply the law - unlike our present situation where hardly any of the millions of motoring miscreants are caught and, when they are, the penalties are low, ineffective and no deterrent.
Of course, further steps could be taken to reduce the murder and maiming of humans and wildlife by motors. Apply law to reduce the maximum possible speed to 50mph. (It doesn't significantly increase even long journey times, as many studies show). Reduce the weight of vehicles to a minimum, meaning 5cwt rather than 40. Etc..
The thing about reducing car damage is that the folk who would benefit most would be the drivers themselves. They too would stand less chance of an early death or maim, smog-poison, body-neglect rot and so forth. Also, their financial situation would be improved overnight, especially if a bike (perhaps an ebike) suddenly becomes an attarctive prospect as it's so much "cooler" (whatever that is) than the new-model Reliant Robins.
And there never need be enough for dedicated infra between all As & Bs. In places with cycling modal share over 20% (and there are some places with a lot more) while there is a LOT of good separate cycling infra compared to the UK there are many more miles of roads. The trick there is "share where possible, separate where necessary". That means reducing and slowing motor traffic flow on "streets" - but otherwise these are OK for cycling on. For "roads" it means there should be a good quality separate cycle path or alternative route through the network. And junctions MUST feel safe and be convenient for cyclists.
I think the last is the hardest in the UK because "the motor vehicle capacity must not be reduced".
The "will" part I have to grant you. The UK is world-leading in saying "yes" while ensuring "no". Indeed that is still the policy of all major parties (slight question about SNP, I'm not informed on Plaid Cymru / NI parties). However building enough "good enough" infra has happened in several countries now (Leipzig - Germany, Oulu - Finland, Antwerp - Belgium, Malmö - Sweden...). And it has got people cycling. A smaller effect can even be seen in parts of London!
Roads - "police it better" has a point of diminishing returns I'd say. And cycling on roads in the UK is already statistically very safe. People aren't persuaded to cycle by knowing that drivers will be punished after the fact, or even that it "is safe". It doesn't feel safe to most people. The majority just don't like mixing with many cars.
It's also about convenience. It's difficult to make cycling more convenient than driving where the two share the same infra. People may accept waiting behind cyclists on destination residential "streets" but on main roads it's very different. Where it's pleasant and convenient to drive, people will drive. Where they also already have cars they will definitely drive.
The other idea - use the pavements - is also problematic. Yes - it "works" in Japan. However that society is very different and this may be important here.
UK pavements are narrow and often have uneven or broken surfaces. They also stop frequenty (every road, like many cycle facilities). They've got "street furniture" on them (much of it for motor vehicles). And actually - they've often got cars and vans on them.
Combining cycling and walking in the same space is a recipe for no growth in cycling and conflict. Speeds and behaviours are too different. It only "works" where there aren't many of either. The best place for this would be in the countryside - like the Dutch do. Improve footpaths between towns and villages to make them into cycle paths (which pedestrians can use).
Physically safe from a statistical point of view perhaps. Not mentally and emotionally safe - because UK-wide stats arent being collected. As well as nationwide minimum levels of road crime prosecution standards we also need central stats on submissions, examining and charging those "no harm" road crimes like close passing.
A large chunk of people will only cycle if they feel safe. In some places thats what infrastructure is for. In others consistent enforcement on road crime.
You're almost preaching to the choir; I'd note we are collecting both "objective safety" stats (granularity could be improved - if we actually wanted to change much...) AND also "subjective" (mental / emotional) information in the form of various travel surveys.
I certainly wouldn't object to more information about what the police / courts are - or rather aren't - doing about road crime. Unfortunately that would have to be connected to "and now we can't avoid ignore how lacklustre this is we will do something about it".
(Think we've done "police it better" before.) I think the last point is only really of interest to us hardy existing cyclists. People just don't like cycling around motor vehicles. They might give "dangerous drivers" as a reason they don't cycle - although more commonly a more general "it's not safe". But just observe what happens when you take a non-road cyclist along for a ride - it's a visceral thing as much as a belief. (Lots of other reasons too of course - like their friends aren't cycling, and we have prevented it being a social transport mode anyway, and it's not convenient etc.)
I'd love to see more to be done here. But I don't think this will affect cycling rates much if at all. With the exception of blindingly obvious stuff like speeding / pavement parking (effectively decriminalised now) without policing to North Korean / Chinese levels I don't think driver behaviour will change much.
Even "much better drivers" won't lead to mass cycling - or stop cyclists being killed and injured.
I've just looked it up: a 'walked' stage of travel means that the person walks or cycles or whatever one part of their journey. So they are having to try and aim to get people to walk or cycle for "part" of their journey at least once every day. Is that really so difficult? Are people really so sedentary nowadays??
Yes.
Someone at my work drives their 1 mile commute.
I no longer talk to them.
U fortunately, yes. Kids being driven everywhere, and folks having food delivered to their homes are just a few examples.
This is it in part. Reduction of frequency and availability and negative views of public transport is probably bigger.