The Government’s new Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy promises record investment, ambitious targets and — crucially — safer everyday riding. And yes, that includes us.
Now, I can already hear some of you: this is a mountain bike magazine, so what are we doing writing about Government walking-and-cycling policy? Bear with me.
We’re mountain bikers. But mountain biking is one branch of a much bigger family tree, and almost none of us only ever ride singletrack. We ride to the trailhead. We stitch the good bits together with lanes, towpaths, cycle paths and the occasional grim ring-road roundabout. We ride to the station with luggage, we take the kids to school on two wheels, we nip to the shop, and plenty of us spend the time on gravel and road just keeping the legs turning. Strip it right back and we’re all just people on bikes trying to get somewhere without being flattened.
So when the Government announces the biggest active travel investment this country has seen — money aimed squarely at safer routes, more crossings and making everyday cycling feel less like a contact sport — it matters to us. Every child who rides to school on a safe route is a possible future trail rider. Every safe way to link two woods together is one more reason to leave the car at home. This is the foundation the fun gets built on. Here’s what was announced.
The Department for Transport today (11 June) unveiled its third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, with the Government projected to invest more than £4.5 billion in active travel over the next five years.
At its heart are two national targets for 2035: that 55% of short journeys in towns and cities are walked, wheeled or cycled, and that 60% of children aged 5 to 16 travel actively to school. To get there, the DfT says it will work with Active Travel England and local authorities to deliver 5,000 new walking, wheeling and cycling routes and 10,000 safer crossings by 2030 — connecting homes with schools, high streets, local services and public transport hubs.
The pitch is that this is about far more than bikes. The strategy — published alongside Active Travel England’s Worth Every Step delivery plan — argues that better active travel saves households money, improves public health, eases congestion, cuts carbon and boosts local economies. The DfT’s figures claim getting more people moving could free up around 1.7 million GP appointments a year and lead to 4.4 million fewer sick days, while a family giving up a second car for short active trips could save roughly £1,700 a year — more than £17,000 over a decade.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said too many people would like to walk, wheel or cycle more often but don’t feel they have safe, convenient options, framing the strategy as a way to make active travel “a practical choice for millions more journeys.”
National Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman pointed to the school run and simple zebra crossings as where the money will have the biggest impact. “When streets work for people, everything else follows,” he said.
There’s a cross-Government flavour to it, with the Department of Health and Social Care lining up behind the plan and local leaders handed a greater role in shaping delivery — part of the Government’s wider Pride in Place programme.
Our take? The ambition is genuinely welcome, and the focus on the unglamorous stuff — safe school routes, more crossings — is exactly right, because that’s the kind of thing that actually gets more people riding. The test, as ever, will be delivery: targets and press releases are the easy bit; 10,000 crossings in the ground by 2030 rather less so. But more safe places to ride, for everyone from five-year-olds to enduro racers in their civvies, is something we’ll happily get behind.
Call me cynical but I’m assuming most money that does actually appear will be hoovered up by consultancies and advisors, what does make it to councils (or whoever is responsible for delivering) will get squandered on poorly thought out and implemented schemes and after a year or two the remaining budget will get diverted to other ‘priorities’ like defence. And any decent improvements that actually happen will get reversed if Reform win the next GE.
IMO the best way to spend £4.5b to make it safer would be to spend the whole lot on traffic police,that would go a very long way
This is helpful in terms of the mood music coming out of the DfT is in favour of walking and cycling, and in the framing that some activity is better than none in terms of public health (and ultimately AT is a public health intervention, so it’s good to see it being treated as such).
However, this is the same week that TAN has put out a press release saying that councils are being allowed to use ring-fenced AT money for general highways work which undermines the whole thing, particularly as the £4.5bn available is not new money.
https://transportactionnetwork.org.uk/government-undermining-court-of-appeal-ruling-on-healthy-travel-funding-say-campaigners/
My suspicion here is that councils which are on board with AT will be enabled by this, those that aren’t (which are particularly places like Rochdale, which has a higher than average rate of inactivity related ill health and an idiot as the cabinet member for highways, who has put a moratorium on protected cycle lanes) won’t, which will worsen health inequality.
On the hierarchy of hazards, enforcement comes a long way down from designing out the risk. AT infrastructure reduces design speeds, separates people walking, cycling and driving and makes it safer for everyone. Of course you need some enforcement…
It goes hand in hand with this, good stuff if it works.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wyezwly69o
Im not convinced this will make any difference. Most kids already can walk to school but it suits parents to drop them off on their way to or from work etc. I dont see how a few more footpaths will change that
Lots of those parents seem to find plenty of time to stand near their badly parked cars having a chat long after the kids have started their lessons. Sure, some parents will still prefer to use the car but if you can shift a few to walking it means everyone wins – kids get some exercise, less school traffic for those that still drive, less school traffic for other road users.
This. The thing is that when councils have put in school streets (ie. restricting traffic near the school during morning/evening) the share of kids walking/cycling in goes up, and kids like walking to school (it’s also healthier and apparently has a positive effect on results).
Solving the school run helps everyone as traffic levels plummet in school holidays.
Sadly, there’s always an element of this – how much of an element depends on the political wills and strengths of those in local council and some (not all) councillors will always want the path of least resistance and an assurance of an easy win at the next local elections so as soon as they hear a whiff of opposition, they’ll back down, promise to oppose the scheme etc and the scheme ends up so watered down as to be effectively useless and it ends up delivering for no-one.
Plus because it’s very difficult to just pitch up and deliver a a big cycle / walking scheme, it takes years for it to be planned, modelled, consulted on, re-worked and eventually delivered that it’s easy for the next Government to go “oh, all that money, we’ll have that back actually".
It’s what happened repeatedly under Boris – big announcements followed by progressive hacking away at the promised budgets and in the end very little was actually delivered.
It’s up on the Government website if anyone wants to delve deeper.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cycling-and-walking-boom-with-45-billion-for-thousands-of-new-routes-and-safer-crossings