Reaching our active travel potential
The Government is due to release its second Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (“CWIS 2”) in the coming months. This comes at a time of extraordinary change for active travel in terms of travel behaviour (as shown by the massive shifts towards walking and cycling during the pandemic), government policy (notably the publication of Gear Change and LTN1/20) and funding (as demonstrated by the Active Travel Fund).
The Government published the first Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) in 2017. Its objectives were to:
- Increase cycling and walking activity;
- Reduce the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured on England’s roads; and
- Increase the percentage of school children that walk to school.
The actions to achieve these objectives were split into four themes: financial investment, behaviour change, safety, and partnership. Despite the considerable ambition expressed in it, CWIS attracted criticism for failing to match this ambition with either demanding targets or adequate funding.
The All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling & Walking (APPGCW) sees the development of CWIS 2 as an excellent opportunity to capitalise on the impressive recent progress and, at the same time, to learn the lessons of CWIS 1. It is therefore launching this inquiry to investigate what CWIS 2 should contain and how it should work. The inquiry will gather the views of expert stakeholders so as to provide the government with constructive and positive advice.
In addition to three hearings at which invited experts will give oral evidence, the APPGCW invites interested experts to submit written evidence to inform its deliberations.
We set out below the questions on which we would welcome written submissions. You are invited to address as many or as few as you wish and/or to range beyond them in your response.
- Targets. Are the existing targets for cycling and walking consistent with getting transport on course to reach net zero by 2050? More specifically, do we need a new walking target for 2025, and do any other targets need to be revised or added?
- Overall level of funding. What level of funding is required to meet the Government’s targets for increased cycling and walking by 2025 and 2030, and/or any new targets we may propose?
- Capacity. Do local authorities and other bodies have the capacity and skills needed to spend the funding allocations required to meet the Government’s targets (or any new ones)? If not, how can this capacity be boosted, and how quickly can CWIS spending be ramped up? What should be the role of Active Travel England? What resources will it need to fulfil this role?
- Breakdown of funding. What should CWIS 2 funding be spent on – i.e. what programmes or initiatives should be funded? How much capital and how much revenue? How much of this capital and revenue should go to transport/highway authorities, to Active Travel England, to the voluntary sector, to Highways England and HS2 Ltd, etc, and how much should be spent by government directly? How can government maximise the opportunities for its funding allocations to leverage in additional funding from other sources?
- Public and political acceptability. The extensive and widely reported opposition to schemes such as low-traffic neighbourhoods emphasises that interventions promoting walking and cycling are often controversial. How can consensus be built both nationally and locally to support the action required?
- Behaviour change. The pandemic has shown how flexible people’s travel behaviour is in certain circumstances. What combination of schemes and policies will provide the basis for a substantial and lasting shift towards active travel?
- Wider policy support. What else do DfT and other government departments need to be doing in order to maximise the impact of CWIS 2?
- Walking as much as cycling. The differences between the two modes are significant and cycling has been shown easier to “cater to” than walking. How can CWIS 2 exploit the shared characteristics of walking and cycling whilst at the same time ensuring that both modes receive appropriate attention and emphasis?
- Levelling up. How can CWIS 2 assist with the delivery of the levelling-up agenda? In particular, what can be done to correct the pattern that councils with a strong track record in active travel receive disproportionately large shares of the funding?
- Justice and inclusion. Walking and cycling are the most accessible modes of transport but the profile of those travelling by these modes does not reflect this. How can the priorities of justice and inclusion be “baked in” to CWIS 2?
- Decarbonising transport. Given the extraordinary contribution active travel can make to tackling the climate emergency, how should CWIS 2 be positioned within transport and wider climate policy? More specifically, how should CWIS 2 fit with the anticipated transport decarbonisation plan?
- The relationship between central and local government. Given that most “on the ground” delivery will fall to local government whilst funding and oversight will lie at the centre, how can CWIS 2 provide successful mechanisms to support this? What can be done to support transport/highway authorities that may not have a strong record in promoting walking and cycling?
- Programme and project management. Complex programmes require skilled management and certainty about funding. How can CWIS 2 help to create a culture of successful planning and delivery of investment?
Practicalities: Writing your evidence
Your submission should:
- be concise – if over 3,000 words, please include a short summary as well
- include an introduction to you or your organisation and your reason for submitting evidence
- not already be published
If you’d like your evidence to be anonymous (we’ll publish your evidence, but not your name or any personal details about you) or confidential (we’ll read your evidence, but we won’t publish it), please make this clear in your submission e-mail.
What will happen to your evidence?
- Your evidence will normally be published on the internet. It stays public forever. That means that other people will be able to find and read what you send us.
- Your name (or your organisation’s name) will be published with your evidence. You can ask for your evidence to be anonymous.
- The APPGCW doesn’t have to accept your evidence or publish what you send us. We’ll e-mail you to let you know what’s happening to your evidence.
- We’ll read your evidence and we’ll use it to help the APPGCW’s inquiry. For example, the APPGCW might use your name and your evidence in a report.
Submitting your evidence
Please submit your evidence as a single Word, ODT or RTF document, ensuring that it does not exceed 25MB and that it does not contain logos.
Please send your evidence to firstname.lastname@example.org by 16th July 2021.
We want everyone’s voice to be heard by the APPGCW. Please contact us if for any reason you find it difficult to send us your evidence as requested.
The APPGCW gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Brompton Bicycle Ltd in enabling this inquiry.
|Local and central government||Kamal Panchal||Senior Adviser||Local Government Association|
|Mark Frost||Chair||Transport Planning Society|
|Decarbonisation, levelling up and justice||Becca Massey-Chase||Co-Deputy Head, Environmental Justice Commission||IPPR|
|Rebekah Diski||Just transitions, Environment and Green Transition team||New Economics Foundation|
|WACA perspectives||Steve Edwards||Acting CEO||Living Streets|
|Roger Geffen||Policy Director||Cycling UK|
|Rachel White||Head of Public Affairs||Sustrans|
|Phillip Darnton||Chairman||Bicycle Association|
|Chris Boardman||Policy adviser||British Cycling|
|Most effective policies||Dr David Ogilvie||University of Cambridge|
|Effective programme planning and management||Andy Murray||Executive Director||Major Projects Association|
|Inclusive active travel||Kirsty Hoyle||CEO||Transport for All|
|Kay Inckle Policy & Campaign Manager Wheels for Wellbing|
|Georgia Yexley||Head of Cities (UK and Ireland)||TIER Mobility|