This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
This is the full report, read the report summary.
Active travel describes everyday ‘journeys for a purpose’ made by walking, wheeling1, or cycling. In 2021, an average of 235 walking trips and 15 cycling trips were taken by each person. Active travel is a low-carbon way to get around and offers many benefits compared with other forms of transport. Government believes that active travel can support its wider strategic priorities to increase physical activity, tackle obesity, improve air quality, level up, and achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Government expects to spend around £6.6 billion on active travel between 2016 and 2025. It spent £3.3 billion between 2016 and 2021, of which it spent approximately £2.3 billion on infrastructure and £1 billion on other activities such as behaviour change initiatives.
The Department for Transport (DfT) is responsible for active travel policy in England. DfT sets objectives for active travel and the available funding in investment strategies. The first strategy was published in 2017 and the second in 2022. A third is planned from 2025. DfT’s four objectives for active travel are to: increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked or cycled; increase people’s annual walking activity; double rates of cycling; and increase the percentage of children aged 5 to 10 who usually walk to school. Most active travel schemes are delivered by local government. Active travel schemes can range from creating new infrastructure, such as separate cycle lanes on roads or amending existing road space to create pedestrian zones outside schools, as well as activities such as providing training in cycle safety.
In 2020, DfT published Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking. This set out government’s ambition to transform the role active travel can play in the transport system. In this, DfT announced its intention to establish Active Travel England (ATE) to improve the approach to investment in active travel infrastructure and deliver better outcomes. ATE was established in August 2022 and became fully operational in August 2023. Its operational budget for 2023–24 is around £7.5 million, increasing to around £9 million in the following year.
1. Active Travel England has made good early progress but it is still early days for the new organisation. DfT set-up Active Travel England (ATE) in August 2022 to deliver its walking and cycling strategy and to address long-standing issues such as the need to improving the quality of active travel infrastructure and local authorities’ capability to deliver. The establishment of ATE is a positive development and it has already made good progress. For example, the proportion of cycle scheme designs submitted by local authorities that comply with national guidance has increased by 14 percentage points due to improvements in training sessions and design surgeries held between ATE and local authorities, and ATE beginning to review planning applications in June 2023 when its new role as a statutory consultee in the planning process came into effect. But it has taken the establishment of a new body to begin to make a difference on active travel. Despite fiscal pressures across government, it is important that positive momentum is maintained and ATE is adequately funded and supported.
Recommendation 1: DfT should review what ATE has achieved in its first 12 months in operation and whether it has adequate funding and support to deliver its active travel objectives and maintain momentum as it continues to develop. This should include reviewing the available capacity within its different functions and if this is sufficient for it to have impact.
2. DfT is not on track to meet its objectives to increases rates of active travel by 2025. DfT told us that its targets to increase active travel were deliberately ambitious. They include objectives to double rates of cycling and to increase the proportion of children walking to school by 6 percentage points. But progress has been disappointingly slow. There has been no sustained increase in cycling rates and, in some cases, for example the proportion of children walking to school, levels of activity are lower now than when the targets were set. The existing national measures that DfT uses to track progress on cycling rates are too high level to capture the impact of local investment accurately. Although DfT suggested that funding has not been a key issue in the failure to achieve its targets, we are not convinced that progress against DfT’s active travel objectives will be unaffected by the decisions made by the department to reduce funding. DfT states that it can no longer promise to deliver all 33 actions in Gear Change due to funding constraints and the shifting priorities of Ministers, but that it would focus on the activities could have the greatest impact on increasing active travel.
Recommendation 2: DfT should include in its Treasury Minute response:
3. DfT has not done enough to understand the impact and benefits of the £2.3 billion of taxpayers’ money it has spent on active travel. DfT spent £2.3 billion funding active travel infrastructure between 2016 and 2021, but it knows too little about the quality of the infrastructure that has been built. Local authorities are only required to monitor or evaluate schemes that cost more than £2 million. Yet the average grant per project in the most recent traches of the Active Travel Fund was £750,000. This has resulted in DfT having an incomplete understanding of active travel infrastructure, as the majority of schemes have cost much less than the amount requried to be monitored or evaluated. DfT’s approach to measuring the wider impacts of active travel investment is also underdeveloped. We welcome ATE’s commitment to investing in evaluation and to support local authorities to collect robust and consistent data without making it over-burdensome. ATE is exploring new methods for data collection and has a dedicated data analysis team to bring together local data.
Recommendation 3: DfT should, by December 2023, update the Committee on progress with:
a) its plans to evaluate active travel interventions and how it intends to use findings from its evaluation activities to inform its ongoing and future active travel activity and investment decisions;
b) how it intends to comprehensively identify and measure the benefits of active travel across all government policy areas; and
c) how ATE will improve the collection and standardisation of data from active travel schemes.
4. DfT’s communications to the public have not been enough to help tackle perceptions that active travel is unsafe or to encourage more people to take part. People’s perception of the safety of active travel is as important as actual physical safety. There is significant public concern around safety and this remains a substantial barrier to getting more people cycling and walking. We are not convinced that DfT’s messaging around the positive changes that have been made to improve safety, such as revisions to the Highway Code, or the benefits of active travel have been communicated effectively to the general public. There are also concerns about the impact on safety of new forms of travel such as e-scooters. DfT accepts that there is a need for greater clarity around the role of e-scooters, including a better legal framework. With the proliferation of e-scooters being used for both leisure and commuting, in and beyond the 23 current trials of rental schemes, there is a pressing need for better advice and guidance from DfT for the public and stakeholders.
Recommendation 4: DfT should, by December 2023, set out to the Committee how it will lead a proactive and coordinated approach with other stakeholders to: better promote the benefits of active travel; identify and address safety concerns; and encourage more people to participate in active travel.
5. DfT has not ensured that active travel schemes are sufficiently joined-up with wider transport infrastructure, for example enabling people to safely walk to bus stops or take their bike on the bus or train. DfT recognises the importance of integrating active travel with other forms of transport but has not yet taken the steps needed to create a joined-up transport network. We are concerned that a lack of available or secure bike parking, or safe paths, may discourage people from cycling or walking part of a journey. DfT claims that it has prioritised building cycle lanes and infrastructure that segregated cyclists from other road traffic instead of integrating active travel with other transport modes, for example enabling bikes to be taken on buses or trains. ATE expects the bulk of progress in achieving DfT’s active travel objectives to be delivered by increased walking, particularly people walking part of their journey before talking another form of transport. Buses and trams increase the number of walking trips taken because people often walk the first part of their journey to reach a bus or tram stop. Investment in public transport —such as buses, trams and trains—must go hand-in-hand with investment in active travel to allow people to access them and encourage people to walk to stations and bus or tram stops. ATE is working with local authorities to build their planning capability to ensure that active travel is fully integrated into their local plans. It is essential for DfT to ensure that wider transport schemes properly integrate active travel into the public transport network.
Recommendation 5a: DfT and Active Travel England should, by April 2024, develop a clear and consistent approach for ensuring greater integration of active travel infrastructure with the public transport network.
b) In its Treasury Minute response, DfT should set out how, and by when, it will increase the number of public transport stops that can be safely accessed by foot, in both urban and rural areas.
6. Local authorities are being held back from delivering successful active travel interventions by the considerable uncertainty in the funding available for schemes. Since 2016, funding for active travel has been provided to local authorities through more than 36 active travel related funding streams. Local authorities must apply to multiple funding streams separately and each will have different bid requirements and timetables, often with very short deadlines for submissions and even shorter deadlines for delivering a scheme once funding is provided. Funding is often available in the short-term or provided annually, rather than through multi-year settlements and this instability is not conducive to delivering large or innovative schemes that would have a significant impact on active travel rates. Authorities that either lack the resource or experience to construct bids are placed at a disadvantage and the burden of applying for multiple fundings streams or at short notice can be exacerbated for smaller authorities. DfT recognises the need for fewer, more coherent funding schemes.
Recommendation 6: DfT, working with other departments including HM Treasury, should set out in the next six months how and when local authorities will be provided with greater certainty about the funding available for active travel to enable them to invest in and deliver long-term, ambitious active travel interventions. This work should include an examination of whether the number of grant schemes available for active travel can be reduced or simplified.
7. DfT has not set out how it plans to expand its Bikeability programme and increase the rate of children and adults receiving cycle safety training. Bikeability is an important part of how DfT promotes active travel to children and adults and ensures people have the confidence to cycle safely. DfT plans to continue to fund the programme, but it has not yet agreed a business case for the programme. The amount of funding that will be provided in 2023–24 is still uncertain, but DfT expects that it will be less than anticipated in the 2021 spending review, due to the current challenging fiscal environment. DfT told us that its planning for how to expand the Bikeability programme is ongoing. Once plans are in place, it will take time to expand the programme and to find and train the instructors needed. We are concerned that this lack of planning may lead to delays in delivering the training, particularly if funding is provided at short-notice and instructors cannot be found in time. DfT has committed to reviewing the Bikeability programme over the next 12 months with the intention of producing a simpler product that is easier for instructors to deliver.
Recommendation 7: As an urgent priority, and within three months, DfT needs to set out a clear plan for its Bikeability Programme with a revised business case, including the funding it will make available to the programme over the remainder of the investment period to March 2025.
1. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we took evidence from the Department for Transport (DfT) and Active Travel England (ATE) about active travel in England.2
2. Active travel describes everyday journeys made by walking, wheeling, or cycling. Wheeling is an equivalent alternative to walking - for example, using wheelchairs, mobility scooters, prams or pushchairs. In England in 2021, an average of 235 walking trips and 15 cycling trips were taken by each person. The number of cycling trips taken per person per year has remained broadly similar since 2002, whereas the number of walking trips taken per person per year has slightly increased over that time. DfT’s measure of walking includes wheeling.3 Active travel is a low-carbon way to get around and offers many benefits compared with other forms of transport. For example, the physical activity that is part of an active travel journey can be beneficial for individuals’ physical and mental health. Government believes that active travel can support its wider strategic priorities to tackle obesity, improve air quality, level up, and achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.4
3. The Department for Transport (DfT) is responsible for active travel policy in England. DfT sets objectives for active travel and the available funding in investment strategies. DfT published the first investment strategy for active travel in 2017 and the second in 2022. A third is planned from 2025. Most active travel schemes are delivered by local government. Active travel schemes can range from creating new infrastructure, such as separate cycle lanes on roads or amending existing road space to create pedestrian zones outside schools, as well as activities such as providing training in cycle safety. Government expects to spend around £6.6 billion on active travel between 2016 and 2025. It spent £3.3 billion between 2016 and 2021, of which it spent approximately £2.3 billion on infrastructure and £1 billion on other activities such as behaviour change initiatives.5
4. In 2020, DfT published Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking.6 This set out government’s ambition to transform the role active travel can play in the transport system. In this, DfT announced its intention to establish Active Travel England (ATE) to address the areas it identified as needing improvement in its Gear Change plan. By improving infrastructure quality, integrating active travel and planning, addressing local authority capability and strengthening the evidence base for active travel, DfT expects ATE to improve the current approach to investment in active travel infrastructure and deliver better outcomes.7
5. ATE was established in August 2022 and became fully operational in August 2023. Its operational budget for 2022–23 was around £6 million and increased in 2023–24 to around £7.5 million. In 2024–24 it will increase again to around £9 million. ATE has a wide-ranging remit including as an inspectorate of the quality of active travel infrastructure, as a statutory consultee in the planning process, as the manager of DfT’s dedicated active travel budget, and as a supporter of local authorities. These various roles require a high-level of expertise.8
6. We were pleased that DfT has established ATE and to hear about the progress that ATE has made so far since it was established. For example, the National Audit Office (NAO) reported that ATE had contributed to the improvement in quality of active travel infrastructure design at bid stage. While we note there is still much improvement needed, we were encouraged to see that out of 590 proposals submitted to ATE to be funded in 2022–23, 96 (16%) were compliant with guidance, compared with six out of 352 (2%) proposals in the previous year. ATE attributed this improvement to training sessions and 150 design surgeries that it had held with local authorities. ATE told us that its 21 planning staff had reviewed 220 planning applications since June 2023 as part of ATE’s role as a statutory consultee, all of which had been reviewed on time.9
7. We asked DfT about the progress that ATE had made in supporting active travel and how DfT expected ATE to prioritise its activities. DfT told us about the challenging fiscal environment in which it and ATE are now operating in as a result of significant inflationary cost pressures. DfT told us that it had made difficult choices in response to these cost pressures and, as a result, the financial position for active travel was different from the one expected when DfT published Gear Change: a bold vision for cycling and walking in 2020.10 We received written evidence from Living Streets raising its concern that without sufficient funding, ATE will not be able to fulfil its potential to improve investment in active travel in the ways expected by DfT nor provide adequate financial support to local authorities to deliver active travel schemes that will help make progress towards DfT’s objectives to increase active travel.11
8. DfT set out its most recent objectives for active travel in 2022. These are to:
9. In June 2023, the NAO found that the latest data showed little progress had been made against the targets set by DfT. In 2021, DfT was close to only one of its targets – to increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked or cycled, which was just under 46%. However, this this may reflect changes to travel patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic which appear not to have been sustained. For the other three objectives, levels of activity were lower than they were when DfT first set active travel objectives in 2017.13 For example, between 2017 and 2021, average annual walking activity reduced from 343 stages per person per year to 279 stages, when DfT’s target is 365 stages per person per year by 2025. We therefore asked DfT whether it thought that it would meet the targets it had set. DfT told us that it had raised its ambition to increase active travel very significantly in the last five years and that its objectives to 2025 were deliberately ambitious. It explained that it had set its targets at a “very, very stretching level” and that it thought that the progress recorded in the NAO report probably understated the progress it expected to make. DfT told us that data for 2021 were likely to have been affected by the pandemic and that the data for 2022 was expected to show more progress.14 On 31 August, DfT published its statistics for 2022. These showed some improvement in rates of walking, although there was not a return to pre-pandemic levels, and the proportion of short journeys walked or cycled remained close to the 2025 target.15 However, rates of cycling and walking to school showed little new progress. DfT told us that it could not say with confidence that the targets will all be met, but that it was “looking very hard at the way we can secure the maximum benefits”.16
10. It is important for DfT to have the right data and information in place to monitor whether its active travel investments are contributing to achieving its objectives. The NAO reported that longer-term progress against achieving DfT’s objectives was uncertain due to a time-lag in availability of DfT’s statistics.17 ATE told us that, currently, the existing national measures that DfT uses to track progress on cycling rates are too high-level to capture the impact of local investment accurately. DfT explained that it used the National Travel Survey to monitor progress against its objectives, which included around 10,000 people per year. It told us that this was a “very good set of data” and for walking, the numbers reported “is liekly to capture what is actually happening”. But it explained that it was cycling it was slightly different, as the survey would look at aggregated results, but that cycling infrastructure could be inconsistent across the country and investment was very localised, so a national survey was “too diluted to reflect what is happening on the ground”.18
11. In March 2023 in response to significant inflationary pressure, DfT announced changes to various transport investment plans. This included a £233 million reduction in its dedicated funding for active travel up to April 2025.19 We received written evidence from the Walking and Cycling Alliance, Sustrans, and Local Government Association setting out their concerns that cuts to active travel funding place a huge challenge on local authorities’ ability to deliver government’s ambition for increased active travel.20 We therefore asked DfT, given the ambitious targets and lack of progress so far, whether funding for active travel was a constraint in being able to meet its targets. DfT told us that it did not think that funding was a key issue limiting progress.21 The NAO found, however, that DfT’s modelling suggested that with the funding available, it was unlikely that it will get close to achieving its 2025 objectives.22
12. We also asked DfT about progress in delivering the Gear Change programme. The NAO found that DfT made progress against most (22 out of 33) Gear Change actions, with most progress made on measures targeting capability, including the formation of ATE. Less progress was made on actions around integration, partly because measures to increase and stabilise dedicated funding for longer-term planning have not been achieved.23 We therefore asked DfT and ATE how they would prioritise delivering the remaining actions. DfT told us that it could no longer promise to deliver all 33 actions in Gear Change due to funding constraints and the shifting priorities of Ministers since Gear Change was published in 2020. DfT said that it would focus its activities on the activities where it and ATE could have the greatest impact.24
13. Active travel infrastructure is highly varied and can include, for example, cycle lanes, pedestrian crossings, pedestrianised zones, cycle parking, and school streets. The NAO reported that between 2016 and 2021, DfT spent £2.3 billion on active travel infrastructure. The NAO found that DfT has known too little about what has been achieved from active travel investment to date.25 We asked DfT why it knew so little about how this money has been spent and the quality and value that had been delivered as a result. DfT said it felt this was an unfairly critical remark and it asserted that it asked local authorities to return information on what had been delivered with funds provided to them for active travel, and that it commissioned evaluations of active travel interventions.26 DfT confirmed that it followed up on incomplete information from local authorities on what they have delivered.27 However, we note that local authorities are only required to evaluate the impact of schemes that cost more than £2 million, and there is no requirement to undertake any evaluation of schemes that cost less than £2 million.28 We asked DfT to tell us the average value of active travel grants that it provides to local authorities. In a letter to us after our evidence session, DfT told us that the average grant per project delivered in the most recent Active Travel Fund tranches was £750,000.29
14. DfT estimates that for every £1 invested in active travel, government will achieve around £4.30 in benefits. We therefore asked DfT about the benefits of active travel. DfT told us that active travel had many different benefits, including for health, air quality, decarbonisation. It explained that most of the benefits were found in health, including reduced incidence of heart attack which it measured.30 DfT told us that it had conducted an evaluation of the Cycle City Ambition Fund, which showed that while infrastructure had increased cycling by about 40%, it can take between three to five years for a piece of new infrastructure to have a maximum impact on behaviours and active travel participation.31 DfT recognised that it was “actually measuring quite a limited number of benefits in a qualitative sense” and ATE explained that the data available was inconsistent. It said that it was working to establish a common framework for assessing the benefits of active travel, while minimising the burden on local authorities of collating this data. We were pleased to hear that ATE intended to standardise the approach to evaluation and simplify the process for local authorities. We asked DfT when its plans for evaluating the impact of spend on active travel would be in place, and why it had taken setting up a new body in ATE to make progress. DfT told us that the establishment of ATE provided “five times the people capacity” that DfT previously had working on active travel.32 ATE told us that it will have 18 staff on its analysis and evaluation team and was working with the Alan Turing Institute to build data repositories, including one that will collate data from local authorities across England on outcomes from investments.33
15. Concerns around safety and confidence to cycle are key barriers to active travel. The NAO reported that, in 2021, around half of respondents to a DfT survey stated that safer roads would encourage them to cycle (53%) and walk (45%) more. Data from DfT surveys show that, between 2017 and 2020, the proportion of existing cyclists who agreed that it was dangerous to cycle increased from 48% to 57%.34 We received written evidence from the University of Central Lancashire about its work examining the barriers to active travel. It found that poor infrastructure, roads being very busy with cars, and poor driver knowledge and awareness of cycling had contributed to low uptake of everyday cycling.35 We asked DfT what more that government could do to address concerns about safety. DfT recognised that perceptions of safety were just as important as actual safety when encouraging people to participate in active travel, and that ATE was working on this. ATE explained that it was working with partners around the country, and with colleagues in local authorities and highways authorities, to consider how to design roads and junctions to ensure they are safer for all users, particularly vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.36
16. In January 2022, DfT made changes to the Highway Code to prioritise vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.37 However, evidence we received from stakeholders suggested that DfT’s messaging around the changes made to improve safety have not been communicated effectively to the public. Stakeholders told us that a lack of investment in wider public engagement elements may have contributed to low public support for active travel infrastructure and poor perceptions of safety. Liverpool John Moores University provided us with examples that demonstrated the impact of insufficient funding for community consultation and public engagement on public reception to new infrastructure. New “pop-up” schemes were built in Liverpool with emergency funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data it collected showed the contribution of these schemes to high rates of cycling and walking, but some have subsequently been removed due to complaints about the schemes from the public. Stakeholders also noted that a lack of positive role models and national promotion of cycling in England may have contributed to more negative perceptions of active travel.38 Leicester City Council told us that “government has missed opportunities to promote walking, wheeling, and cycling as a sustainable and cost-effective means of replacing car journeys”. For example, it said that government missed an opportunity to endorse walking, wheeling, and cycling as cheaper alternatives to car travel during the rapid cost increases of fuel and electricity following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Increased active travel could have reduced the impact of rising costs on consumers and reduced overall energy demand.39 London Cycling Campaign told us that cycling continues to be associated with a lack of financial success, compared to ownership and use of private cars.40
17. We asked DfT if there was more that it could do to promote the changes it had made to improve safety and encourage more people take up cycling. It told us that it recognised that communication was a big part of tackling perceptions and encouraging changes in behaviour. It told us that it was using its long-standing road safety communications campaign, Think!, to communicate changes it had made to the Highway Code.41 This campaign was first run in 2022 when the changes to the Highway Code were first made.42After our evidence session, on 3 August 2023, DfT also relaunched its Think! campaign reminding people of the changes that had been made to the Highway Code which prioritised vulnerable road users.43
18. There are currently 23 trials for e-scooter rentals in England but outside of these areas e-scooters are not legal on roads.44 Despite that, use of e-scooters has increased rapidly in recent years both within and beyond trial areas, sometimes with negative consequences, including safety, for other road users.45 We therefore asked witnesses about concerns among the public about the impact on safety of new forms of travel such as e-scooters. DfT told us that it recognised e-scooters were “potentially a fantastic addition to the suite of travel options that people have” and that a better legal framework for their use was required.46 We told DfT about areas where e-scooters are being used illegally beyond the trial areas and said that there is a need for greater clarity for the public over their use. DfT told us that when the trials end, in May 2024, it will need to undertake an assessment of how they went to inform the possible rollout of e-scooter rental schemes more widely and safely. DfT did not provide us with a timeframe on when a decision will be made on subsequent rollout and noted that Parliamentary time was required for a more comprehensive legal framework to be developed.47
19. DfT has overall responsibility for active travel policy in England and ATE is now responsible for delivering against DfT’s objectives to increase active travel by 2025. Local authorities are key delivery partners who deliver active travel infrastructure in local areas to support increased uptake of active travel. Other organisations are funded by ATE and DfT to deliver behaviour change schemes, such as the Bikeability Programme.48
20. Active travel is one of many options of transport that individuals can choose from to make their journeys. In its 2020 publication Gear Change: a bold vision for cycling and walking, DfT identified that limited integration with other transport and planning policy had contributed to inconsistent provision of active travel infrastructure in local areas and was a barrier to increasing rates of active travel. The NAO found, however, that DfT had made limited progress with the actions it set out in Gear Change to integrate active travel into transport planning. It also found that DfT had not taken the steps required to ensure that active travel schemes are sufficiently joined-up with wider transport infrastructure, for example enabling people to safely walk to bus stops or take their bike on the bus.49
21. We asked DfT why there had not been more focus on areas where integration was key to encouraging active travel. DfT told us that it had prioritised activity and investment on the areas where it felt it could have maximum impact on increasing rates of active travel. It explained that this included focusing on delivering segregated cycle routes in an attempt to address the safety barrier to people cycling. This activity was prioritised above integrating active travel with other transport modes such as rail, buses or trams. As a result, in places like Sheffield, we noted that it is not possible to take a bike onto a tram, limiting the options for how people can complete an end-to-end journey using these modes of transport. Concerns around a lack of safe bike parking facilities at train stations is one area where people may be dissuaded from cycling to a station to catch a train, and we asked DfT whether it had provided grants to increase safe parking facilities at stations. ATE and DfT told us that grants had been provided and furthermore that when local authorities bid for active travel funding, they may choose to spend some of the funds on cycle parking.50
22. ATE expects the largest increases in rates of active travel participation will come from more people walking and wheeling, rather than cycling. It recognised that buses and trams can increase the number of walking trips taken..51 However, ATE told us that there had been “countless examples” of new bus or tram infrastructure being installed without pavements or crossings to enable people to access them safely on foot, including in new housing developments.52 To create a joined up transport network that enables sustainable and affordable journeys, investment in public transport—such as buses, trams and trains —must go hand-in-hand with investment in active travel to allow people to access them and encourage people to walk to stations and bus or tram stops.53
23. The NAO reported that DfT expects ATE to have a key role in developing the capability of local authorities. This includes the ability of local authorities to plan local transport networks where active travel is integrated with other modes. ATE has begun its work with local authorities that it deemed to have lower capability and ambition in relation to active travel and is establishing ways of working with authorities to provide guidance and support. We note, however, that there is a long way to go to improve local authority capability and ambition. In 2023, ATE assessed that more than half (56%) of local authorities were at ‘level 0’ or ‘level 1’, indicating relatively low levels of capability and ambition.54
24. In 2018, as part of our examination of the financial sustainability of local authorities, we said that good financial planning within local authorities relied on certainty and stability of funds, while financial uncertainty created risks to value for money.55 Active travel investment has not escaped funding-related issues, which the NAO reported are hindering the ability of local authorities to plan strategically, deliver active travel schemes more efficiently, and invest in schemes which might make a bigger contribution to DfT’s objectives for 2025.56
25. The NAO’s analysis identified that there had been 36 different central government funds for active travel since 2016, some of which had multiple funding rounds. These funds often had different conditions and bidding requirements which local authorities must navigate to access funding for their active travel schemes. They also often had short deadlines for submissions and for delivering a scheme once funding is provided.57 We received written evidence from Leicester City Council which set out that the competitive nature of funds meant that local authorities must bid to secure as much funding as possible within a given window. It told us that local authorities that either lacked the resource or experience to construct bids were placed at a disadvantage, and that smaller authorities may lack the resource required to formulate competitive bids.58 In addition, it told us that developing bids is time-intensive, which was often compounded by very short bidding windows. Leicester City Council gave the example of Tranche Four of the Active Travel Fund which it said authorities were notified of on 1 January 2023 with a deadline for submitting bids for funding of 24 February 2023.59 We have therefore recommended that DfT, along with other departments, examine whether the number of grant schemes and their requirements can be simplified to encourage more local authorities to bid for them.
26. The short-term nature of funding for active travel is also problematic and this was a recurrent theme in the submissions that we received from stakeholders.60 The Local Government Association told us that “uncertainty over the level or duration of funding makes it extremely challenging for councils to build in-house capacity to plan and deliver a pipeline of projects, with proper time for engagement and design that can deliver the greatest benefits and value for money”.61 The NAO found that funds were often provided through one-year settlements and that the lack of long-term investment certainty was undermining the ability of local authorities to plan strategic, integrated, networks. There is a risk that local authorities may prioritise funding for schemes which are easiest to deliver within a funding window rather than those with higher strategic value.62 For example, Leicester City Council told us that to deliver within the annual bidding cycle for active travel investment, local authorities may prioritise schemes for ease of construction, or expectations of smoother consultation and engagement pathways, over strategic need.63 The Local Government Association also told us that year-on-year instability of funding was not conducive to delivering large or innovative schemes that would have a significant impact on active travel rates.64 Liverpool John Moores University told us that the short-term nature of funding meant that innovative approaches to increase active travel could not be sustained beyond the funding period.65 We asked DfT whether having fewer funding streams which were longer-term in nature would be more conducive to delivering well-thought-out schemes. It told us that the nature of funding, where local authorities “have to cobble together […] funds”, was an issue that it needed to continue to reflect on and was also a broader issue for local funding.66
27. The Bikeability Programme plays an important role in providing children and adults with cycle training and skills, helping develop confidence to cycle safely.67 It helps teach practical skills through instructor-led training sessions. The Bikeability Programme is managed and developed by Bikeability Trust, a charitable organisation, on behalf of DfT. The Bikeability Trust’s mission is that, by 2025, it will have helped 5 million children take up Bikeability cycle training and cycle more confidently.68 We received written evidence from the Bikeability Trust informing us of the impact that the cycle training can have on increasing cycle rates among children. In 2019, it reported that 65% of children had cycled since the start of term after completing Level 2 or 3 Bikeability training.69 DfT told us that half a million people went through the Programme last year.70
28. In 2020, DfT announced it would expand its Bikeability programme and committed to offering cycling skills to all children in England. However, DfT has not yet completed its plans for expanding the Bikeability Programme and could not tell us when the commitment will be met. In 2022–23, 51% of children received road safety training through Bikeability by the end of primary school. This is much lower than the 80% required to help achieve DfT’s active travel objectives.71
29. Written evidence from Bikeability Trust told us that funding for the Bikeability Programme was provided through a multi-year settlement between 2016 and 2020, but since then funding had been provided in single year extensions often confirmed just before the start of the financial year. Bikeability Trust told us that there was a risk of under-delivery as a result of delays in confirming funding. Its written submission to us set out that 69,985 (20% of all) Level 1&2 and Level 2 places were at risk of not being delivered in 2022–23 as a result of funding not being announced until the end of the prior financial year. It estimated a multi-year settlement for the Bikeability Programme would provide a direct cashable saving of 2.8% of the Programme as well as increase the ability of the Programme to expand.72
30. We asked DfT for the details about its plans to fund the Bikeability Programme for 2023–24. It told us that it had been increasing the amount of funding available for the Programme over the last decade, and would do the same again this year, but recognised that the funding would not be as much as expected. It explained that conversations on the Programme’s business case were in live discussion and that it would not be providing the £28.5 million which it had initially expected to as part of the 2021 Spending Review Settlement because of the “challenging fiscal environment”.73
31. Bikeability Trust uses trainers to deliver cycle training. ATE and the Bikeability Trust, in their written submission to us, told us that often, local authorities do not directly employ these trainers and there can be complicated arrangements and criteria for becoming a trainer and delivering Bikeability training. In its written submission, Bikeability Trust raised concerns that delays to sufficient and long-term funding will hamper the ability to scale up equitably and overcome the current postcode lottery of Bikeability provision. It told us that it can take time for local authorities to agree contracts through complex procurement processes and any further delay in an announcement of funding for the Bikeability programme could lead to delays in cycle training delivery and entrench inequality in cycle training provision. ATE told us that it planned to review the approach to delivering Bikeability training to simplify the process for trainers.74 ATE told us that Bikeability training is an effective way to increase the safety of adults who cycle, and that the likelihood of an adult continuing to cycle increases once they have completed the training. ATE told us that it was looking at ways to extend the training to adults but that this will in part be down to the willingness of local authorities to fund adult training sessions.75
Dame Meg Hillier
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Mr Mark Francois
Anne Marie Morris
Ashley Dalton declared that she managed active travel schemes in Southend and South Essex in receipt of Department for Transport active travel funding 2011–2022.
Draft Report (Active travel in England), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 31 read and agreed to.
Summary agreed to.
Introduction agreed to.
Conclusions and recommendations agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Seventy-fifth of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.
Adjourned till Thursday 19 October at 9.30am.
The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
Dame Bernadette Kelly DCB, Permanent Secretary, Department for Transport; Jessica Matthew, Co-Director for the Local Transport Directorate, Department for Transport; Danny Williams, Chief Executive, Active Travel EnglandQ1–79
The following written evidence was received and can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
ATE numbers are generated by the evidence processing system and so may not be complete.
1 Bikeability Trust (ATE0002)
2 Energy Saving Trust (ATE0011)
3 Groundswell (ATE0004)
4 Leicester City Council (ATE0007)
5 Liverpool John Moores University (ATE0012)
6 Living Streets (ATE0010)
7 Local Government Association (ATE0003)
8 London Cycling Campaign (ATE0005)
9 University of Liverpool) (ATE0009)
10 Sustrans (ATE0006)
11 University of Central Lancashire (ATE0008)
12 Walking and Cycling Alliance (ATE0001)
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.
Session 2022–23
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Annual Report and Accounts 2020–21 |
HC 59 |
|
2nd |
Lessons from implementing IR35 reforms |
HC 60 |
|
3rd |
The future of the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors |
HC 118 |
|
4th |
Use of evaluation and modelling in government |
HC 254 |
|
5th |
Local economic growth |
HC 252 |
|
6th |
Department of Health and Social Care 2020–21 Annual Report and Accounts |
HC 253 |
|
7th |
Armoured Vehicles: the Ajax programme |
HC 259 |
|
8th |
Financial sustainability of the higher education sector in England |
HC 257 |
|
9th |
Child Maintenance |
HC 255 |
|
10th |
Restoration and Renewal of Parliament |
HC 49 |
|
11th |
The rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine programme in England |
HC 258 |
|
12th |
Management of PPE contracts |
HC 260 |
|
13th |
Secure training centres and secure schools |
HC 30 |
|
14th |
Investigation into the British Steel Pension Scheme |
HC 251 |
|
15th |
The Police Uplift Programme |
HC 261 |
|
16th |
Managing cross-border travel during the COVID-19 pandemic |
HC 29 |
|
17th |
Government’s contracts with Randox Laboratories Ltd |
HC 28 |
|
18th |
Government actions to combat waste crime |
HC 33 |
|
19th |
Regulating after EU Exit |
HC 32 |
|
20th |
Whole of Government Accounts 2019–20 |
HC 31 |
|
21st |
Transforming electronic monitoring services |
HC 34 |
|
22nd |
Tackling local air quality breaches |
HC 37 |
|
23rd |
Measuring and reporting public sector greenhouse gas emissions |
HC 39 |
|
24th |
Redevelopment of Defra’s animal health infrastructure |
HC 42 |
|
25th |
Regulation of energy suppliers |
HC 41 |
|
26th |
The Department for Work and Pensions’ Accounts 2021–22 – Fraud and error in the benefits system |
HC 44 |
|
27th |
Evaluating innovation projects in children’s social care |
HC 38 |
|
28th |
Improving the Accounting Officer Assessment process |
HC 43 |
|
29th |
The Affordable Homes Programme since 2015 |
HC 684 |
|
30th |
Developing workforce skills for a strong economy |
HC 685 |
|
31st |
Managing central government property |
HC 48 |
|
32nd |
Grassroots participation in sport and physical activity |
HC 46 |
|
33rd |
HMRC performance in 2021–22 |
HC 686 |
|
34th |
The Creation of the UK Infrastructure Bank |
HC 45 |
|
35th |
Introducing Integrated Care Systems |
HC 47 |
|
36th |
The Defence digital strategy |
HC 727 |
|
37th |
Support for vulnerable adolescents |
HC 730 |
|
38th |
Managing NHS backlogs and waiting times in England |
HC 729 |
|
39th |
Excess Votes 2021–22 |
HC 1132 |
|
40th |
COVID employment support schemes |
HC 810 |
|
41st |
Driving licence backlogs at the DVLA |
HC 735 |
|
42nd |
The Restart Scheme for long-term unemployed people |
HC 733 |
|
43rd |
Progress combatting fraud |
HC 40 |
|
44th |
The Digital Services Tax |
HC 732 |
|
45th |
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Annual Report and Accounts 2021–22 |
HC 1254 |
|
46th |
BBC Digital |
HC 736 |
|
47th |
Investigation into the UK Passport Office |
HC 738 |
|
48th |
MoD Equipment Plan 2022–2032 |
HC 731 |
|
49th |
Managing tax compliance following the pandemic |
HC 739 |
|
50th |
Government Shared Services |
HC 734 |
|
51st |
Tackling Defra’s ageing digital services |
HC 737 |
|
52nd |
Restoration & Renewal of the Palace of Westminster – 2023 Recall |
HC 1021 |
|
53rd |
The performance of UK Security Vetting |
HC 994 |
|
54th |
Alcohol treatment services |
HC 1001 |
|
55th |
Education recovery in schools in England |
HC 998 |
|
56th |
Supporting investment into the UK |
HC 996 |
|
57th |
AEA Technology Pension Case |
HC 1005 |
|
58th |
Energy bills support |
HC 1074 |
|
59th |
Decarbonising the power sector |
HC 1003 |
|
60th |
Timeliness of local auditor reporting |
HC 995 |
|
61st |
Progress on the courts and tribunals reform programme |
HC 1002 |
|
62nd |
Department of Health and Social Care 2021–22 Annual Report and Accounts |
HC 997 |
|
63rd |
HS2 Euston |
HC 1004 |
|
64th |
The Emergency Services Network |
HC 1006 |
|
65th |
Progress in improving NHS mental health services |
HC 1000 |
|
66th |
PPE Medpro: awarding of contracts during the pandemic |
HC 1590 |
|
67th |
Child Trust Funds |
HC 1231 |
|
68th |
Local authority administered COVID support schemes in England |
HC 1234 |
|
69th |
Tackling fraud and corruption against government |
HC 1230 |
|
70th |
Digital transformation in government: addressing the barriers to efficiency |
HC 1229 |
|
71st |
Resetting government programmes |
HC 1231 |
|
72nd |
Update on the rollout of smart meters |
HC 1332 |
|
73rd |
Access to urgent and emergency care |
HC 1336 |
|
74th |
Bulb Energy |
HC 1232 |
|
76th |
The Asylum Transformation Programme |
HC 1334 |
|
1st Special Report |
Sixth Annual Report of the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts |
HC 50 |
|
2nd Special Report |
Seventh Annual Report of the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts |
HC 1055 |
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Low emission cars |
HC 186 |
|
2nd |
BBC strategic financial management |
HC 187 |
|
3rd |
COVID-19: Support for children’s education |
HC 240 |
|
4th |
COVID-19: Local government finance |
HC 239 |
|
5th |
COVID-19: Government Support for Charities |
HC 250 |
|
6th |
Public Sector Pensions |
HC 289 |
|
7th |
Adult Social Care Markets |
HC 252 |
|
8th |
COVID 19: Culture Recovery Fund |
HC 340 |
|
9th |
Fraud and Error |
HC 253 |
|
10th |
Overview of the English rail system |
HC 170 |
|
11th |
Local auditor reporting on local government in England |
HC 171 |
|
12th |
COVID 19: Cost Tracker Update |
HC 173 |
|
13th |
Initial lessons from the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic |
HC 175 |
|
14th |
Windrush Compensation Scheme |
HC 174 |
|
15th |
DWP Employment support |
HC 177 |
|
16th |
Principles of effective regulation |
HC 176 |
|
17th |
High Speed 2: Progress at Summer 2021 |
HC 329 |
|
18th |
Government’s delivery through arm’s-length bodies |
HC 181 |
|
19th |
Protecting consumers from unsafe products |
HC 180 |
|
20th |
Optimising the defence estate |
HC 179 |
|
21st |
School Funding |
HC 183 |
|
22nd |
Improving the performance of major defence equipment contracts |
HC 185 |
|
23rd |
Test and Trace update |
HC 182 |
|
24th |
Crossrail: A progress update |
HC 184 |
|
25th |
The Department for Work and Pensions’ Accounts 2020–21 – Fraud and error in the benefits system |
HC 633 |
|
26th |
Lessons from Greensill Capital: accreditation to business support schemes |
HC 169 |
|
27th |
Green Homes Grant Voucher Scheme |
HC 635 |
|
28th |
Efficiency in government |
HC 636 |
|
29th |
The National Law Enforcement Data Programme |
HC 638 |
|
30th |
Challenges in implementing digital change |
HC 637 |
|
31st |
Environmental Land Management Scheme |
HC 639 |
|
32nd |
Delivering gigabitcapable broadband |
HC 743 |
|
33rd |
Underpayments of the State Pension |
HC 654 |
|
34th |
Local Government Finance System: Overview and Challenges |
HC 646 |
|
35th |
The pharmacy early payment and salary advance schemes in the NHS |
HC 745 |
|
36th |
EU Exit: UK Border post transition |
HC 746 |
|
37th |
HMRC Performance in 2020–21 |
HC 641 |
|
38th |
COVID-19 cost tracker update |
HC 640 |
|
39th |
DWP Employment Support: Kickstart Scheme |
HC 655 |
|
40th |
Excess votes 2020–21: Serious Fraud Office |
HC 1099 |
|
41st |
Achieving Net Zero: Follow up |
HC 642 |
|
42nd |
Financial sustainability of schools in England |
HC 650 |
|
43rd |
Reducing the backlog in criminal courts |
HC 643 |
|
44th |
NHS backlogs and waiting times in England |
HC 747 |
|
45th |
Progress with trade negotiations |
HC 993 |
|
46th |
Government preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons for government on risk |
HC 952 |
|
47th |
Academies Sector Annual Report and Accounts 2019/20 |
HC 994 |
|
48th |
HMRC’s management of tax debt |
HC 953 |
|
49th |
Regulation of private renting |
HC 996 |
|
50th |
Bounce Back Loans Scheme: Follow-up |
HC 951 |
|
51st |
Improving outcomes for women in the criminal justice system |
HC 997 |
|
52nd |
Ministry of Defence Equipment Plan 2021–31 |
HC 1164 |
|
1st Special Report |
Fifth Annual Report of the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts |
HC 222 |
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|
1st |
Support for children with special educational needs and disabilities |
HC 85 |
|
2nd |
Defence Nuclear Infrastructure |
HC 86 |
|
3rd |
High Speed 2: Spring 2020 Update |
HC 84 |
|
4th |
EU Exit: Get ready for Brexit Campaign |
HC 131 |
|
5th |
University technical colleges |
HC 87 |
|
6th |
Excess votes 2018–19 |
HC 243 |
|
7th |
Gambling regulation: problem gambling and protecting vulnerable people |
HC 134 |
|
8th |
NHS capital expenditure and financial management |
HC 344 |
|
9th |
Water supply and demand management |
HC 378 |
|
10th |
Defence capability and the Equipment Plan |
HC 247 |
|
11th |
Local authority investment in commercial property |
HC 312 |
|
12th |
Management of tax reliefs |
HC 379 |
|
13th |
Whole of Government Response to COVID-19 |
HC 404 |
|
14th |
Readying the NHS and social care for the COVID-19 peak |
HC 405 |
|
15th |
Improving the prison estate |
HC 244 |
|
16th |
Progress in remediating dangerous cladding |
HC 406 |
|
17th |
Immigration enforcement |
HC 407 |
|
18th |
NHS nursing workforce |
HC 408 |
|
19th |
Restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster |
HC 549 |
|
20th |
Tackling the tax gap |
HC 650 |
|
21st |
Government support for UK exporters |
HC 679 |
|
22nd |
Digital transformation in the NHS |
HC 680 |
|
23rd |
Delivering carrier strike |
HC 684 |
|
24th |
Selecting towns for the Towns Fund |
HC 651 |
|
25th |
Asylum accommodation and support transformation programme |
HC 683 |
|
26th |
Department of Work and Pensions Accounts 2019–20 |
HC 681 |
|
27th |
Covid-19: Supply of ventilators |
HC 685 |
|
28th |
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s management of the Magnox contract |
HC 653 |
|
29th |
Whitehall preparations for EU Exit |
HC 682 |
|
30th |
The production and distribution of cash |
HC 654 |
|
31st |
Starter Homes |
HC 88 |
|
32nd |
Specialist Skills in the civil service |
HC 686 |
|
33rd |
Covid-19: Bounce Back Loan Scheme |
HC 687 |
|
34th |
Covid-19: Support for jobs |
HC 920 |
|
35th |
Improving Broadband |
HC 688 |
|
36th |
HMRC performance 2019–20 |
HC 690 |
|
37th |
Whole of Government Accounts 2018–19 |
HC 655 |
|
38th |
Managing colleges’ financial sustainability |
HC 692 |
|
39th |
Lessons from major projects and programmes |
HC 694 |
|
40th |
Achieving government’s long-term environmental goals |
HC 927 |
|
41st |
COVID 19: the free school meals voucher scheme |
HC 689 |
|
42nd |
COVID-19: Government procurement and supply of Personal Protective Equipment |
HC 928 |
|
43rd |
COVID-19: Planning for a vaccine Part 1 |
HC 930 |
|
44th |
Excess Votes 2019–20 |
HC 1205 |
|
45th |
Managing flood risk |
HC 931 |
|
46th |
Achieving Net Zero |
HC 935 |
|
47th |
COVID-19: Test, track and trace (part 1) |
HC 932 |
|
48th |
Digital Services at the Border |
HC 936 |
|
49th |
COVID-19: housing people sleeping rough |
HC 934 |
|
50th |
Defence Equipment Plan 2020–2030 |
HC 693 |
|
51st |
Managing the expiry of PFI contracts |
HC 1114 |
|
52nd |
Key challenges facing the Ministry of Justice |
HC 1190 |
|
53rd |
Covid 19: supporting the vulnerable during lockdown |
HC 938 |
|
54th |
Improving single living accommodation for service personnel |
HC 940 |
|
55th |
Environmental tax measures |
HC 937 |
|
56th |
Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund |
HC 941 |
1 Wheeling is an equivalent alternative to walking – for example, using wheelchairs, mobility scooters, prams or pushchairs.
2 C&AG’s Report, Active travel in England, Session 2022-23, HC 1376, 7 June 2023
3 DfT, National Travel Survey 2021: Active travel, published 31st August 2022
4 C&AG’s Report, para 1.11 and Figure 5
5 C&AG’s Report, paras 2, 9 and Figure 3
6 DfT, Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking, published 28 July 2020
7 C&AG’s Report, para 3.9
8 C&AG’s Report, paras 1.5, 3.9 and Figure 10
9 Qq 75, 77; C&AG’s Report, para 3.10
10 Qq 11, 30, 37; C&AG’s Report, para 1.10
11 ATE0010, Written evidence submitted by Living Streets
12 DfT, The second cycling and walking investment strategy (CWIS2), published 6 July 2022; C&AG’s report, para 3
13 C&AG’s Report, para 12
14 Qq 9-11
15 DfT, Walking and cycling statistics, England: Introduction and main findings, published 30th August 2023
16 Q 10
17 C&AG’s Report, para 2.2
18 Q 11
19 Q 69; C&AG’s Report, para 1.10
20 ATE0003, Written evidence submitted by Bikeability Trust; ATE0010, Written evidence submitted by Living Streets; ATE0001, Written evidence submitted by Walking and Cycling Alliance
21 Qq 11-12
22 C&AG’s Report, para 2.2 and 2.5
23 C&AG’s Report, para 2.8
24 Q 31
25 C&AG’s Report, paras 15, 21
26 Q 47
27 Q 52
28 Qq 48-49; C&AG’s Report, para 3.5
29 Q 48; Letter from Dame Bernadette Kelly DCB, Permanent Secretary for Transport, to Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair Public Accounts Committee in relation to Active Travel in England, 1 August 2023
30 Q26, Q47, Q55; C&AG’s Report, para 1.11
31 Q33
32 Q 55-57
33 Qq 28, 76
34 C&AG’s Report, para 2.4
35 ATE0008, Written evidence submitted by University of Central Lancashire
36 Q17
37 Q15, C&AG’s Report para 3.2
38 ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council; ATE0012, Written evidence submitted by Liverpool John Moores University; ATE0005, Written evidence submitted by London Cycling Campaign
39 ATE0007, Written Evidence submitted by Leicester City Council
40 ATE0005, Written evidence submitted by London Cycling Campaign
41 Qq 17, 18
42 Department for Transport, Highway Code – THINK!, accessed 29.08.2023
43 Department for Transport, Government re-launch THINK! campaign in continued drive to improve road safety, 3 August 2023
44 Qq 21, 23
45 Qq 64, 68
46 Qq 23, 24
47 Qq 64, 66, 67
48 C&AG’s Report, para 1.2, Figure 1
49 Q32, Q33, C&AG’s Report, paras 1.4, 2.8 and Figure 9
50 Qq 32, 35
51 Q 33; C&AG’s Report, para 1.7
52 Q 33
53 C&AG’s Report, para 1.12, Q33, ATE0012
54 Qq 32, 61, 70, 75; C&AG’s Report, para 3.15
55 Public Accounts Committee, Financial sustainability of local authorities, Fiftieth Report of Session 2017-19, HC 970, 4 July 2018
56 C&AG’s Report, para 20
57 C&AG’s Report, para 3.18, Figure 12
58 ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council
59 Qq 73, 74; ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council
60 ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council; ATE0003, Written evidence submitted by Local Government Association; ATE0006, Written evidence submitted by Sustrans; ATE0012, Written evidence submitted by Liverpool John Moores University; ATE0001, Written evidence submitted by Walking and Cycling Alliance
61 ATE0003, Written evidence submitted by Local Government Association
62 C&AG’s Report, Figure 12, ATE0003; Written evidence submitted by Local Government Association
63 ATE0007, Written evidence submitted by Leicester City Council
64 ATE0003, Written evidence submitted by Local Government Association
65 ATE0012, Written evidence submitted by Liverpool John Moores University
66 Qq 73, 74
67 Qq 37, 39
68 About Us - The Bikeability Trust Organisation | Bikeability
69 ATE0002, Written evidence submitted by Bikeability Trust
70 Q 44
71 Qq 37-38, C&AG’s Report, para 2.10
72 ATE0002, Written evidence submitted by Bikeability Trust
73 C&AG’s Report, para 2.9, Q37, Q38, Q41, Q42, Q43, Q44
74 Q 46; ATE0002, Written evidence submitted by Bikeability Trust
75 Q 39