Recommendations & Conclusions
8 items
6
Recommendation
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the recommendation, explaining that while some longer-term funding exists for certain authorities via CRSTS and Network North, dedicated active travel grants are annual due to the 2021 Spending Review and cannot be changed until the next review. It expresses an ambition …
Read full response →
HM Treasury
8
Conclusion
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
DfT set out its most recent objectives for active travel in 2022. These are to: • increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked or cycled from 41% in 2019 to 46% in 2025; • increase people’s annual walking activity to 365 stages per person …
Read more
DfT set out its most recent objectives for active travel in 2022. These are to: • increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked or cycled from 41% in 2019 to 46% in 2025; • increase people’s annual walking activity to 365 stages per person per year; • double rates of cycling from 0.8 billion stages in 2013 to 1.6 billion stages in 2025; and • increase the percentage of children aged 5 to 10 who usually walk to school from 49% in 2014 to 55% in 2025.12 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 Active travel in England 11
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the implicit recommendation to re-evaluate the active travel objectives, stating that these will be reviewed in the 2025 report to Parliament on CWIS 2 and revised in the third CWIS, with research commissioned to inform this process.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
9
Conclusion
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
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, …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the implicit recommendation to re-evaluate its active travel objectives, stating this will be reviewed and revised in the 2025 report to Parliament on CWIS 2 and the third CWIS, for which research has been commissioned.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
11
Conclusion
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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 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 12 Active travel in England 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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the implicit recommendation to address funding as a constraint on targets or re-evaluate objectives, stating these will be reviewed in the 2025 report to Parliament on CWIS 2 and revised in the third CWIS, with research commissioned to inform this.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
12
Conclusion
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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 Evaluating the impact of spend on active travel infrastructure
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation, stating it does not consider it necessary to re-evaluate objectives by 2025 as they will be reviewed in the CWIS 2 report and revised in the third CWIS in 2025.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
24
Conclusion
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the implied recommendation to resolve funding uncertainty for active travel. While some multi-year funding exists, other dedicated active travel grants remain annual due to HM Treasury approvals, which cannot be revisited until the next Spending Review.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
25
Recommendation
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation to simplify grant schemes, citing HM Treasury's annual funding approvals for dedicated active travel grants. While recognising the need for multi-year certainty and aiming for fewer, more joined-up schemes in the longer term, current constraints prevent immediate simplification.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
Seventy-Fifth Report - Active travel in…
Rejected
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 54 Qq 32, 61, 70, 75; C&AG’s Report, para 3.15 …
Read more
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 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 Active travel in England 17 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 delive
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the implicit recommendation, acknowledging the need for multi-year funding but stating that dedicated active travel grants are yearly due to Treasury approvals. They will seek to manage fewer, more joined-up grant schemes long-term, reflected in the 2025 CWIS.
Read full response →
HM Treasury