Active Travel (Wales) Bill Sustrans Response

Active Travel (Wales) Bill

Sustrans' response to the White Paper consultation

August 2012

Active Travel (Wales) Bill Sustrans' response to the White Paper consultation August 2012

Yn cyflwyno Sustrans

Mae Sustrans yn gwneud dewisiadau teithio gwell yn bosibl, yn ddymunol ac yn anochel. Rydym yn

elusen flaenllaw yn y DU yn galluogi pobl i deithio ar droed, beic neu drafnidiaeth gyhoeddus ar gyfer

rhagor o’r siwrneiau a wnawn bob dydd. Rydym yn gweithio gyda theuluoedd, cymunedau, llunwyr

polisi a sefydliadau partner fel y gall pobl ddewis siwrneiau iachach, glanach a rhatach, gyda gwell

lleoedd a gofodau i symud drwyddynt a byw ynddynt.

Mae’n bryd i ni gyd wneud dewisiadau gwell yn y ffordd yr ydym yn teithio. Cymerwch y cam a

chefnogwch Sustrans heddiw. www.sustrans.org.uk

About Sustrans

Sustrans makes smarter travel choices possible, desirable and inevitable. We’re a leading UK charity

enabling people to travel by foot, bike or public transport for more of the journeys we make every

day. We work with families, communities, policy-makers and partner organisations so that people

are able to choose healthier, cleaner and cheaper journeys, with better places and spaces to move

through and live in.

It’s time we all began making smarter travel choices. Make your move and support Sustrans today.

www.sustrans.org.uk

Sustrans Cymru

123 Bute Street

Cardiff Bay

Cardiff

CF10 5AE

Head Office

Sustrans

2 Cathedral Square

College Green

Bristol

BS1 5DD

© Sustrans August 2012

Registered Charity No. 326550 (England and Wales) SC039263 (Scotland)

VAT Registration No. 416740656

Active Travel (Wales) Bill Sustrans' response to the White Paper consultation August 2012

Table of contents

Sustrans’ Response to the Active Travel (Wales) Bill White Paper....................................................... 1

One Page Summary......................................................................................................................... 1

Executive Summary: Headline Proposals ........................................................................................ 2

Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 2

Enable: ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Engage: ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Encourage: ................................................................................................................................... 3

Exemplify:..................................................................................................................................... 4

Full Response: Sustrans’ Response to the Active Travel (Wales) Bill White Paper .............................. 5

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Tackling poverty........................................................................................................................... 5

21st century healthcare.................................................................................................................. 5

Education ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Environment and sustainability..................................................................................................... 6

Growth and sustainable jobs........................................................................................................ 6

Response to specific questions ....................................................................................................... 7

Question 1. ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Enable .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Engage....................................................................................................................................... 12

Encourage.................................................................................................................................. 13

Exemplify.................................................................................................................................... 13

Question 2. .................................................................................................................................... 14

Question 3. .................................................................................................................................... 15

Question 4. .................................................................................................................................... 17

Compulsory Purchase Orders: ................................................................................................... 17

Speed limits (20mph and 40mph):.............................................................................................. 18

Strict liability:.............................................................................................................................. 19

Question 5. .................................................................................................................................... 19

Question 6. .................................................................................................................................... 20

Question 7. .................................................................................................................................... 21

Rural communities...................................................................................................................... 21

Shared infrastructure for walking and cycling............................................................................. 21

1 Active Travel (Wales) Bill Sustrans' response to the White Paper consultation August 2012

Sustrans’ Response to the Active Travel (Wales) Bill White

Paper

One Page Summary

Sustrans warmly welcomes the proposals outlined in the White Paper for the Active Travel (Wales)

Bill. However, we strongly believe the duty on local authorities should be target-driven, specifically

requiring local authorities to increase the number of people choosing to travel on foot or by bike. To

this end, the overarching duty should be “to raise levels of walking and cycling in their areas by [a fixed percentage amount]”

1.

The White Paper is clear that a long-term cultural shift is needed and encourages the use of the Four

Es framework2. However, of the 19 interventions listed within the framework, only five are addressed

by the measures outlined in the current proposal for legislation. If population-wide travel behaviour

change is to be achieved a more holistic package of “mutually supportive” measures will be required2.

Enable:

• It will be vital for the plans to be underpinned by robust guidance and best practice design

standards

• Better access to good quality training, particularly cycling training, will also be crucial in

enabling people to use the facilities provided3

• Professional development training schemes to support key personnel within each local

authority to understand the new duty and the accompanying guidance framework should also

be developed

Engage:

• The need for meaningful end user engagement is clear. Importantly, this engagement should

be with people who don’t currently walk and cycle as well as with those that do4

• From a strategic perspective, this Bill should be seen as a catalyst for engaging policy

agendas in both national and local government; naming additional public bodies as statutory

partners would achieve this

Encourage:

• Infrastructure will be an important part of the long-term cultural shift away from car use but

the Bill should also explicitly require local authorities to implement a range of softer measures

that reward behaviour change in their local communities

• Encouragement will be needed at a strategic, as well as individual, level. Consistent

monitoring and evaluation systems should accompany infrastructure interventions to ensure

the desired results are achieved

• The proposal to use existing funding as an incentive for the development of these plans is

sound, but to be most effective funding and resource levels need to be increased

”proportional to target levels”1

• Where results are not achieved, there should be a provision that enables the Minister to seek

additional enforcement powers should these be needed

Exemplify:

• At a national level, the Welsh Government should ensure that there is a consistency across all

policies, that reflects the clear emphasis that the Government places on walking and cycling

• This Bill ought to be linked to an overarching framework across government to encourage a

similar, joined-up approach at a local level


Executive Summary: Headline Proposals

Introduction

Sustrans warmly welcomes the proposals outlined in the White Paper for the Active Travel (Wales)

Bill. The aim of this Bill to “make walking and cycling the most natural and normal way of

getting around”5 is admirable and represents the first time a Government anywhere in the world has

sought to enshrine such an ambition in legislation. We are particularly delighted at the opportunity

this Bill presents to raise the profile of active travel amongst policy makers and delivery

organisations across Wales.

We welcome the decision to name the legislation the ‘Active Travel (Wales) Bill’. Wales has some of

the highest childhood obesity in the world – the recent Health Behaviours in School-Aged Children

report ranked the nation fourth behind the US, Canada and Greece6. The figures revealed one in five

15-year-olds in Wales are either overweight or obese. For boys alone, this figure rises to 26%. The

Bill is a practical response to the growing obesity epidemic and has the potential to be one of the

most effective public health interventions since the creation of the National Assembly.

If properly implemented and supported the Act will not only be a fitting practical expression of the

National Assembly’s duty to promote sustainable development, and the Welsh Government’s

commitment to reduce greenhouse gasses year on year7. It will also assist local authorities in

fulfilling their duty to promote health and wellbeing. Indeed, the Bill is already recognised as one of

the most important public health initiatives to have been undertaken since devolution8.

Moreover, the potential this Bill has to bring new life to our communities, both through opening up

access to jobs and opportunities to those in our poorest neighbourhoods, and through boosting

Wales’ tourism offer, demonstrates the promise of this new law to support the achievement of much

wider policy goals.

However, to achieve these aims we must do more than simply “allow the majority of shorter journeys made in Wales to be made by walking and cycling”5. We need to make walking and

cycling possible, desirable and, ultimately, inevitable – the common sense choice for short journeys.

The duty on local authorities should be reworded to reflect this.

The need for this new law to incite a long-term cultural shift is referred to several times within the

White Paper, and the ‘Four Es’ framework is identified as the model for this approach. However, of

the 19 interventions advocated within the Four Es framework, only five are addressed by the

measures outlined in the current proposal for legislation. If population-wide travel behaviour change

is to be achieved, by the White Paper’s own reckoning it is clear that a more holistic package of

“mutually supportive” measures will be required2.

Moreover, in recognition that this Bill is seeking to instigate cultural shifts at both government and

grassroots level, each component of the model should be considered from a community and

strategic perspective.

Enable:

Community perspective: The Bill represents a laudable first step in removing some of the key

barriers to walking and cycling, requiring local authorities to provide more and better facilities that

will enable people to travel more actively. But to truly achieve this goal, it will be vital for the plans to

be underpinned by robust guidance and best practice design standards, which will ensure the

infrastructure and nature of the routes developed, are of a quality that will inspire people to change

their travel behaviour.


Better access to good quality training, particularly cycling training, will also be crucial in enabling

people to use the facilities provided3. Yet the provision of training only features once in the

consultation document as an intervention that “could” be delivered alongside the Bill5. Targeting children and young people, in particular, will support them to adopt travel behaviours that will remain

with them into adulthood, creating a new, more active generation in Wales3.

Current cycle training varies in standard and provision across Wales. This provision must be

standardised and local authorities should be required to ensure the delivery of National Standard

Cycle Training (to Level 2 or above) in all primary schools under their jurisdiction. This training

should also be available to older children and adults too.

Strategic perspective: Professional development training schemes that focus both on the need for

and provision of walking and cycling routes should also be developed to enable key personnel within

each local authority to understand the new duty and the accompanying guidance framework.

Engage:

Community perspective: The White Paper is right to “strongly encourage early engagement (at

pre-design stage) to fully understand the routes and facilities that people would prefer”5. The

need for meaningful end user engagement featured consistently in the feedback from the roundtable

discussions held at the Sustrans facilitated Active Travel (Wales) Bill Conference in June9.

Importantly, it is clear that this engagement should be with people who don’t currently walk and

cycle as well as with those that do4.

To achieve this level of engagement, many local authorities will need support; for many transport

officials this will be outside of their area of expertise. Resources and advice on who to consult and

where local authorities can go to receive support in delivering this consultation process should be

provided in the guidance accompanying the Bill.

Strategic perspective: This engagement should also extend beyond a requirement for local

authorities to work with community groups and individuals. Specifically, there should be provisions

within the Bill to require cross-departmental working in order to discourage the silo working

practices that continue to dominate and disadvantage walking and cycling schemes. This Bill should

be seen as a catalyst for engaging policy agendas in both national and local government9. Naming

additional public bodies as statutory partners in the delivery of the Bill, either through making these

bodies subject to the duty or through requiring them to have regard to the plans prepared, will be

crucial in encouraging this cross-sector working.

Encourage:

Community perspective: Infrastructure will be an important part of the long-term cultural shift away

from car use and ownership but encouragement goes beyond the provision of routes or maps.

Indeed, information campaigns reliant on raising awareness as a means of changing behaviours

“frequently have little or no effect”10. Instead, the Bill and accompanying guidance should explicitly support and encourage local authorities to implement a range of softer measures that reward

behaviour change in their local communities.

Local authorities should be required to offer support to help build confidence in inexperienced users,

to implement targeted measures that will help underrepresented groups become more active and to

deliver innovative schemes that reward travel behaviour change.

Strategic perspective: Encouragement will be needed at a strategic, as well as individual, level. Consistent monitoring and evaluation systems should accompany infrastructure interventions in

order to ensure the desired results are achieved.

The proposal to use existing funding as an incentive for the development of these plans is sound but,

to be most effective, a recent report from the British Medical Association established


that funding and resource levels need to be increased ”proportional to target levels”1. Moreover, the division of transport budgets into capital and revenue funding streams will constrain local authorities

and regional transport consortia in their ability to deliver the duties within this Bill. Wales should

seek the power to define transport budget ratios in Wales. Alternatively, guidance accompanying

the Bill should encourage and support local authorities to work proactively with other departments

likely to benefit from the measures outlined in this Bill (such as health partners) to achieve greater

freedom in the spending resources available to them.

Where results are not achieved, there need to be robust governance arrangements to ensure that the

ambition outlined in the White Paper is matched by effective action across Wales. To achieve this,

there should be a provision in the Bill that enables the Minister to seek additional enforcement

powers should they need to do so, to ensure that local authorities fulfil the duties required of them.

Exemplify:

The White Paper is right to highlight that “as a Government we need to set the example for the

kind of culture change we wish to see through consistent and clear messages”5 However, the details for how this will be achieved are vague.

At a national level, the Welsh Government should ensure that there is a consistency across all

policies, that reflects the clear emphasis that the Government places on support for sustainable

travel in general, and walking and cycling in particular. Notably, this should include a review of the

WelTAG appraisal system which has been shown to disadvantage walking and cycling schemes11.

In addition, in a recent reprioritisation exercise of the National Transport Plan, the Walking and

Cycling Action Plan was dismissed as a mere ‘policy’ intervention and therefore had neither a

dedicated budget nor was regarded something that the Welsh Government was responsible for

delivering. This must be addressed in the upcoming review of the activities and targets set out in the

Walking and Cycling Action Plan, and the measures and resources need to be put in place to

achieve any commitments made.

Crucially, national Government should lead by example in illustrating the importance of a

collaborative approach and demonstrating how this can be achieved. Improving rates of walking

and cycling will require strategies that go beyond a narrow conception of transport policy and this

Bill ought to be linked to an overarching framework across government.

Finally, as major trip generators themselves, local authorities should also be required to exemplify

best practice, implementing ambitious travel plans to encourage and ‘lock in’ travel behaviour

change amongst staff members, visitors and service users. Such an approach will help councils

achieve their Corporate Health Standard ambitions, as well as lowering car parking costs and

reducing absenteeism12.


Full Response: Sustrans’ Response to the Active Travel

(Wales) Bill White Paper

Introduction

Five years ago, Sustrans Cymru along with BT, the Royal Mail, the British Medical Association and a

range of Welsh organisations submitted a petition calling for Welsh Government to match their

existing obligation to develop and maintain a network of roads, with a similar commitment to provide

for pedestrians and cyclists.

We were delighted that it formed part of the Government’s Legislative Programme announced in July

2012. And we believe the approach outlined in the White Paper, mirroring a similar scheme

implemented by Cardiff Council, is a practical and achievable way of increasing levels of walking and

cycling across Wales.

We are particularly pleased with the potential this Bill has to raise the profile of active travel amongst

policy makers and delivery organisations across Wales. Transport is central to our daily lives. It

affects how we access goods and services, our access to jobs, training, to family and to friends. But

too often transport is dismissed as a technical issue.

The outcomes of the Active Travel (Wales) Bill have the potential to reach far beyond transport policy

goals. Indeed, given the appropriate tools and support, we believe the Bill will directly contribute

towards five of the twelve themes outlined in the Programme for Government.

Tackling poverty

The cost of buying and maintaining a car is prohibitive to many families; and as fuel prices are

pushed higher many more families will be priced out of car ownership or forced into debt13. In 2003,

the UK Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) reported that transport is ‘a significant contributing factor’ in the

exclusion of many low-income groups and communities14. It acts as a barrier to the take-up of

employment, is also linked with low participation in post-16 education and college dropouts, and can

lead to failed health appointments and associated delays in medical intervention14. The problem is

particularly acute in rural areas but is also prevalent in the urban periphery on low-income estates.

The role that well planned investment in walking and cycling can play in tackling social exclusion and

in regenerating low-income neighbourhoods is clear. Integrating these travel choices into transport

provision focused on access by all, rather than simply mobility for those that can afford it, will create

a more equal, affordable and accessible range of travel options.

21st

century healthcare

Modern lifestyles can be highly sedentary and physically inactive lifestyles can have serious health

impacts. Physical inactivity is linked to one in five incidents of coronary heart disease, one in six

cases of colon cancer and diabetes, one in eight strokes and one in ten diagnoses of breast cancer,

making this one of the leading causes of death in developed countries15. Obesity is now also a

serious public health concern. Even relatively small increases in physical activity are associated with

some protection against chronic diseases and an improved quality of life; and active travel is a way

of people embedding physical activity into their daily routines.

Education

Public space has been overrun by cars. This loss of habitat has had a dramatic impact on young

people. They are less physically active, less independent, and having less fun than they would like16.

We have given up their freedom for that of cars. The biggest concern of adults when it comes to

children playing outside and walking and cycling to school, is traffic danger17. This fear has driven

parents to remove children from their natural habitat of the local community, and indoors to play, or,

for those with access to a car, into the backseat to be ferried around. At 08.35am nearly one in


every five cars in urban areas is taking children to school, typically a distance of a couple of miles18.

With investment in slowing traffic speeds, and creating more walking and cycling networks to

schools and beyond, we could get children out of cars and walking and cycling instead.

There are clear academic benefits in encouraging more students to walk and cycle. Through our

existing schools programme we know that children and young people who cycle or walk to school

are more alert and ready to learn than those who travel by car, and many schools implementing

physical activity programmes have seen positive effects on academic performance.

Environment and sustainability

Transport emissions account for 20% of the developed emissions (excluding aviation) from Wales,

and greenhouse gas emissions from transport have increased in recent years. The Climate Change

Strategy for Wales estimates that, by 2020, emissions from transport can be reduced by 1.3

MtCo2e. However, to achieve these targets, stabilising and then reducing transport emissions must

clearly be a priority. Personal behaviour change towards low carbon forms of transport, including

walking and cycling, is critical to the reduction of CO2 emissions, not least because it can be

implemented more quickly than other interventions19.

Growth and sustainable jobs

Finally, the Active Travel (Wales) Bill has significant potential to improve access to work and

stimulate economic growth in Wales.

Access to work: Two out of five jobseekers say that a lack of transport is a barrier to getting a job14.

Transport costs and access are also key areas of concern for those managing the transition into

work and costs can easily wipe out a meagre financial gain from entering or returning to work.

Improving accessibility on foot and by bike in our communities is one of the most equitable ways of

opening up access to employment and training opportunities.

The wider economy: In urban areas, the congestion which occurs when demand for road space

exceeds supply has traditionally been the prime focus for transport professionals, and the economic

consequences as a result of the delays and unreliability suffered by road users are well documented.

Facilitating more walking and cycling is likely to be the most cost-effective means of adding to

Wales’ overall transport capacity.

Moreover, our way of life, particularly how we transport ourselves, is currently highly dependent on

cheap, readily available oil supplies. As fuel prices continue to rise and become more volatile it will

become increasingly important to have a transport network that is not reliant on car ownership.

Instead it is clear that a resilient economy would best be served by greater investment in sustainable

transport measures. Countries who fail to develop a transport strategy that is not reliant on cars in

an oil-short future will suffer economically, and Wales is no exception.

There is also robust evidence documenting the benefits of walking and cycling investment on

individual sectors within our economy. Retail vitality and increased footfall are frequently linked to

the provision of an attractive shopping environment20. Whilst it is traditional for retailers to pursue

more car access and parking, and to resist measures to promote walking, cycling and public

transport use, research suggests that retail vitality and regeneration would be best served by traffic

restraint, public transport improvements and a range of measures to improve the walking

environment21.

This investment will also bring benefits to Wales’ tourism industry. A report by The Institute of

Transport & Tourism and The University of Central Lancashire (commissioned by Sustrans) found

that the level of expenditure by users of the Celtic and Taff Trails amounted to more than £75million

per year in the local economies of South Wales. 1,399 jobs could also be directly attributable to the

existence of the Trails.


Response to specific questions

Question 1. What are your views on the proposals for Local Authorities to have a duty to:

• identify and map the routes within their areas that are safe and appropriate for

walking and cycling;

• identify and map the enhancements that would be required to create a fully

integrated network for walking and cycling and develop a prioritised list of schemes to deliver the network;

• deliver an enhanced network subject to budget availability and following due

process;

• consider the potential for enhancing walking and cycling provision in the development of new road schemes?

Sustrans is broadly supportive of the approach and duties outlined. Cardiff Council has already

demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach and is on course to achieving what will be required

of every local authority22. Their success demonstrates that the duties outlined above are both

realistic and achievable, though it is worth noting that the Council is fortunate to have sufficient staff

capacity and, through the Sustainable Travel Centre project, access to funding.

We would, however, advocate for the overarching duty on local authorities to be reworded. The duty

on local authorities should be specific to the desired change the new law hopes to achieve,

especially if the opportunities outlined in our introduction are to be exploited. To this end, we believe

the requirement on local authorities should be more explicit, and the duty should be “to raise levels of walking and cycling in their areas by [a fixed percentage amount]”:

“Ambitious growth targets for walking and cycling should be set at national and regional levels, with increased funding and resources proportional to target levels.”1

Regional Transport Consortia should then be required to demonstrate how their Regional Transport

Plans contribute towards achieving these targets.

The targets set within this new duty should mirror those set in the revised Walking and Cycling

Action Plan, to ensure this Bill and the duties within it are closely tied to the delivery of this Plan.

Using the targets set in the current Walking and Cycling Action Plan as an example, the requirement

would be on local authorities to:

• Increase the percentage of children who walk to school by approximately 20%;

• To triple the percentage of children cycling to school;

• To double the percentage of people who walk to work;

• To triple the percentage of adults whose main mode of travel to work is cycling;

• To increase the number of people undertaking walking for recreation by 25%; and

• To double the percentage of adults cycling for recreation

Please note, we are not advocating for these to be specific targets to be set, merely that the targets

that are set should match those within the Walking and Cycling Action Plan. Indeed, given the long-

term nature of the Bill, these targets should be ambitious, similar to those set in recent legislation

pertaining to the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste23, and to eliminating child

poverty across the UK24.

Adopting a target-driven duty would ensure the overarching strategy developed and implemented by

local authorities would focus on encouraging more people to travel on foot or by bike, in keeping

with the success criterion highlighted in the White Paper:

“Ultimately, this Bill will be a success if it leads to more people walking and cycling.”5


Adopting this approach would also help to ensure that this Bill is relevant in all settings, recognising

that existing levels of walking and cycling vary within and between communities across Wales.

The duties outlined in the current legislative proposal should then sit below these overarching

targets. This would enable local authorities to implement the most appropriate strategy according to

the needs of their local communities, whilst still ensuring the ambitious aim of the Bill is achieved.

We would also recommend that an additional duty is added to the existing list of four to better reflect

the complexity of measures needed to influence pro-environmental behaviours2. Specifically, local

authorities should have a duty to “identify and deliver a range of interventions that encourage and enable more people to walk and cycle”, promoting the network the current legislation will obligate them to provide.

We welcome the identification within the White Paper for this new law to incite a long-term cultural

shift, and the recommendation of the ‘Four Es’ framework as a model for this approach.

DEFRA, 2008 A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours

However, of the 19 interventions advocated within the Four Es framework, only five are addressed by

the measures outlined in the current proposal for legislation. To achieve this Bill’s full potential, it is

clear that a number of supportive measures will need to run in parallel with this duty:

“There is not one but a multiplicity of ways of promoting greener lifestyles, confirming the need for packages of mutually supporting measures”2

Moreover, whilst the Four Es approach is a useful framework for how best to encourage people to

adopt pro-environmental behaviours, the health benefits inherent in encouraging more people to

travel actively should not be overlooked. Guidance for planning, delivering and evaluating public

health activities aimed at changing health-related behaviours, such as those outlined in the National

Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence’s public health guidance, should also be considered25.


To highlight gaps in the recommended approach, we have framed our response using the four

headings employed in the model: Enable, Engage, Encourage and Exemplify.

Enable

The Bill represents a laudable first step in removing some of the key barriers to walking and cycling,

requiring local authorities to provide more and better facilities that will enable people to travel more

actively.

Walking and cycling: Sustrans fully supports the approach taken in the White Paper that specifically

emphasises the importance of promoting walking and cycling, rather than adopting a broader

‘vulnerable road users’ approach. The health benefits of walking and cycling have been definitively

proven and walking and cycling are some of the most equitable forms of active transport. It is

therefore right that the focus of this Bill should remain on these groups, whilst recognising that where

appropriate these routes can also be made available to other more vulnerable road users, including

horse-riders. Broadening the definition risks a loss in focus and may result in inefficient investment

of already limited resources.

As it currently stands, we are confident that the duties outlined in the White Paper would ensure that

existing efforts to encourage greater levels of active travel are exercised more strategically. It is not

uncommon for projects to be provided with grant funding within a single financial year, or for funding

to be provided relatively late in the year as part of under-spend arrangements. This can lead to

money being spent inefficiently and infrastructure designed around delivery constraints rather than

best practice. Through ensuring that each local authority in Wales has a prioritised list of schemes

that have been identified as having the potential to encourage more people to walk or cycle, this Bill

has the potential to ensure existing transport investment is spent to greatest strategic effect.

However, it will be vital for the plans to be underpinned by robust guidance and best practice design

standards, which will ensure the infrastructure and nature of the routes developed, are of a quality

that will inspire people to change their travel behaviour. This will be addressed more fully in our

response to question five of the consultation.

Maps: Lack of information about the alternatives to the car is a key barrier to change. For new

walking and cycling routes to achieve their full potential, it is essential that local authorities take into

account the need to raise awareness of new routes. The duty on local authorities to produce and

promote maps of the current facilities will go some way to supporting this, providing people with the

information they need to make informed travel choices.

The quality of the maps produced will have a direct impact on people’s perceptions of walking and

cycling in their local areas. Therefore, the process adopted by local authorities in developing these

maps should receive specific guidance.

The importance of continuous and direct routes: More detail is also required within the existing

duties outlined. Notably, replacing the phrase “safe and appropriate for walking and cycling”5 with “continuous, direct, safe and comfortable for walking and cycling” would ensure that the routes developed are not only safe, but also follow the most desirable routes for walkers and

cyclists. If we want long term culture change then we need to make active travel options more

attractive, pleasant and convenient than using a car for short journeys. Admittedly, these words do

feature later in the White Paper, but we would argue they also need to be explicit in the duty.

“The bicycling networks in all these cities [Amsterdam, Groningen, Copenhagen, Odense, Berlin and Muenster] include numerous off-street short-cut connections for cyclists between streets and

traversing city blocks to enable them to take the most direct possible route from origin to destination. The result of such a wide range of facilities is a complete, integrated system of bicycling routes that

permit cyclists to cover almost any trip either on completely separate paths and lanes or on lightly traveled traffic-calmed residential streets.” 3


One of the most effective tools for creating more convenient and popular walking and cycling

networks is to reduce ‘permeability’ for private motorised traffic whilst simultaneously increasing it

for active travel modes. This means that people using cars have limited access to many of the key

destinations people want to get to, while people travelling by sustainable and active transport means

are able to get right to where they want to, as quickly and conveniently as possible. Sustrans

advocates full permeability for active transport modes, semi-permeability for public transport and

reduced permeability for private motor traffic.

Each of the terms used in the duty should also be fully defined to overcome any ambiguity. These

definitions should include what is meant by ‘continuous improvement’ as well as the terms ‘safe’,

‘convenient’ and ‘comfortable’9. Arguably, the most important of these is a definition of the term

‘network’. Establishing a common understanding of what is meant by a network will be crucial in

ensuring that walking and cycling are promoted as a legitimate alternative to car travel for people’s

everyday journeys.

Traffic-free routes and permeability: Sustrans is also wholly supportive of the approach that the

routes included in the network should consist of a combination of traffic-free routes, on-road

provision and access through public spaces such as parks. However, we are concerned that later in

the White Paper, the importance of traffic-free routes in instigating travel behaviour change is

undermined. Specifically, point 62 states the following:

62. Local Authorities will not be expected to develop a large network of new traffic-free

routes to deliver this Bill….Not only are the resources lacking to deliver an extensive

network of traffic-free routes, it would also be counter-productive to the main aim of

changing culture.

It is a mistake to be so dismissive of traffic-free routes. Approximately one third of the National

Cycle Network26 is traffic-free, yet these traffic-free routes account for more than 80 per cent of the

number of walking and cycling trips undertaken across the Network in the UK. Indeed, our

monitoring work suggests that traffic-free routes attract at least ten times the usage of a roadside

route simply because they are attractive for pedestrians as well as cyclists, and for every kind of

journey27.

Safe and pleasant surroundings are particularly important for novice or returning cyclists, and traffic-

free sections are the perfect place to learn or rediscover cycling; this is particularly true for women28.

The focus of this Bill must remain on wider society, not on enthusiasts, if the desired change in travel

behaviour, and the consequential health and societal benefits, are to be realised. To achieve this,

the routes developed should cater for the needs of people who don’t currently walk and cycle, not

those who are already competent and confident cyclists and pedestrians. Traffic-free routes are

very popular for local journeys, as destinations in their own right, as the one place in the area where

the individual can learn to cycle again, and as an effective catalyst for change in local transport

policies. We would therefore like to see greater recognition given to the importance of traffic-free

routes as part of a broader network in the White Paper and its accompanying guidance.

We recognise that traffic-free routes are not always the most appropriate or realistic option available,

particularly in urban areas. The Cardiff Cycle Design Guide uses a hierarchy of provision that looks

at slowing traffic speeds first and off-road routes last29. Sustrans would welcome the adoption of this

hierarchical approach in the standards accompanying the Bill, providing the importance of traffic-

free routes in tackling one of the principal barriers people face in walking and cycling is given greater

recognition.

Maintenance: We also welcome the approach taken by the White Paper with regards to the

maintenance of the routes:

63. The routes identified on the maps will be adopted by the Local Authorities so we are

also not proposing a new duty to maintain the infrastructure that will be put in place, as this


would be covered by the Highways Act 1980. This covers highways maintainable at public

expense, including footpaths and cycleways.

If routes are not maintained they cease to be attractive and comfortable. Route maintenance is

therefore a crucial element in making walking and cycling safe and viable alternative to the car.

For new routes to be effective, and to avoid long-term future revenue liabilities, maintenance should

be carefully considered in the design stage. The better the route, the higher quality the surface and

the more complete the drainage, the less will be the need for major repair works in the future.

Sustrans maintains a considerable length of the National Cycle Network, in both urban and rural

settings. Routine maintenance costs vary between £1,000/km per annum for wholly rural and

recreational routes, to £7,700/km for inner city traffic-free routes, with additional costs incurred for

the periodic replacement of the actual path wearing surface. The variation of these costs represents

the importance of the consideration of maintenance needs during the initial route design stage. By

investing in the best possible design and construction, subsequent maintenance requirements can

be minimised. The Welsh Government should provide local authorities with best practice guidance

on maintaining routes, including preferred construction specifications to ensure maximum possible

use, as well as guideline estimates for the potential future costs associated with different design

approaches.

At present most councils do not have a specific maintenance regime for traffic-free paths. The

guidance accompanying the Bill should also require local authorities to set out a maintenance plan

for its strategic network.

Walking and cycling infrastructure provision on new road developments: Finally, with regards to

the fourth element of the duty, Sustrans believes that the duty to provide walking and cycling

provision in the development of new road schemes should be much bolder, with a presumption that

walking and cycling infrastructure will be provided.

Walking and cycling infrastructure should be provided at a level which makes active transport

options more visible to members of the local community, to ensure they will have the greatest

impact. Therefore, every opportunity to advance walking and cycling infrastructure should be seized

and local authorities implementing new road developments should seek to identify how their

development could link new communities/facilities into existing parts of the active travel network.

An example of where this has been successfully achieved is the traffic-free route that has been

developed as part of the Church Village by-pass in Rhondda Cynon Taff. The path is away from the

road and provides an attractive alternative route which recorded 86,000 trips in its first year. Paths

away from the carriageway attract more users than those placed directly next to the road, therefore

when constructing new road schemes consideration should be given to providing attractive routes

away from traffic.

Demonstrating demand for walking and cycling infrastructure is not always either obvious or easy,

especially where the opportunities for walking and cycling simply do not exist at present and so are

not part of any local person’s routine journey. For example, until Pont y Werin was constructed to

link Penarth with Cardiff Bay, levels of cycling between the two areas were very low, however, since

the creation of a direct, safe and comfortable route usage figures have consistently been between 35,000 – 45,000 trips per month.

Existing WelTAG guidance can compound this further. Indeed, the predict and provide approach to

managing traffic growth, still used by many transport planners, involves predicting future transport

demand in order to provide the network for it, often by building more roads. This approach is

frequently inappropriately applied to the provision of walking and cycling infrastructure: the model,

using input data from a setting where active travel has been suppressed, predicts little or no walking

and cycling in the future. Provision should be designed in these circumstances to encourage use.

The inadequacies of this guidance are addressed in more detail later in this response.


Training: Better access to good quality training, particularly cycling training, will also be crucial in

enabling people to use the facilities provided3. Yet the provision of training only features once in the

consultation document as an intervention that “could” be delivered alongside the Bill5. Targeting children and young people, in particular, will support them to adopt travel behaviours that will remain

with them into adulthood, creating a new, more active generation in Wales3.

Current cycle training varies in standard and provision across Wales; and playground-based training

continues to dominate, contrary to best practice. This provision should be standardised and local

authorities ought to be required to ensure the delivery of National Standard Cycle Training (to Level 2

or above) in all primary schools under their jurisdiction. Welsh Government should consider if this

would best be achieved through integrating cycle training in the school curriculum.

Older children and adults should have the opportunity to access this on-road training too.

Professional development training will also be needed across transport and planning departments at

both a Welsh Government and local authority level9. Local decision makers, partners and local

champions should receive training to increase their awareness of the local challenges in relation to

walking and cycling and how their own work can contribute to the success in raising levels of active

travel. Specifically, training schemes that focus both on the need for and provision of walking and

cycling routes should be developed to enable key personnel within each local authority to

understand the new duty and the accompanying guidance framework. They should also be given

opportunities to develop their community engagement skills to encourage local solutions (addressed

in more detail in our response to question three).

Engage

The White Paper is right to “strongly encourage early engagement (at pre-design stage) to fully

understand the routes and facilities that people would prefer”. We address the importance of

meaningful end user consultation in more detail in our response to question three of this

consultation.

Silo working: This engagement should also extend beyond a requirement for local authorities to

work with community groups and individuals, to address the silo working practices that continue to

dominate and disadvantage walking and cycling schemes. This isolated approach prevents funding

and expertise synergies being capitalised on between departments in national and local government,

as well as with other bodies and external agencies such as the NHS. This Bill should be seen as a

catalyst for engaging new policy areas in both national and local government with the walking and

cycling agenda.9

Proposals for how this can be addressed at a national level are set out under the heading

‘Exemplify’. Locally, the importance of integrating action on walking and cycling within other local

agendas needs to be emphasised, encouraging and supporting partnership working at both strategic

and operational levels.

The White Paper recognises the importance of a joined up approach, stating:

“Delivering a network of the scale that is envisaged goes beyond transport planning; it would

need to consider land-use, housing, educational programmes commercial developments,

regeneration schemes, historic buildings and tourism schemes.”5

But the new law needs to go further than this if it is to achieve the cultural shift intended. Naming

additional public bodies as statutory partners in the delivery of the Bill, either through making these

bodies subject to the duty or through requiring them to have regard to the plans prepared, will be

crucial in encouraging this cross-sector working. These bodies might include Local Education

Authorities, Local Health Boards and the new single environmental body, but consideration should

be given to who best to name in order to facilitate a more joined-up approach.


In addition, the adoption of suitable project management processes by local authorities would help

to ensure that stakeholder interests, particularly those within local authorities themselves, could be

considered during the development stages. A senior management led approach to scheme

development and delivery should be adopted, supporting a strategic, system-wide approach to

raising levels of active travel. ‘Start up’ meetings involving all affected parties within a project

delivery group should also be instigated at scheme inception as standard. Local authorities should

ensure partner organisations are clear about their contribution and responsibilities, and should

consider asking them to sign a memorandum of agreement that pledges specific relevant actions in

the short and long term. Transport teams should also be encouraged to establish methods for

involving private organisations in the implementation of the strategy.

Formal mechanisms, which endorse this partnership working and approach to project leadership,

should be clearly advocated within the Active Travel (Wales) Bill30 and accompanying guidance.

Encourage

Infrastructure will be an important part of the long-term cultural shift away from car use and

ownership; for example recently improved connections in Newport have led to 26,000 more people

travelling actively on the newly constructed routes. If there are good safe routes to use then

travelling actively becomes easier to envisage and a more appealing option.

However encouragement goes beyond simply infrastructure or the provision of maps and

information. Indeed, information campaigns reliant on raising awareness as a means of changing

behaviours “frequently have little or no effect”10. This is recognised in the White Paper, which states

“more is required than just providing a suitable route or showing people a map.” In spite of this,

no specific provisions or directions are made regarding these ‘softer’ measures, leaving it to

individual local authorities to decide if and how they will address this crucial aspect of behaviour

change.

The additional duty Sustrans recommended earlier in this response (on page eight), requiring local

authorities to identify and deliver a range of interventions that encourage and enable more people to

walk and cycle, would help to address this deficit.

Changing people’s attitudes and tackling negative perceptions of walking and cycling will be crucial

when seeking to influence the way people approach sustainable travel and their everyday journeys.

To achieve this, softer measures need to be included in the Bill that will encourage individual

behaviour change, including measures that will both encourage and ‘lock in’ modal shifts in travel

behaviour.

The new law and accompanying guidance should require and support local authorities to adopt

more innovative ways to reward behaviour change in their local communities and must provide the

resources they need to achieve this. This should include targeted as well as more universal

approaches if the full potential of the Bill to tackle health and wealth inequalities is to be achieved.

Encouragement mechanisms will also be needed at a strategic level. These are addressed in more

detail in our response to question two of this consultation.

Exemplify

The White Paper is right to highlight that “as a Government we need to set the example for the

kind of culture change we wish to see through consistent and clear messages.”5 However, details on how this will be achieved are vague.

At a national level, Welsh Government should ensure that there is a consistency across all policies,

that reflects the clear emphasis the Government places on support for sustainable travel in general,

and walking and cycling in particular.


This should include a review of the WelTAG appraisal system, which has been shown to

disadvantage walking and cycling schemes11. An appraisal system that favours schemes that

increase car use will inevitably support the funding of schemes that increase car use. To create a

genuinely level playing field for making decisions on transport funding, Welsh Government should:

• Re-evaluate the process by which the multiplication of small time-savings are able to accrue

a value far beyond their worth to each of us in our daily lives;

• Address the anomaly in the current system which counts a loss of fuel sales as a cost within

schemes that reduce car use;

• Use the World Health Organisation’s Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) as a means

of estimating the economic value of the health benefits arising from walking and cycling

schemes31.

Lessons must also be learnt from the failure of the Walking and Cycling Action Plan 2009 – 2013 to

achieve “the significant growth that [Welsh Government] had hoped to deliver.”5

In a recent reprioritisation exercise of the National Transport Plan, the Walking and Cycling Action

Plan was dismissed as a mere ‘policy’ intervention and therefore had neither a dedicated budget, nor

was regarded as something that the Welsh Government was responsible for delivering. This lack of

dedicated resources, identified delivery agents and monitoring systems needs to be addressed in

the upcoming review of the activities and targets set out in the Walking and Cycling Action Plan, and

appropriate measures and resources should be put in place to achieve any commitments made.

National Government must also illustrate the importance of a collaborative approach, and

demonstrate how this can be achieved. Improving rates of walking and cycling will require strategies

that go beyond a narrow conception of transport policy and it is essential that this Bill is linked to an

overarching framework across government. Notably, the Department for Education and Skills, the

Department for Health and Social Services and the Department for Environment and Sustainable

Development should all be involved in the development and delivery of this new law.

Finally, as major trip generators themselves, local authorities should also be required to exemplify

best practice, implementing ambitious travel plans to encourage and ‘lock in’ travel behaviour

change amongst staff members, visitors and service users30. Such an approach will help councils

achieve their Corporate Health Standard ambitions, as well as lowering car parking costs and

reducing absenteeism32.

In a project coordinated by Sustrans, staff at the Unviersity Hospital of Wales and at Velindre Cancer

Centre were encouraged to travel more actively. In evaluating the project, staff travel survey data at

the University Hospital of Wales found that staff arriving to work in the car on their own reduced by

8% between 2010 and 2011 and the number of staff cycling to work over the same time period

increased by 267%. The Velindre Cancer Centre enjoyed similar results with a reduction of 15% in

car use and a 100% increase in staff cycling.12 Using research conducted by the London School of

Economics, which showed regular cyclists take on average one sick-day less per year33, promoting

‘active travel’ has saved the Local Health Board more than 450 sick days per year – equivalent to an

additional two full time members of staff. At Velindre cancer care, in a workforce of just 1,300, 52

days per year have been gained as a direct result of active travel promotion. Not only this, but by

reducing single car occupancy at both sites (by 8% and 15% percent respectively), some 400 car

parking spaces were freed up for patient parking every day.

Question 2. How do you think the duty should be enforced?

Consistent monitoring and evaluation systems should be implemented to ensure the desired results

are achieved. Monitoring and evaluation are essential to understanding the value of a project but

they are frequently excluded as an ‘unnecessary’ cost, preventing local authorities from learning

from experience in the development of routes.


As stated in the White Paper, the success of the strategic walking and cycling networks should be

measured by their impact on the number of people walking and cycling for their everyday journeys,

as opposed to the length of any new routes developed. For this success to be measured there

should be a requirement that the development of all new routes include monitoring systems, and

guidance should be provided to local authorities on how these outcomes should be measured.

Routes that are constructed as part of Sustrans coordinated projects, such as the Valleys Cycle

Network and the Big Lottery funded Connect2, include automatic route counters as standard.

Routes funded through Regional Transport Plan funding or Safe Routes often do not.

Results should be collated by a central resource, creating a positive feedback loop that ensures

lessons are learnt and good practice is shared across Wales. Not all local authorities currently have

baseline data to report against and it is likely that support will be needed in this area.

The Welsh Government should oversee the development and implementation of the strategic

walking and cycling networks to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted throughout Wales.

This should also feed into the reporting of the Walking & Cycling Action Plan. The statutory link

between the proposed maps and the Regional Transport Plans will assist this process, whilst also

enabling more collaborative working between local authorities and providing an opportunity to share

data.

As discussed earlier in our response (page nine), the move to limit access to funding based on

whether it can be demonstrated to contribute towards the delivery of the integrated network is also

welcomed by Sustrans. And will be a useful incentive for local authorities to fulfill the duties required

of them. However, to be most effective, funding and resource levels need to be increased

“proportional to target levels”1. The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark are often revered as models of best practice in promoting a sustainable walking and cycling culture. This has only been

achieved through implementing a total reformation of their transport, urban and land-use planning3.

The Active Travel (Wales) Bill offers an invaluable opportunity to instigate a step change in the travel

behaviour of communities across Wales. However, to achieve its full potential it is clear that greater

investment in walking and cycling is needed. Welsh Government need to prioritise transport budgets

in a manner that reflects the transport choices they wish to see people make. Specifically, the Welsh

Government need to be working towards spending 10% of the transport budget (equivalent to the

cost of building three miles of road) on walking and cycling schemes every year for a generation.

The concentration of transport funding into capital schemes and the paucity of revenue funding,

dictated by Whitehall, also constrains our ability to invest in the softer measures that will be needed

alongside the changes in infrastructure outlined in the White Paper. Welsh Government should seek

the power to define transport budget ratios in Wales. Alternatively, guidance accompanying the Bill

should encourage and support local authorities to work proactively with other departments likely to

benefit from the measures outlined in this Bill (such as Local Health Boards) to achieve greater

freedom in the spending resources available to them.

Consideration should also be given for how performance can be overseen and regulated, and of

what steps can be taken if local authorities are felt to be underperforming or not fulfilling the new

duty. To achieve this, there should be a provision in the Bill that enables the Minister(s) responsible

to seek additional enforcement powers should they need to do so, to ensure that local authorities

fulfil the duties required of them.

Question 3. Do you think the type of routes and facilities that Local Authorities be required

to map should be specified in guidance or regulation?

The baseline travel behaviour data collated in Cardiff last year as part of the Personalised Travel

Planning (PTP) project suggests there is significant potential for change and that people in Wales are

receptive to the idea of travelling more sustainably34. The data shows that large numbers of people

are using their cars for short local journeys34 and that a large share of these car trips are relatively

short and made at low speed. Moreover, just over one fifth (21%) of all trips by Cardiff and Penarth


residents are no further than one kilometre and 49% are no longer than three kilometres34. These are

trips that could easily be walked or cycled.

One of the barriers to individuals changing their travel behaviour, revealed by the research

underpinning the PTP project, is a false perception of journey times and a lack of information about

alternatives to the car, for example a lack of awareness of the walking and cycling routes in their

local area. Duties on local authorities to effectively map current and potential routes are therefore

key to the success of the Bill, and establishing best practice guidelines around all elements of route

development will be vital.

With regards to the strategic walking networks detailed in the duty, most authorities will need to

concentrate their efforts on raising standards as opposed to the provision of new facilities, especially

in urban areas. If people are to choose to walk rather than drive, the pedestrian environment must

be more than just functionally adequate. It needs to be of high quality so that the walk is a pleasant

experience. Therefore the Bill will need to address issues of quality and suitability of the existing

network, particularly for children and people with a mobility impairment.

Indeed, for these walking networks, reviewing priorities, making selective modifications and

providing occasional missing links rather than planning completely new networks is likely to be the

most appropriate response. The need for design standards for walking routes that have same legal

status as the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges is addressed in more detail in our response to

question five of this consultation.

Regarding the requirement to develop a cycling network, Cardiff Council has already undertaken

what will be required of every local authority22 and provides a useful model of how this duty could be

delivered. The Council used Acorn data35 to identify where to focus interventions in order to target

those most likely to take up cycling, before combining this data with the locations of major trip

generators and safety ‘hot spots’ to strategically plan the routes that would generate the greatest

change22. The routes were then listed in priority order, to be built as and when funding becomes

available. This approach not only recognises the importance of catering for latent as well as existing

demand, but also the need to ensure routes link people to popular destinations via the most

comfortable and direct route possible. Sustrans is highly supportive of this approach to developing

a strategic cycling network and would advocate that this model of best practice should be

encouraged wherever possible.

Indeed, arguably more important than specifying the facilities local authorities will be required to

map, should be stipulating the process by which these facilities should be identified. Too often

walking and cycling routes are constructed where they fit, not where they are required and there is a

failure to plan in terms of trip generation points, leading to the underuse of the new infrastructure.

Local authorities should be required to consult major trip generators in their local area to identify

where walking and cycling routes are most needed.

“The most important approach to making cycling safe and convenient in Dutch, Danish and German cities is the provision of separate cycling facilities along heavily traveled roads and at intersections…

Providing such separate facilities to connect practical utilitarian origins and destinations promotes cycling for work, school and shopping trips as opposed to mainly recreational cycling.”3

The process adopted by local authorities in developing and delivering these networks will be vital to

the success of the Bill in instigating change. To this end, the Bill should include a requirement for

local authorities to meaningfully consult existing and potential users, including young people9. To

achieve this level of engagement, support will be needed. For many transport departments end user

consultation may be a relatively new concept and it is likely that additional guidance will be needed

in an area that is outside of their traditional expertise. Specifically, resources and advice on who to

consult and where local authorities can go to receive support in delivering this consultation process

should be provided in the guidance accompanying the Bill.


This will not only help ensure the routes developed are culturally appropriate and relevant to

everyday journeys for local populations, but will also help foster community ownership of the route.

Sustrans’ experience has demonstrated that when a community takes ownership of a route they will

be motivated to look after it, defend it against abuse, clear up rubbish and raise funds for additional

features and improvements.

Question 4. What are your views about revising rights of way definitions, for example

allowing cyclists to use footpaths, or equestrians to use cycle paths?

Current rights of way legislation will restrict local authorities in fulfilling their duty.

More specifically, there are several flaws in existing Cycle Track Conversion Order legislation, which

enables local authorities to convert Public Rights of Way to allow cyclists to use them. In common

with all changes proposed to Public Rights of Way, all interested parties are required to be

consulted. But in the case of Cycle Track Conversion Orders, any objection will automatically result

in the matter being referred to the Secretary of State for a decision. This process can take up to two

years to complete.

Once a Cycle Track Conversion Order is in place, it automatically results in removal of the previous

footpath from the definitive map, even though the right of access on foot remains, as there is no way

currently to show a footpath with additional cycling rights. This invariably results in automatic

objections from walking groups, meaning that most orders have to be referred to the Secretary of

State. As a result the Order is rarely implemented despite the essence of the legislation being

sound.

We would welcome the Welsh Government considering changes to be made to the regulatory

framework relating to Cycle Tracks Conversion Orders and Rights of Way. Specifically, we would

like to see a removal of the default assumption that rights of way should exclude cyclists, whilst

recognising that there will be cases where it is inappropriate for cyclists to use footpaths (and for

equestrians to use shared traffic-free walking and cycling paths).

To ensure that this change in regulation is not to the detriment of walkers, there would also need to

be a commitment to best practice (specifically in relation to the different space requirements) and to

consult relevant user groups ahead of any conversion of use.

Compulsory Purchase Orders: In addition to changes to the Rights of Way legislation,

consideration should also be given to what additional tools would support local authorities in

implementing their duty. Specifically, consideration is needed on the current Compulsory Purchase

Orders system.

Land access agreements inevitably cause large delays to scheme implementation and, if agreement

cannot be reached, can make it impossible to implement key schemes. Overpriced land (particularly

where agents act on behalf of landowners) and unreasonable legal and agent fees can also add

considerably to scheme costs. In addition, where land owners sub-lease, the land-holding company

may not be willing to commit to anything beyond the current lease in the fear that it may compromise

the land's future value.

A Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) allows certain bodies, including local authorities, to obtain land

or property without the consent of the owner. However, in order for a Compulsory Purchase Order

to be granted, local authorities are required to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative route is

available. In the case of walking and cycling routes this can prove difficult as there may often be one

or more alternative, albeit lower-grade, route options, leaving local authorities vulnerable to

challenge.

The majority of local authorities are therefore reluctant to invoke Compulsory Purchase Order powers

for active travel infrastructure due to the assumption that any inspector will find alternative options

are available. The process can also be very lengthy, taking upwards of two years and leading to


unnecessary delays. Greater guidance and support is needed for local authorities on the tools they

can use in the development of their walking and cycling networks. Changes should also be made to

the current process for implementing Compulsory Purchase Orders, enabling local authorities to use

these Orders in the creation of traffic-free routes.

Specifically, the process for implementing Compulsory Purchase Orders for walking and cycling

routes should only require local authorities to define a single option through feasibility studies and,

provided there is a reasoned approach for arriving at a preferred option, this should be able to be

determined favourably via a Compulsory Purchase Order process without undue risk.

Speed limits (20mph and 40mph): Traffic speed and volume is a major concern for residents across

Wales and one of the primary barriers to people walking and cycling in their local communities.

Reducing traffic speed to 20mph or less in residential areas is a crucial first step in reversing this

trend.

“There need to be effective restrictions on traffic speeds, parking and access on all residential roads and other routes without segregated cycle and pedestrian paths so that both cyclists and pedestrians

feel that they have a safe and convenient environment in which to travel. This could include 20mph speed limits and resident-only access by car in some areas.” 4

Slower speeds benefit large numbers of non-car users, reducing noise and pollution levels, and

allowing better urban design standards. A recent study conducted by the North West Public Health

Observatory found that 140 children a year in the North West of England would potentially not have

been killed or seriously injured if 20mph limits had been in force36. Extrapolated to give a Great-

Britain-wide figure, 20 mph limits in residential areas could potential save 578 children from death or

serious injury each year. With Wales facing escalating numbers of child pedestrians being killed or

seriously injured37, 20mph limits as a means of reducing both the collision frequency38 and fatality

rates39 on our roads should be considered a priority.

The British Social Attitudes Survey also demonstrates that there is wide public support for this

measure. The 2005 survey reported that 71% of the British public support 20mph speed restrictions

in residential areas40. We therefore welcome the following comment in point eight of the White

Paper:

8. Where pedestrians or cyclists would be in proximity with motorised traffic, there should

be provisions in place to make these routes safe for pedestrians and cyclists, for example

through traffic calming, 20mph zones or through segregated routes.

We would like to note, however, that some traffic calming features can be detrimental to creating a

supportive environment for cyclists, and 20mph should be clearly stated as the preferable approach.

Local authorities have the power to implement 20mph limits and zones in their local communities but

the complications they face in exercising this power often discourage them from doing so. To

support them in implementing this duty, greater guidance is needed. Importantly, local authorities

should be encouraged to implement area-wide 20mph limits as opposed to just isolated streets.

This will ensure that through-traffic is displaced to arterial roads (designed to handle it) and not

simply shifted from one residential street to another, to the detriment of other walkers, cyclists and

residents3.

We would also encourage the Welsh Government to consider lobbying UK parliament for the powers

to implement a default 20mph speed limit in all residential areas (including town centres) across

Wales.

In addition, discussion is underway on granting local authorities more power to stipulate 40mph

speed limits on rural roads41. We fully support local authorities being granted these new powers and

would urge Welsh Government not only to support this initiative, but, once granted, to also actively

encourage local authorities to use these new powers in their local areas.


Strict liability:

“Forms of ‘strict liability’ are adopted in much of continental Europe and while not changing criminal responsibility they place a civil responsibility on drivers to obtain insurance that will pay vulnerable victims independently of fault. This may act as an incentive for car drivers to behave in a way that

protects the most vulnerable road users.” 4

Strict liability laws denote that a car driver is held legally responsible for the damage and loss caused

to more vulnerable road users by his or her acts and omissions, regardless of culpability. In some

countries, this has been demonstrated to reduce the number of pedestrian and cyclist casualties

when implemented and to raise levels of walking and cycling. The Welsh Government should seek

powers to allow the implementation of strict liability laws in Wales.

“Traffic laws in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany give special consideration to the especially vulnerable situation of cyclists. Thus they generally require the motorist to make special efforts to

anticipate potentially dangerous situations and proactively avoid hitting cyclists. Moreover, motorists are generally assumed to be legally responsible for most collisions with cyclists unless it can be

proven that the cyclist deliberately caused the crash. Having the right of way by law does not excuse motorists from hitting cyclists, especially children and elderly cyclists… In combination with the

comprehensive and rigorous training of motorists and cyclists, the strict enforcement of traffic laws surely contributes to safer driving behaviour by motorists and safer cycling by cyclists.” 3

Question 5. What are your views of the proposal for new design guidance?

The design guidance accompanying the Bill needs to have comparable status to the Design Manual

for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and be specifically endorsed by Welsh Government in order to

achieve the culture shift needed. A voluntary set of guidance will do little to change the current

culture amongst highway authorities who often default to road design standards in the development

of walking and cycling routes. Therefore, we would like design standards for walking and cycling

routes to have the same legal status as the DMRB. This would allow for a documented departure of

standards and would ease road safety audit issues. This guidance should be a succinct, clear,

signposting document making it easier to update in line with current good practice and should

approach walking and cycling standards separately, recognising there can be different needs for

each set of users.

To ensure that the aims of the White Paper are achieved it is essential that the design standards are

applicable to all schemes, including those which do not explicitly aim at pedestrian or cycle traffic.

Local authority engineers will often apply different standards to schemes with different stated aims,

for example, a ‘road safety’ scheme will be treated differently to a ‘cycling scheme’. This is one of

the reasons why users encounter sometimes bizarre design details which frequently bring investment

into ‘cycle schemes’ into disrepute.

These design standards should be drawn up as a matter of priority. Importantly, the advice of

independent experts in the field should be sought in developing these standards to supplement the

expertise already held within the Welsh Government transport division.

Professional development training schemes should be developed to enable key personnel within

each local authority to understand the new duty and the accompanying guidance framework.

Specifically, there is a need to educate professionals on the likelihood of successful liability claims

and to emphasise the actual evidence for appropriate and proportional designs. To achieve this, the

training should encourage a willingness to depart from standards that do not apply to walking and

cycling schemes.


At the Sustrans Active Travel (Wales) Bill Conference held in June, it was identified that that this

guidance should cover not only the standards of the routes developed but also the process by which

the network is identified and how the success of the network can best be measured:

“This guidance should include: a set of desired outcomes and guidance on how to measure these locally; a decision framework for the prioritisation of routes; a definition of key terms including what is

meant by continuous improvement, as well as the terms safe, convenient and comfortable; the level of public consultation required; an outline of the approvals process that Welsh Government will

adopt; and guidance on the timescales to be used by both Welsh Government and local authorities”.9

The guidance should also address how existing routes can be adopted into the network.

Specifically, it should outline how design standards apply to these routes, as retrofitting may not

always be appropriate on what may prove to be critical routes in the network.

Question 6. What would the costs and the benefits of these proposals be to you or your

organisation (or the people your organisation represents)?

Sustrans’ vision is a world in which more people can travel in ways that benefit their health and our

environment. And our mission as a charity is to provide better facilities that will encourage more

people to enjoy the benefits that walking and cycling can offer. Our volunteers and supporters, who

are at the heart of everything we do, are frequently keen walkers and cyclists. In this respect, this

Bill will be of great benefit to our supporters and the people our organisation represents. However,

we believe strongly that this Bill must retain its focus on shifting the behaviour and perceptions of

people who don’t currently walk and cycle, as opposed to those that already do.

We recognise that local authorities are under increasing pressure to deliver more for less and that

some may see this Bill as being an additional financial pressure. However, it is also acknowledged

that this duty is not designed to put additional pressure on already tight resources, but rather to

ensure that existing investment is better directed. Forward-thinking local authorities already

recognise the benefits this Bill has the potential to deliver; at our conference held in June, which was

attended by many local authority representatives, the response to the White Paper was wholly

positive.

The NHS in Wales spends £1m every week treating obesity related illness and, because of its links to

heart disease, cancer, diabetes and strokes, physical inactivity is now one of the leading causes of

death in developed countries. A report, due to be released on the 14th August, estimates that

approximately £517million could be released from the NHS Wales budget over a 20 year period

through increasing active travel in urban areas of Wales.42

Indeed, the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers, the National Institute for Health and Clinical

Excellence (NICE) and the Foresight study on obesity, all consider measures to increase ‘active’

travel through walking and cycling for everyday journeys as a crucial element in tackling sedentary

lifestyles. And the public health sector has been explicit in calling for transport investment to be

switched to the active, health enhancing modes of travel43. NICE, in its guidance on cardiovascular

disease prevention, says:

“Apportion part of [local transport budget] to promote walking, cycling and other forms of travel that involve physical activity. The proportion allocated should be in line with growth targets for the use of these modes of transport.”

44

Interventions to increase levels of walking and cycling are known to be cost-effective. Research

endorsed by the Department for Transport shows that for every £1 spent on promoting cycling, there

are savings of £4 from falling congestion45 and, when health benefits are taken into account, savings

in the order of £931. This compares favourably to road spending which often fails to show a return of

£1 for every £1 invested.


Question 7. We have asked a series of specific questions. Is there anything else that you

would like us to consider as part of the development of the Active Travel Bill, or wider activity

to encourage walking and cycling?

Rural communities

There is a danger that the Bill may only have an impact in towns and cities, deepening the rural-

urban divide. It would be easy to dismiss this Bill as irrelevant to rural areas or to indicate that local

authorities with large rural communities should only focus on the potential tourism benefits the Bill

could provide. However, this would neglect the opportunity this Bill has to cater for everyday

journeys in rural populations.

A relatively large number of people in rural areas live close to market towns. Smaller communities

may only be a few miles from a town centre but there is often little incentive or facilities for

individuals to walk or cycle. For example, pedestrians and cyclists have to compete with motor

vehicles on busy roads and the experience can be unpleasant and dangerous – particularly for older

people and families with children.

Traffic-free paths from outlying communities to the ‘hub’ town and other measures, such as traffic

calming and lower speed limits, can create a safe and attractive route for everyone including the

most vulnerable users. An example of where a new walking and cycling path has had a positive

impact on the lives of a rural community is the village of Llanyre in mid Wales. Despite being only

two and a half miles from the busy market town of Llandrindod Wells in Powys, the only alternative

to car use for the residents of Llanyre was to walk or cycle along a very busy main road. Thanks to a

grant from the Welsh Government Safer Routes scheme, a new traffic-free path is now used

frequently by the whole community. At peak times in the morning and evening, the route is occupied

by people walking and cycling to school, work or for leisure. The path also links up to the National

Cycle Network, connecting the town to communities and destinations further afield.

A project in Northern Ireland was also successful in raising levels of walking and cycling from 25% to

40% in rural areas; here, the integration of soft and hard measures was central to these results.

Schemes like these should be highlighted, along with opportunities for integrating cycling and

walking provision with public transport to help ensure more rural local authorities recognise the

relevance of this Bill to their communities.

Shared infrastructure for walking and cycling

Walkers and cyclists, both identified as vulnerable road users, are often assumed to have identical

needs. However, whilst many of their concerns, such as safety and fear of traffic, are similar,

conflicts can also arise.

The provision of shared routes is, in many cases a practical approach for local authorities to adopt in

fulfilling their duty. An independent review of research commissioned by Sustrans confirmed that

traffic-free routes are vitally important if cycling and walking are to be encouraged and that there

should be a presumption in favour of completing the network46. It also demonstrated that it is not

generally feasible to provide wholly separate pedestrian and cycle routes; most routes will have to

cater for both types of user, as well as other groups such as equestrians.

The guidance documents reviewed for this report indicated that the actual level of conflict between

pedestrians and cyclists on traffic-free paths is small, and that many of the social conflict issues that

other interest groups put forward are based on perceptions of meeting cyclists, as opposed to the

reality of actually meeting them. The review highlighted the importance of best path design in order

to help overcome some of the differences in needs.

Sustrans recognises that shared use of infrastructure can lead to conflict, but we would strongly

advocate that this issue should be addressed by local authorities on a case by case basis and that


the Bill should not neglect the many advantages shared, traffic-free routes can offer to walkers and

cyclists alike – including users with disabilities.

1 British Medical Association, 2012 Healthy transport = healthy lives 2 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2008 A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours 3 Pucher & Buehler, 2008 Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany 4 Pooley et al, 2011 Understanding Walking and Cycling: Summary of key findings and recommendations 5 Welsh Government, 2012 Consultation on Active Travel (Wales) Bill 6 Currie et al, 2012 Social determinants of health and well-bring among young people. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC)

study: International report from the 2009/10 survey 7 Welsh Government, 2010 Climate Change Strategy for Wales

8 Sustrans, 2012 The Highways and Transport (Wales) Bill: One of the most significant public health initiatives to be undertaken in this term of the Assembly…? Summary of roundtable discussion of leading public health professionals in Wales 9 Sustrans, 2012 Active Travel (Wales) Bill Conference: Conference Report 10 McKenzie-Mohr, 1999 Fostering Sustainable Behaviour: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing

11 Sustrans, 2010 Creating a level playing field: Making transport appraisal in Wales fair

12 Sustrans, 2011 NHS Sustainable Travel Project impacts, outcomes and future 13 Citizens Advice Bureau, 2003 Rural Transport Futures

14 Social Exclusion Unit, 2003 Making the Connections

15 Department of Health, 2004 At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health

16 Play England, 2008 Playday 2008 Opinion Research Summary 17 Play England, 2010 Playday 2010 Opinion Poll Summary 18 Department for Transport, 2010 National Travel Survey 2009

19 Hickman and Banister, 2005 Looking over the horizon, Visioning and Backcasting for UK Transport Policy 20 Wales Online, 2009 Capital Investment Pushes Cardiff Up Retail Rankings 21 Sustrans, 2006 Shoppers and How They Travel 22 Cardiff Council, 2010 The Plan: Cardiff Cycle Network

23 EU Waste Framework Directive, 2008 24 Child Poverty Act, 2010 25 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007 Public Health Guidance 6: Behaviour change at population, community and

individual levels 26 The National Cycle Network consists of over 13,600 miles of signed walking and cycling routes, with a third on traffic-free paths and the

rest following quieter lanes or traffic calmed roads. 27 Sustrans, 2012 The real cycling revolution: How the face of cycling is changing 28 Sustrans, 2010 Bike Belles: For women who want to cycle

29 Cardiff Council, 2011 Cardiff Cycle Design Guidance

30 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2012 Public Health Draft Guidance: Obesity – Working with communities

31 World Health Organisation, 2011 Health Economic Assessment Tools (HEAT) for walking and for cycling: Economic assessment of transport infrastructure and policies 32 Sustrans, 2011 NHS Sustainable Travel Project impacts, outcomes and future 33 LSE, 2011 The British Cycling Economy: ‘Gross Cycling Product’ report

34 Socialdata, 2011 Travel Behaviour Research in Cardiff and Penarth: Baseline Survey 2011 35 Please note: Whilst the use of Acorn data is proving highly successful in instigating positive shifts in travel behaviour, it has also been

shown to increase health inequalities. Caution should therefore be used in advocating this as a blanket approach across Wales. 36 North West Public Health Observatory, 2011 Road traffic collisions and casualties in the North West of England 37 Welsh Government, 2012 Pedestrian Road Casualties 2011

38 Transport Research Laboratory, 2000 The effect of drivers’ speed on the frequency of road accidents 39 Institute of Transport Economics, 2004 Speed and road accidents 40 National Centre for Social Research, 2005 British Social Attitudes Survey 41 Department for Transport, 2012 Setting local speed limits 42 Jarrett et al, 2012 Effect of increasing active travel in urban Wales on costs to the National Health Service

43 Association of Directors of Public Health, 2010 Take action on active travel 44 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2010 Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease 45 Sloman et al., 2010 The Effects of Smarter Choice Programmes in the Sustainable Travel Towns: Research Report 46 Jones, 2011 The Merits of Segregated and Non-Segregated Traffic-Free Paths: A Literature-Based Review

Documents

Active Travel (Wales) Bill Sustrans Response