active travel guidance

GOV.WALES uses cookies which are essential for the site to work. Non-essential cookies are also used to tailor and improve services. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Active Travel Act guidance

Guidance for local authorities planning and designing networks of walking and cycling routes.

Read details on this page

• Active Travel Act: guidance and forms and
• Walking and cycling (Sub-topic)

Active Travel Act guidance , file type: PDF, file size: 43 MB

Includes best practice on infrastructure design and gives guidance on how to provide related facilities such as cycle parking.

First published

Last updated, share this page.

• Share this page via Twitter
• Share this page via Facebook
• Share this page via Email

More From Forbes

The future of travel and active travel - trends and expert tips.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Future travel trends? Natural beauty, outdoor activity, escapism, privacy and new destinations are ... [+] all hot. Mountain biking in Colorado is just one example.

“There would be no such thing as a hidden gem if it wasn’t hidden.” - Cari Gray, owner Gray & Co.

Travel is always changing in terms of emerging destinations, complexities, logistics, technologies and trends, but there has been no more significant change agent in our lifetimes than the COVID-19 pandemic.

What will travel look like next year, the year after that, and for years down the road? What has changed in how consumers travel and what they want when they do? What choices can we make to ensure smoother, safer trips and peace of mind when traveling, right now and down the road?

Active travel had been growing for years before COVID-19, but this trend was accelerated in the pandemic, and now it has become one of the hottest categories of all travel. But as it has grown, active travel has also increasingly broadened and morphed into other areas of travel, as the top companies have expanded their offerings and expertise beyond classic hiking and biking trips and into everything from safaris to culinary focuses. To a large degree, the best specialists in active travel have become the best specialists in travel, and many of the trends and tips overlap. Today we are going to take a deep dive into both realms, so buckle up!

Studies show a substantial increase in outdoor recreation participation and fitness activities among American since the pandemic, and more than 60% of those who took up new activities in this surge say they intend to keep doing them afterwards. This growth spans just about every outdoor activity, but has been led by large increases in running, cycling and hiking, and is reflected in travel choices. Bookings for the biggest companies in the field suggest the interest is only going to keep growing in the future, and top active travel tour operators are adding trips and departures at breakneck pace as they experience record bookings for later this year and next.

Places like Tuscany are on every traveler's dream list, but you cannot truly appreciate these ... [+] destinations from a tour bus.

Best Travel Insurance Companies

Best covid-19 travel insurance plans.

I love these kinds of trips, because they combine all the things that are great about a “regular” vacation with exercise, health and fresh air, in the most beautiful and desirable tourism destinations on earth. There is also a feeling of accomplishment that comes from actually doing something physical, and while the food in Italy is always fantastic, that gelato after dinner tastes even sweeter when you know you burned the calories it contains. From a practical perspective, many of the world’s great destinations, from Tuscany to Ireland to Incan ruins, are better observed at a slower pace and from ground level, in the immersive way that only walking or cycling allows for. Much of the wonder of the most wonderful places is simply lost on those who view it from a window, no matter how good the guide or tour operator.

Speaking of good tour operators, when it comes to active travel, one player rules the luxury end of the category, and today I have the pleasure of sharing her expert insights. In this moment surrounding the Winter Olympics and Super Bowl we are constantly reminded just how hard it is to be number one, how many compete and how few can take home the gold. In active travel that champion is Gray & Co. , a luxury tour operator that offers no set trips, no group trips and no scheduled departures. All they do is craft one-of-a-kind bespoke trips carefully curated around their clients’ preferences, tastes, lodging and travel styles, and preferred activities, all in the best places on earth. Today, founder Cari Gray is sharing her insights and advice with my Forbes audience.

I have had the good fortune to have traveled around the globe with many of the top tier luxury active travel tour operators, and I’ve had the privilege to have traveled with Gray & Co. I can say from firsthand experience that there are a lot of excellent options in this field offering amazing trips (Butterfield & Robinson, Backroads, DuVine, Tourissimo, Trek Travel, Dolomite Mountains, Micato Safaris, National Geographic Expeditions, Mountain Travel Sobek, and others), but Gray & Co. deserves the many accolades the company has earned in the past few years, not the least of which is being named Number One, the World’s Best Tour Operator, by Travel & Leisure magazine. Just to be clear, that is not the world’s best active travel tour operator, it is for any kind of travel, against the biggest names in trips of every ilk.

Because you might not know how well-informed I am on this topic (very), it’s worth noting that I am not the only one who thinks highly of Cari Gray and her company, nor is Travel & Leisure , which has had her on its Best List year after year. To give you an idea of the company’s position in the travel industry, and where the following advice comes from, here is just a smattering of recent press - before we get onto the good stuff.

Travel & Leisure : Number One Tour Operator in the World, scoring 98.14 out of possible 100. Conde Nast Traveler : Best Travel Specialists in the World 2021, 2020, 2019. Financial Times : “Cari Gray is the go-to woman for a truly bespoke cycling trip,” and “All her bespoke trips feature carbon-fiber bikes, support vehicles, mechanics, and high guide-to-guest ratios. And if there’s one thing Gray also always gets right, it’s the hotels.” Outside Magazine : “catering to the world’s most discerning travelers…the guest-to-guide ratio is two to one…over-the-top itineraries span the globe.” Robb Report : “Each Gray & Co. journey is custom designed, with no set calendar of departures, no catalogs, and no group trips with strangers. Itineraries are born out of personal interviews conducted by Gray, allowing her to weave client’s passions - from bird-watching and fishing to whisky and wine - into each day’s activities.” American Airlines Celebrated Living : “The highest of high-end tour operators, Gray & Co takes a completely different tact with its operations and philosophy, offering only completely bespoke trips…Its clientele includes A-list international entertainers, CEOS of Forbes 500 and Fortune 1000 companies, and at least one frequent repeat cycling billionaire. And “a ‘no margin for error’ philosophy that puts guest satisfaction above all else.”

Multi-generational trips and active travel are hot, and one way to combine these is with multi-sport ... [+] trips, like cycling, hiking and horseback riding in Wyoming, with something for everyone.

Q: Do you think the pandemic caused long term changes in the way people will want to travel?

A: Yes, but in many different ways. For some, it confirmed they want to spend valuable time off with friends or family. So now those travelers want adjoining suites or big house rentals (fully staffed of course!). But some people want buzz and have missed it badly! They want to meet new, like-minded people and socialize.

“Bucket Lists” are big, and this is true for the young and old alike. For some mature travelers, it’s finally time to head to Africa. But it’s the same for families - they want to travel and see the world through their kids’ eyes. We had a family that went to Galapagos at Christmas last minute with four kids because they felt their window to travel together was shrinking.

But Bucket List or no, multi-generational travel is growing. Families want to share experiences.

Q: What other changes have you seen in recent years that will continue as trends going forward in terms of what people care about when they travel?

A: There are several. Unique lodging is in big demand - properties in the U.S. like Amangiri’s Camp Sarika and Dunton Hot Springs were crazy popular even pre-pandemic. We need more of them. Globally, there are more castles than ever in Europe. There are treehouse hotels, cave hotels, a wolf lodge, and remote destinations are opening up thanks to great basecamps.

Also, unique ways to get between places - it’s more fun to take the train to Denali in Alaska, or to hire a yacht to get between islands,

There is more interest in simple food, local specialties and healthy food - on most any night travelers prefer an authentic atmospheric bistro over Michelin stars. They’re saving the fancy restaurants for the big celebrations.

Traveling with their pets is through the roof. People just can’t leave them behind!

[ See my recent Forbes feature on the Best Luxury Pet Friendly Lodging ]

Safety and access to good health care, in case of emergency. This was fueled by the pandemic, but it is going to stick around: more interest in clinics, doctors on call, available level of care etc.

Longer stays in fewer places. Because the pandemic has made crossing borders more cumbersome and introduced uncertainty, many travelers are choosing to focus on just one country per trip.

In this vein, they want places that are easy to get to. In Costa Rica people love Peninsula Papagayo because of direct flights to Liberia. There are non-stops from the U.S.to South Africa, and people love that. As a company, we love Mallorca, it’s a fabulous active destination, and United, part of Star Alliance, just added the first ever non-stops to Palma from the U.S., and that is going to drive bookings.

Giving back, charity and supporting local communities is a growing interest. People want the option to visit good works, have a positive impact and create a legacy along the way.

Q: Outdoor activities surged in popularity during the pandemic. How will this impact demand for active vacations going forward?

A: This has been growing long before the pandemic. Active vacations have been on the upswing for many decades, which is why I founded Gray & Co. in 2009 to cater to what was then a small bespoke niche of the business. Nowadays there are myriad active travel companies that cater to most every traveler. On top of that, most traditional “fly & flop” vacation destinations have added optional experiences, many of which are active. Evidence of current interest in active travel abounds - look at the recent record-breaking attendance in National Parks, sold out lodges, ranches across the US. Everyone is embracing the great outdoors and moving!

Q: For someone who loves to vacation but hasn’t really considered active travel, what’s the appeal and why should they try it?

A: After pandemic months of indoor biking on Pelotons or “hiking” on treadmills, it’s great to be able take your newfound fitness on the road with you. On a practical level, you get up close and personal with different cultures and landscapes at a slower pace. This leads to high levels of engagement, along with good health. There are dedicated bike paths and hiking trails all over the world, and it’s also now easier than ever to try it out. There are new e-bikes which are fun and accessible and help even out biking abilities. Regular bikes now come in every shape, size and tire width, with something for everyone, from pavement to bike paths to country dirt roads to mountain bike trails.

You are going to eat on vacation, but doing it during active travel is the guilt free way to enjoy ... [+] calories! Imagine stopping for lunch with wine while cycling or hiking around Australia's Kangaroo Island.

Also, after an active day, food somehow tastes better, and you feel less guilty about ordering dessert and an extra glass of wine. And it’s all local. You didn’t have to buy it and cook it the way you did endlessly during the pandemic. And you’ll sleep well at night! 

Q: Hiking and biking are the classic “activities” in active travel, but what else are travelers looking to do now? Are there other growing areas of activity?

A: People love to dabble, mix and match, and try new things. So they might bike in the morning then golf or tennis in afternoon or indulge in watersports: stand up paddleboarding, kayaking, hoverboards, snorkeling, scuba, surfing, fishing. In this vein, multi-sport trips just keep generating more and more interest - add a zip line, horseback riding, rock climbing, hike through a coconut plantation and learn all about it, a mix. And another big one is yoga and wellness, meditation, tai chi, etc. that all just keeps growing.

A lot of tour operators are now adding a daily yoga class to bike or hike trips, but one of the advantages of going bespoke is that not only can you mix and match, you can do it in the perfect proportions for your tastes. If you really love hiking you can do a “hike and” itinerary, where you hike every day but add one or more different activities afterwards for a big variety. But if you only want to bike and then fish every single day because those are your passions, you can do that too, and you are never going to see that option in a catalog.

Q: For travelers used to booking itinerary-based guided tours, like the “Best of Spain and Portugal in 10 days,” can you briefly explain the custom/bespoke model and how it can be better?

Experiential travel is hot, so people want to do more things and try new activities, like kayaking ... [+] in Alaska.

A: Time is precious, and it is your time. On vacation, you should spend your time doing exactly what you what, when you want and with who you want. A custom itinerary is tailored to fit you perfectly. Get up when you want to. You see what you want to see. Bike the distance you like on terrain that suits your fitness levels and shows the best of the location off. You’re not limited by the desires of strangers or stuck sitting in a van or bus.

Also, the beauty of a custom trip is that there can be multiple itineraries within a day, to meet the varied needs of each traveler. This works especially well with multi-generational travel. Adults go bike. Teens go horseback ride. Grandpa hikes. Everyone meets up for lunch to share experiences. Afternoon downtime at the spa or pool - or if you don’t like downtime, then more of everything!

Cari Gray's customers count on her to discover great new destinations, so she is always exploring ... [+] roads less traveled, such as the Canary Islands.

Our clients are very savvy and typically already well-travelled. They have done the big traditional cities, and already have their “favorite hotel” for London, Paris, etc. They come to us for the lesser-known destinations where it’s not obvious where to stay, visit, bike, hike etc. They appreciate a well-constructed day. The trip should be seamless.

Q: All of your luxury competitors offer both fully custom trips and the more traditional group scheduled departures with fixed itineraries. Why are bespoke private trips all that your company does?

A: Because we’re crazy?! It’s a massive amount of work that requires crazy levels of communication, dedication, curiosity, deep connections, and first-hand knowledge. Our team of planners and producers sweat the details with our extended team of local experts and subject matter specialists. Forcing people into cookie cutter agendas makes us cringe! Only when we dive deep, can we create truly meaningful experiences.

We also love the creative process. We love matching people first to destinations, and then to activities, and then hotels or lodges, and the culture, then the cuisine, the pacing, the unveiling – we do it all, from start to finish. We love managing expectations, collaborating, pivoting, raising the bar, exceeding expectations, delighting and more. Travel is a people business - and we love people!

Q: Just to give people an idea of what bespoke means, what are some unusual trip highlights you’ve created?

A: Each trip we do is custom and unusual in that sense that it’s always unique. But some things we’ve done on trip are super unusual and exclusive. In New Zealand, we took travelers to visit a kiwi sanctuary to meet an extremely rare white albino kiwi. The day before, they wore wet suits and rode inner tubes through pitch black caves illuminated only by staggeringly bright glow worm caves - with glasses of local rose in hand. In Japan, while biking the amazing bridges across the Seto Sea, we discovered a local hairdresser that was also a Neapolitan pizzeria with a massive Italian pizza oven. So we ate the most delicious authentic pizza lunch in the most surprising setting imaginable before more explorations on Kyushu, Shikoku, and Honshu islands.

Few visitors to Africa, even repeat safari veterans, have ever seen a caracal, one of the rarest big cats. In Namibia, we walked along with Misty, a caracal, on her morning stroll before heading out to do target practice with the anti-poaching team. In Tasmania, we timed our hiking around Freycinet park to see the Tasmanian Devils back at Saffire lodge crunch up their carnivore dinner. In Cape Town, we had tea with Nelson Mandela’s longtime bodyguard, Christo Brand. In Buenos Aires, we took travelers inside the social clubhouse of the prestigious and ultra-private Jockey Club, before attending a custom tango show. In Salzburg we biked to all the places in the Sound of Music, complete with music blaring, and then hiked up to the largest ice cave in the world. In India we arranged a small private commitment ceremony by a shaman in the Nepali temple along the banks of the Ganges in Varanasi. In Scotland, we went out by zodiac to visit Fingal’s Cave on Staffa Island famous for Mendelssohn's “Hebrides Overture” before helicoptering back to Edinburgh. I could go on….

Picking the perfect place to stay is vital to a great vacation, and with expert help you can end up ... [+] in gems like Morocco's Kasbah Tamadot.

Q: I know a lot of people who think they are well-traveled and savvy and can do all the planning themselves and are hesitant about the idea of traveling with a guide. What would you tell them?

A: There is no denying that the internet has made researching and booking travel easier in some ways. But it’s just too much info, some of it dubious. Curating or vetting has never been more important. And as growing demand and the exclusiveness of properties drives up prices, how can you know which is the right fit? Is the beach black sand or white? Smooth and squeaky or rocky? What room category is the one best for you?

But ultimately the simple answer is that truly exclusive experiences and respected insider knowledge is not easy to find on Google. It’s through our relationships with local guides, hotels, and suppliers that we have our finger on the pulse of what’s new and unique in a destination. There would be no such thing as a hidden gem if it wasn’t hidden.

Also, and this is very important, in a time of so much uncertainly, it’s extremely helpful to have a fixer, should things go wrong. For example, we recently had our private guide save the day for travelers abroad who needed to find a Covid testing center at midnight.

Q: Some people want to travel again but don’t feel comfortable booking right now with all the border restrictions, omicron, fear of being suck in quarantine and such. What’s your suggestion?

A: It’s so hard to tell when international travel will be “normal” again, but luckily there’s so much to do in the U.S., and people who are cautious are still traveling, just doing it closer to home. I’ve spent much of the past two years exploring parts of Utah, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, and California, and I’ve been thrilled - we LOVE biking in Texas’ Hill Country.

Q: So for those who want to travel but choose to stay domestic, where are you sending people right now? Do you have any hidden gem trips here?

A: Yes! There are plenty of domestic gems. For bikers, it’s tough to top the roads around Santa Ynez, California. The Fess Parker Hotel in Los Olivos is perfectly located, and there’s a new Auberge resort due to open. Nearby Santa Barbara offers myriad of top hotel choices and activities - I’m a huge fan of kayaking out in Channel Island National Park. Kentucky is another fun place to bike, among the horse farms and blue grass and bourbon distilleries of Lexington and Louisville. For hikers, Utah’s Capitol Reef National Park is a stunning but lesser-known destination compared to its much more crowded peers, and Cougar Ridge is a great basecamp. For more multi-sport type trips, Sage Lodge outside Bozeman, Montana offers up plenty of comfort, fine fare and adventures - they even do llama trekking.

Q: For those who are traveling abroad now, do you have any special insider tips or advice to make it smoother or less stressful?

A: Book MULTIPLE tests to return to the U.S.! Labs in other parts of the worlds not as reliable, closed on weekends, limited hours etc. Source a second lab to alleviate worries about late lab results, and most airports now have rapid antigen testing. Also carry back-up home tests in your carry on in case you miss connections.

Expect to get stuck. Always keep in mind that you might get Covid when you’re away, no matter how careful you are. Make sure you have insurance. Pack extra of what you need, like prescriptions, and budget so that if you do get stuck somewhere, you’re all set. If you have to be back on a certain day, make sure to add a buffer day. Commercial flights are struggling to keep schedules.  

Fly as direct as possible and don’t add any more stops than you need to. Every change compounds exposure and risk of delays, cancellations, or not complying with regulations.

Stay longer. Make the most of your trip, and choose places where there’s plenty to do outdoors, where you can eat outdoors, and avoid needless bouncing around.

Q: There has been dramatically increased interest in a handful of places such as the Dolomites, Mallorca, Portugal, St. Barths, and others. Going forward, what do you see as the factors that will make places the new hotspots?

A: It’s a combination of the things today’s traveler is looking for: High service levels, multiple good local lodging choices, places that cater to multiple-ages, interests and physical abilities, places that are easy to get to, and places that allow for work/play combination trips. During the pandemic, St. Barths decided to invest in infrastructure and buried high-speed fiber connections to just about everywhere on the island. If you can tear yourself away from the weather, beaches, beauty and food, it’s a great and reliable place to stay connected to work.

Everyone knows South Africa has amazing wildlife safaris, but the world class cycling is a big ... [+] surprise.

Q: Given your focus on hiking and biking, what are some of the all-time best trips/destinations, both well-known and surprising?

A: Ireland - biking up - and down - the Healy Pass outside Kenmare in Southwest Ireland is so fun!

Mallorca - for hike, bike, food, beach, and water - and great places to stay.

St. Barths has so much beyond the buzz and bistros. Amazing beaches, some surfing, sailing, land tortoises, etc. Great hotels and tons of villas.

South Africa - I never get tired of it. Epic hiking, biking, beaches, hospitality, good value, culture - oh, and they have animals!

Japan is still so mysterious, culturally distinct, incredible cuisine and yet increasingly open to active explorations. World class biking, hiking and skiing.

Uruguay is tiny and often overlooked among South American destinations but has amazing beaches, biking and great food.

Northern Italy is still new for so many travelers, so much variety and such high quality, from Piemonte to the Veneto, the Lakes, Dolomites and so many places in between!

Burgundy is a classic, near and dear to my heart.

Australia awaits post pandemic explorations, with more new standout lodges.

Canada is my home, and so close to the U.S., but so special, the Gulf Islands, Newfoundland, Rockies, polar bears and more.

Q: What are your company’s biggest challenges?

A: Misconception. People hear the word "guided" and think that means there's someone along that will invade their privacy and lead them to places or situations that they don't want. That's why we prefer the term "producers," like a movie. We're more discretely behind the scenes, but also very present, keeping all running seamlessly.

Underestimation. Even among those used to high-end luxury travel, people just don't realize how good a trip can be, and how great it is to experience ultimate choice and flexibility - especially when you have many ages, abilities, and interests to accommodate. 

False value. The biggest cost in our trips is the pain-staking planning, in-depth research and discrete service. The team. But that's also what makes the biggest difference! But we’ve been very lucky in that our customers value us and are willing to pay for the production levels required. Many of them come back, so we must be doing something right!

Q: What’s the place Cari Gray has not been that is number one on her to-visit list?

A: Too many to list! Hiking in Bhutan, exploring East Africa, biking in Croatia, swim with whale sharks in at Sal Salis Ningaloo reef, hiking up in Ecuador near Cotapaxi. I’m headed next to do cycling R&D in Guadeloupe, stopping at the Body Holiday wellness resort in St Lucia. They have an astonishing 70% repeat rate. I can’t wait to experience it! Carolyn on our team wants to road bike the Faroe Islands. Julia is headed to Costa Rica to check out surf breaks, tented camps and wellness retreats. Annie is next off to bike among the vineyards and mountain passes of South Africa - with a refuel in the Canary Islands for some biking en route among the lava fields and unique rock vineyards.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

• The benefits of being active
• The five big issues
• Read our strategy
• Movement Hub
• Demographics
• By topic/issue
• About our research
• About people
• About places
• Activity Check-in
• Local Area Insights
• Market Segmentation tool
• Innovation and digital
• Cost of living
• Safeguarding
• Facilities and planning
• Grassroots organisers
• Schools and teachers
• National governing bodies
• Digital Marketing Hub
• Image library
• Apply for funding
• Funding guidance
• Our impact and case studies
• Historic funds
• This Girl Can
• We Are Undefeatable
• Play Their Way
• Active Partnerships
• Be Inspired
• Code for Sports Governance
• Commonwealth Games
• Equality and diversity
• Long-term partnerships
• Movement Fund Partners
• Place partnerships
• Use our School
• Return to play
• Active Design
• Featured content
• News archive

Active travel

Be it walking to school, cycling to work, or other everyday journeys you make to get from place to place – rather than solely for leisure or fitness – active travel can offer a convenient, accessible and affordable way to move more.

At a glance

• Our research

Tools and resources

Increasing levels of physical activity is central to improving the nation’s health and wellbeing, and active travel - which is the everyday journeys we make to get from place to place, like cycling to work - is widely viewed as having the potential to play a major part in that mission.

The evidence base on the link between active travel and physical activity is extensive, wide-ranging in terms of the interventions reviewed, exhibits variable degrees of rigour, and can be interpreted in different ways. In particular, the volume of available material has grown considerably in recent years and are expected to continue to grow in coming years. 

Our strategy - Uniting the Movement

Uniting the Movement, our 10-year strategy launched in 2021, is our plan to make being physically active a normal part of life for everyone in England – to make it easier for all of us as we go about our everyday lives.

Movement makes people happier and healthier, and it does the same thing for our communities – with life-changing, sustainable benefits that have huge economic and social value.

We’re shining a light on the huge impact environmental prompts and cues can have in changing people’s behaviour, which is why we’re championing Active Design  alongside active travel.

Active Design promotes physical activity, health and stronger communities through the way we design and build our towns and cities.

It has 10 principles to inspire and inform the layout of cities, towns, villages, neighbourhoods, buildings, streets and open spaces, to create more opportunities for physical activity.

Find out more about our Uniting the Movement strategy

What we know

• 37% of adults aged 16+ travel actively at least twice a month 
• Walking for travel is the second most common physical activity in England – done by 33% of people at least twice a month 
• Cycling for travel is seventh – done by 6.8% of people
• 37% of children aged 5-15 walk for travel at least once a week, and 10% cycle for travel 
• Among the ‘active’ population, 11% are dependent on walking for travel and 1.3% on cycling for travel, to achieve their 150+ minutes of physical activity.

Sustrans on Active Travel

Carried out by an independent team led by walking and cycling charity Sustrans , in partnership with Dr Nick Cavill and Professor Adrian Davis, their research examines the effect active travel has on overall physical activity levels and reviews the effectiveness of many types of active travel interventions at increasing walking, cycling or physical activity.

The research looked at short journeys, like walking to the shops, walking the kids to school, cycling to work, or cycling to the station to catch a train.

There’s strong evidence that implementing active travel principles are effective at increasing walking, cycling and physical activity, particularly for town or citywide approaches, typically made up of several interventions working together across a whole place.

Overall, the Sustrans review concludes that interventions increase active travel and therefore levels of physical activity. Of the different typologies, the evidence was strongest (in terms of volume and robustness) when active travel was encouraged in cities or towns, while each of the other intervention types reported some increases in walking and/or cycling.

Data from leading surveys show the significant contribution active travel already makes to the overall physical activity levels of children and adults.

There's a clear consensus that active travel can make an even greater contribution to physical activity – through increasing both the amount and intensity of activity. This evidence review gives the platform for a direct and coordinated effort to realise this untapped potential.

Active Travel Uptake and Physical Activity

Active Travel Uptake and Physical Activity explores the relationship between physical activity and active travel behaviour, using data from the People and Places Survey (which is used by Transport for London to evaluate their Mini-Holland scheme).

It reveals how active travel can be effective at helping inactive people become active, and how increasing active travel can increase overall physical activity too. 

Variation in Active Travel and the Scope to Increase Participation

Variation in Active Travel and the Scope to Increase Participation analyses two major datasets to assess the variation in, and scope to, increase active travel. It includes two scenarios showing the impact if everywhere had London’s short walking rates, or Cambridge’s cycling rates. Effective interventions and collaboration across the sector could help us realise this unmet potential.

Active Travel Full Report – Evidence Review

Active Travel Full Report – Evidence Review provides an in-depth account of the research methodology (including study limitations), findings and conclusions drawn from Sustrans' study, as well as context and contributions relevant to the study. Literature is also included which covers a control mechanism to support comparison between the intervention and non-intervention locations.

Active Travel Summary – Evidence Review

Active Travel Summary – Evidence Review provides an authoritative account of how, and how best, active travel can support physical activity. It provides the main findings and messages, gives examples of effective interventions and tells you how you can use the full report to deliver, fund and research active travel to support physical activity.

Related content

The outdoors presents a huge opportunity to encourage people to get active. But to grow the outdoors activity market, there are some key trends to consider.

The design of where we live and work plays a vital role in keeping us active.

Our Active Lives surveys measure the physical activity levels of adults and children and young people across England, providing a wealth of data.

Sign up to our newsletter

You can find out exactly how we'll look after your personal data , but rest assured we’ll only use it to make sure you receive our newsletter, to understand how you interact with our newsletter, and to provide administrative information about our newsletter.

Your registration has been completed successfully.

We could not complete your registration, please try again later.

Physical Activity: Interventions to Increase Active Travel to School

• What the CPSTF Found
• Supporting Materials

Considerations for Implementation

Summary of cpstf finding.

Economic evidence indicates the economic benefits exceed the cost for active travel to school interventions.

The CPSTF has a related recommendation for combined built environment approaches to increase physical activity.

Intervention

In the United States, the most commonly used active travel to school intervention is Safe Routes to School .

Active travel to school interventions must include one or more of the following components:

• Engineering (e.g., operational and physical improvements to the built environment infrastructure)
• Education (e.g., materials and activities to teach the importance of active transportation; walking and cycling safety training sessions)
• Encouragement (e.g., events and activities to promote active transportation)
• Enforcement (e.g., partnerships with local law enforcement to ensure traffic laws are obeyed in school neighborhoods; crossing guard programs)

Interventions may also include the following:

• Evaluation data collection and program monitoring
• Equity efforts to ensure components address barriers to participation for all communities (e.g., low-income communities, communities of color) and individuals (e.g., children and parents with disabilities)

Communities typically select or modify intervention components to address specific barriers to active travel. Programs are often combined with other school- and community-based interventions to increase opportunities for physical activity.

CPSTF Finding and Rationale Statement

Promotional materials.

• Interventions to Increase Active Travel to School
• New Publication Features Economic Benefits of Active Travel to School

About The Systematic Review

The systematic review was conducted on behalf of the CPSTF by a team of specialists in systematic review methods, and in research, practice, and policy related to increasing physical activity or preventing pedestrian injuries.

Regular physical activity in childhood and adolescence improves strength and endurance, helps build healthy bones and muscles, helps control weight, reduces symptoms of anxiety and depression, and may improve cardiovascular health (USDHHS, 2008a, 2018a). Walking or bicycling to and from school provides children and adolescents with an opportunity to be physical active.

Summary of Results

Active travel to school.

Of the 52 studies included in the systematic review, 40 assessed intervention effects on active travel.

• The remaining studies used different measures to evaluate active travel, and most reported favorable, though not statistically significant, outcomes (14 studies).
• The proportion of students engaged in active travel to school increased by a median of 6.5 percentage points (9 studies).
• The remaining studies used different measures of change, and most reported favorable, though not statistically significant, outcomes (3 studies).
• Study results were mixed with regard to the amount of moderate to vigorous physical activity children engaged in during active travel (10 studies).
• There was not enough evidence to show that school travel led to increases in students’ overall daily physical activity.

Pedestrian and Bicycling Injuries

Of the 52 studies included in the systematic review, 7 assessed intervention effects on pedestrian and bicycling injuries.

• New York City over a 10-year period, injuries in census tracts funded for Safe Routes to School programs decreased by 44%.
• Texas (state-wide) pedestrian and bicyclist injury rates among school-age children decreased by 14% during the program study period.
• Multi-state study (18 states) programs reduced pedestrian and bicyclist injury rates in school-age children by 23%.
• California (state-wide) collisions in Safe Routes to School project areas were reduced by 53%.
• California (state-wide) collisions were reduced by 13% in Safe Routes to School project areas and 15% in non-project areas.
• School crossing guard expansion in Toronto (no effect on injuries)
• A bicycle safety course in Demark (mixed results)

Summary of Economic Evidence

Evidence shows economic benefits exceed the cost for active travel to school interventions. The economic review included 10 studies (search period January 1990 July 2018) that targeted elementary and middle schools. Monetary values are expressed in 2017 U.S dollars.

Intervention cost for the three Safe Routes to School programs ranged from $87,150 to $171,863 per school. Intervention cost for active travel to school programs outside the United States ranged from $3,531 per school in Australia to $636,622 per project in the United Kingdom.

The benefit to cost ratios over a 2-year time horizon for the Safe Routes to School programs were 1.46:1.0 and 1.74:1.0 (2 studies). The median benefit to cost ratio for the programs outside the United States was 5.2:1.0 over a median 10-year time horizon (5 studies).

Applicability

Overall, studies found active travel interventions to be effective regardless of the component or combinations of components selected and implemented (e.g., encouragement, education).

However, the subset of study interventions that included an engineering component found a larger change in the proportion of students using active travel (5.9 percentage point increase) compared to interventions without an engineering component (4.8 percentage point increase) across similar baselines.

Evidence Gaps

• What is the relationship between changes in active travel to school and overall measures of total daily physical activity and moderate to vigorous physical activity?
• How effective are interventions in different U.S. populations and settings such as low income or rural communities?
• How does intervention effectiveness vary by student demographic characteristics?
• What is the relationship between local built environment improvements and pedestrian and cycling injury rates?
• How does the distance students travel between their homes and schools impact intervention effectiveness? Additionally, what is the impact when school buses are offered versus not offered?
• What are drivers of economic benefits when mode of travel to school shifts from private automobile use to walking or bicycling?
• What is the percent change in students who choose the active travel mode following U.S. Safe Routes to School implementations?
• What is the appropriate time horizon for an evaluation of economic benefits?

Study Characteristics

• Included studies were conducted in the United States (24 studies) and other high-income countries.
• Most of the studies evaluated programs in public elementary or middle schools. Subset analyses showed greater effects at elementary schools than middle schools or high schools.
• Across all studies, the mean student age was 9.8 years and 52.8% of participants were girls.
• Most studies were conducted in urban or mixed urban-suburban communities; none were done in rural communities.
• Study participants ranged from more than 1000 (22 studies), to between 101-1000 (16 studies), and 100 or less (10 studies).
• Study duration ranged from longer than one year (22 studies), to 4-12 months (12 studies), or 3 months or less (14 studies).

Publications

Petersen R, Pedroso MS. Economic Benefits of Promoting Safe Walking and Biking to School: Creating Momentum for Community Improvements . American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2021;60(1):e41-3.

Analytic Framework

Effectiveness Review

When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.

Economic Review

No content is available for this section.

Summary Evidence Table

Summary Evidence Table – Economic Review

Included Studies

Boarnet MG, Day K, Anderson C, McMillan T, Alfonzo M. California’s Safe Routes to School program: impacts on walking, bicycling and pedestrian safety. Journal of the American Planning Association 2005;71(3):301-17.

B rrestad LAB, stergaard L, Andersen LB, Bere E. Experiences from a randomised, controlled trial on cycling to school: does cycling increase cardiorespiratory fitness? Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 2012;40:245 52.

Buckley A, Lowry MB, Brown H, Barton B. Evaluating safe routes to school events that designate days for walking and bicycling. Transport Policy 2013;30:294-300.

Buliung R, Faulkner G, Beesley T, Kennedy J. School travel planning: mobilizing school and community resources to encourage active school transportation. Journal of School Health 2011;81:704-12.

Bungum TJ, Clark S, Aguilar B. The Effect of an active transport to school intervention at a suburban elementary school. American Journal of Health Education 2014;45:4.

Christiansen LB, Toftager M, Ersb ll AK, Troelsen J. Effects of a Danish multicomponent physical activity intervention on active school transport. Journal of Transport & Health 2014;1(3):174-81.

Coombes E, Jones A. Gamification of active travel to school: A pilot evaluation of the Beat the Street physical activity intervention. Health & Place 2016;39:62 9.

Crawford S, Garrard J. A combined impact-process evaluation of a program promoting active transport to school: understanding the factors that shaped program effectiveness. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2013;2013:14p.

DiMaggio et al. National Safe Routes to School program and risk of school-age pedestrian and bicyclist injury. Annals of Epidemiology 2016;26:412-17.

DiMaggio et al. Association of the Safe Routes to School program with school-age pedestrian and bicyclist injury risk in Texas. Injury Epidemiology 2015;2:15.

DiMaggio C, Li G. Effectiveness of a safe routes to school program in preventing school-aged pedestrian injury. Pediatrics 2013;131(2):290-6.

Ducheyne F, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Lenoir M, Cardon G. Effects of a cycle training course on children’s cycling skills and levels of cycling to school. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2014;67:49-60.

Duncan S, McPhee JC, Schluter PJ, Zinn C, Smith R, Schofield G. Efficacy of a compulsory homework programme for increasing physical activity and healthy eating in children: the healthy homework pilot study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2011;8(1):127.

Folta SC, Kuder JF, Goldberg JP, Hyatt RR, Must A, Naumova EN, Nelson ME, Economos CD. Changes in diet and physical activity resulting from the Shape Up Somerville community intervention. BMC Pediatrics 2013;13(1):157.

Ginja S, Arnott B, Araujo-Soares V, Namdeo A, McColl E. Feasibility of an incentive scheme to promote active travel to school: a pilot cluster randomised trial. Pilot and Feasibility Studies 2017;3(1):57.

Goodman A, van Sluijs EM, Ogilvie D. Impact of offering cycle training in schools upon cycling behaviour: a natural experimental study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2016;13(1):34.

Gutierrez CM, Slagle D, Figueras K, Anon A, Huggins AC, Hotz G. Crossing guard presence: impact on active transportation and injury prevention. Journal of Transport and Health 2014;1(2):116-23.

Gyergyay PB. New ways of encouraging an old form of mobility. Incentivisation of walking to school in London. Revista Bit cora Urbano Territorial 2012;21(2).

Heelan KA, Abbey BM, Donnelly JE, et al. Evaluation of a walking school bus for promoting physical activity in youth. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2009;9:560-7.

Henderson S, Tanner R, Klanderman N, Mattera A, Martin Webb L, Steward J. Safe Routes to School: a public health practice success story Atlanta, 2008 2010. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2013;10:141-2.

Hinckson EA, Badland HM. School travel plans: Preliminary evidence for changing school-related travel patterns in elementary school children. American Journal of Health Promotion 2011;25(6):368-71.

Hoelscher D, Ory M, Dowdy D, Miao J, Atteberry H, et al. Effects of funding allocation for safe routes to school programs on active commuting to school and related behavioral, knowledge, and psychosocial outcomes: results from the Texas childhood obesity prevention policy evaluation (T-COPPE) study. Environment and Behavior 2016;48(1):210-29.

Hunter RF, de Silva D, Reynolds V, Bird W, Fox KR. International inter-school competition to encourage children to walk to school: a mixed methods feasibility study. BMC Research Notes 2015;8(1):19.

Johnson R, Frearson M, Hewson P. Can bicycle training for children increase active travel. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 2015 Aug 6. 9p. [Johnson R, Frearson M, Hewson P. Can bicycle training for children increase active travel? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering Sustainability 2016;169(2):49-57.]

Kong AS, Sussman AL, Negrete S, Patterson N, Mittleman R, Hough R. Implementation of a walking school bus: lessons learned. Journal of School Health 2009;79(7):319-25.

Lambe B, Murphy N, Bauman A. Active travel to primary schools in Ireland: an opportunistic evaluation of a natural experiment. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2017;14(6):448-54.

Malakellis M, Hoare E, Sanigorski A, Crooks N, Allender S, et al. School based systems change for obesity prevention in adolescents: outcomes of the Australian Capital Territory ‘It’s Your Move!’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2017;41(5):490-6.

Mammen G, Stone MR, Faulkner G, Ramanathan S, Buliung R, et al. Active school travel: an evaluation of the Canadian school travel planning intervention. Preventive Medicine 2014;60:55-9.

McDonald NC, Steiner RL, Lee C, Smith TR, Zhu X, Yang Y. Impact of the Safe Routes to School program on walking and biking. Journal of the American Planning Association 2014;80(2):153-67.

McDonald NC, Yang Y, Abbott SM, Bullock AN. Impact of the Safe Routes to School program on walking and biking: Eugene, Oregon study. Transport Policy 2013;29:243-8.

Mckee R, Mutrie N, Crawford F, Green B. Promoting walking to school: results of a quasi-experimental trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61;818-23.

McMinn D, Rowe DA, Murtagh S, Nelson NM. The effect of a school-based active commuting intervention on children’s commuting physical activity and daily physical activity. Preventive Medicine 2012;54(5):316-18.

Mendoza JA, Haaland W, Jacobs M, Abbey-Lambertz M, Miller J, Salls D, Todd W, Madding R, Ellis K, Kerr J. Bicycle trains, cycling, and physical activity: a pilot cluster RCT. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2017;53(4):481-9.

Mendoza JA, Levinger DD, Johnston BD. Pilot evaluation of a walking school bus program in a low-income, urban community. BMC Public Health 2009;9(1):122

Mendoza JA, Watson K, Baranowski T, Nicklas TA, Uscanga DK, Hanfling MJ. The walking school bus and children’s physical activity: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 2011;128(3):e537-44.

Millar L, Kremer P, de Silva Sanigorski A, McCabe MP, Mavoa H, et al. Reduction in overweight and obesity from a 3-year community-based intervention in Australia: the ‘It’s Your Move!’project. Obesity Reviews 2011;12(s2):20-8.

Orenstein MR, Gutierrez N, Rice TM, Cooper JF, Ragland DR. Safe Routes to School Safety and Mobility Analysis: Report to the California Legislature. California Department of Transportation and University of California Traffic Safety Center; 2007.

stergaard L, St ckel JT, Andersen LB. Effectiveness and implementation of interventions to increase commuter cycling to school: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health 2015;15(1):1199.

Ragland D, Pande S, Bigham J, Cooper J. Ten years later: examining long-term impact of California Safe Routes to School Program. In: Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board; 2014.

Rothman L, Perry D, Buliung R, Macarthur C, To T, et al. Do school crossing guards make crossing roads safer? A quasi-experimental study of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in Toronto, Canada. BMC Public Health 2015;15(1):732.

Rowland D, DiGuiseppi C, Gross M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of site specific advice on school travel patterns. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2003;88:8-11.

Sirard JR, Alhassan S, Spencer TR et al. Changes in physical activity from walking to school. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 2008;40(5):324-6.

Staunton Ce, Hubsmith D, Kallins W. Promoting safe walking and biking to school: the Marin County success story. Field Action Report 2003;93(9):1431-4.

Stewart O, Moudon AV, Claybrooke C. Multistate evaluation of safe routes to school programs. American Journal of Health Promotion 2014;28(3_suppl):S89-96.

TenBrink DS, McMunn R, Panken S. Project U-Turn: Increasing active transportation in Jackson, Michigan. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2009;37(6S2);S329-35.

Vanwolleghem G, D’Haese S, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Cardon G. Feasibility and effectiveness of drop-off spots to promote walking to school. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2014;11(1):136.

Villa-Gonz lez E, Ruiz JR, Ward DS, Chill n P. Effectiveness of an active commuting school-based intervention at 6-month follow-up. European Journal of Public Health 2015;26(2):272-6.

Wen LM, Fry D, Merom D, Rissel C, Dirkis H, Balafas A. Increasing active travel to school: are we on the right track? A cluster randomized controlled trial from Sydney, Australia. Preventive Medicine 2008; 47;612-8.

Davis A. Claiming the Health Dividend: A Summary and Discussion of Value for Money Estimates from Studies of Investment in Walking and Cycling. Department of Transport, London. November 2014. (Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371096/claiming_the_health_dividend.pdf)

Fishman E, Garrard J, Ker I, Litman T. Cost and Health Benefit of Active Transport in Queensland: Research and Review, Stage One Report. Prepared by CATALYST for Health Promotion Queensland. May 2011. (Available from: https://sensibletransport.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/QLD-Health-Stage-1-Report-Full-10.09.11.compressed.pdf) (Linked to Ker 2011)

Ker I, Fishman E, Garrard J, Litman T. Cost and Health Benefit of Active Transport in Queensland: Evaluation Framework and Values, Stage Two Report. Prepared by CATALYST for Health Promotion Queensland. September 2011. (Available from: https://sensibletransport.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/QLD-Health-Stage-2-HR_V4.pdf) (Linked to Fishman 2011)

Marjory M, Haby M, Galvin L, Swinburn B, Carter R. Cost-effectiveness of active transport for primary school children-Walking School Bus program. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2009;6(1):63.

Moodie M, Haby M, Swinburn B, Carter R. Assessing cost-effectiveness in obesity: active transport program for primary school children TravelSMART Schools Curriculum Program. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 2011;8:503-15.

Moudon AV, Stewart O. Moving Forward: Safe Routes to School Progress in Five States. Research Report: Agreement T4118 Task 37, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington. July 2012. (Available at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/743.3.pdf) (Linked to Stewart 2012)

Muennig PA, Epstein M, Li G, DiMaggio C. The cost-effectiveness of New York City’s safe routes to school program. American Journal of Public Health 2014;104(7):1294-9.

Orenstein OR, Gutierrez N, Rice TM, et al. Safe Routes to School: Safety and Mobility Analysis. Report to the California Legislature, January 2007. (Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5455454c)

University of Toronto. School Travel Planning Benefit-cost Report for Toronto & Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph. February 2016. (Available from: http://ontarioactiveschooltravel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Benefit-Cost-Final-Report-2016.pdf)

Stewart O, Moudon AV, Claybrooke C. Multistate evaluation of Safe Routes to School programs. American Journal of Health Promotion 2014;28(3_suppl):S89-96. (Linked to Moudon 2012)

Sustrans. Improving access for Local Journeys Linking Communities 2012-13 programme-wide impacts. Department of Transport. Sustrans, Bristol. July 2014. (Available from: https://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_content_type/improving_access_for_local_journeys_report_final.pdf)

Yamaguchi T, Kawakami S. A study on contingent valuation of transport accessibility improvement. Studies in Regional Science 2007;37(4):979-94.

Other References

Boarnet MG, Anderson CL, Day K, McMillan T, Alfonzo M. Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: urban form changes and children’s active transportation to school. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005;28(2 Suppl 2):134-40.

Boarnet MG, Day K, Anderson C, McMillan T, Alfonzo M. California’s Safe Routes to School program: impacts on walking, bicycling and pedestrian safety. Journal of the American Planning Association 2005;71(3):301-17. (Linked to Orenstein 2007)

Additional Materials

Implementation resources.

Actionable Public Health Strategies to Boost Community Well-Being with Safe Routes to Parks Developed by the Safe Routes Partnership

CDC’s High-Impact in 5 years initiative recommends Safe Routes to School interventions based on evidence that shows they increase active travel and reduce pedestrian and bicycle injuries within five years and have economic value.

County Health Rankings & Roadmaps identifies Safe Routes to School programs as scientifically supported based on evidence that shows they increase active travel to school and reduce in injuries.

BE Active: Connecting Routes + Destinations is a set of resources and guidelines CDC’s Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity designed to help communities implement combined built environment approaches. Materials include Real World Examples, an Implementation Resource Guide, a Visual Guide, and a slideshow that public health professionals can use to talk with others about enhancing the built environment.

Rural Health Information Hub, Transportation Toolkit This toolkit compiles information, resources, and best practices to support development and implementation of transportation programs in rural communities. Modules include program models, implementation and evaluation resources, and funding and dissemination strategies.

• Active Transportation Models

Search Strategies

The CPSTF finding is based on evidence from a systematic review of 52 studies (search period through March 2018) that evaluated the impact of active travel to school interventions on students’ commuting patterns. The Community Guide review identified 11 studies from a published systematic review (search period through January 2010).

Chill n P, Evenson KR, Vaughn A, et al. A systematic review of interventions for promoting active transportation to school. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2011;8(1):10.

The Community Guide coordinated an updated search for evidence using search terms adapted from Chillon 2011 et al. Forty-one additional studies were identified (search period January 2010 to March 2018).

Searched databases covered publications in biomedical, behavioral, environmental, and transportation sciences. The types of documents searched in the databases included journal articles, books, book chapters, reports, conference papers, and dissertations.

Search strategies were adjusted to each database, based on controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies and search software. Members of the systematic review team also scanned the bibliographies of all included studies to identify any additional relevant literature.

#1 (pedestrian* or transport* or active or walk*[title/abstract] or walk*[mesh] OR Bike OR bikers OR biking OR bicycle or bicycled or bicycles or bicycling OR cycling OR cyclist* OR commute* OR commuting OR OR travel*)

#2 (policy or policies OR preparation OR promotion* OR program* or “physical environment” OR pilot OR project OR planning or “built environment” or environment* OR evaluat* OR engineer* OR encourage* OR education or equity or enforcement or intervention* OR implement* OR change OR impact OR “walk to school” OR “safe routes to school” OR “walking schoolbus” OR “walking school bus” OR “walking school buses”)

#3 (“school”[Title/Abstract])

#4 “United Kingdom” OR “United States” OR “Scotland” OR “Wales” OR “England” OR “United States”[MeSH] OR “United Kingdom”[MeSH] OR Andorra OR Antigua OR Barbuda OR Aruba OR Australia OR Austria OR Bahamas OR Bahrain OR Barbados OR Belgium OR Bermuda OR Brunei OR Darussalam OR Canada OR “Cayman Islands” OR “Channel Islands” OR Chile OR Croatia OR Curacao OR Cyprus OR “Czech Republic” OR Denmark OR Estonia OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR “Faeroe Islands” OR Finland OR France OR “French Polynesia” OR Germany OR Greece OR Greenland OR Guam OR “Hong Kong” OR Iceland OR Ireland OR “Isle of Man” OR Israel OR Italy OR Japan OR Korea OR Kuwait OR Latvia OR Liechtenstein OR Lithuania OR Luxembourg OR Macao OR Malta OR Monaco OR Netherlands OR “New Caledonia” OR “New Zealand” OR “Northern Mariana Islands” OR Norway OR Oman OR Poland OR Portugal OR “Puerto Rico” OR Qatar OR “Russian Federation” OR Russia OR “San Marino” OR “Saudi Arabia” OR Singapore OR “Sint Maarten” OR “Saint Maarten” OR “St. Martin” OR “Saint Martin” OR “Slovak Republic” OR Slovenia OR Spain OR “St. Kitts” OR Nevis OR Sweden OR Switzerland OR Taiwan OR “Trinidad” OR “Tobago” OR Turks OR Caicos OR Uruguay OR “United Arab Emirates” or “U.S. Virgin Islands”

#5 (“2010/01/01″[PDat] : “2018/03/05″[PDat] ) AND English[lang])

#6 #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 AND #5

( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( school ) AND ( TITLE-ABS-KEY (pedestrian* or transport* or active or bike OR biker OR biking OR bicycle OR bicycling OR commute* OR commuting OR travel* OR cycling OR cyclist OR walk OR walked OR walking OR walks OR walkers ) AND (( TITLE-ABS-KEY (policy or policies OR preparation OR promotion* OR program* or “physical environment” OR pilot OR project OR planning or “built environment” or environment* OR evaluat* OR engineer* OR encourage* OR education or equity or enforcement or intervention* OR implement* OR change OR impact ) OR ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( walk W/3 school ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( safe W/3 routes W/3 school ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( walking W/3 schoolbus ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( wallking W/3 school W/3 bus ) ) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“United Kingdom” OR “United States” OR “Scotland” OR “Wales” OR “England” OR “United States” OR “United Kingdom” OR Andorra OR Antigua OR Barbuda OR Aruba OR Australia OR Austria OR Bahamas OR Bahrain OR Barbados OR Belgium OR Bermuda OR Brunei OR Darussalam OR Canada OR “Cayman Islands” OR “Channel Islands” OR Chile OR Croatia OR Curacao OR Cyprus OR “Czech Republic” OR Denmark OR Estonia OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR “Faeroe Islands” OR Finland OR France OR “French Polynesia” OR Germany OR Greece OR Greenland OR Guam OR “Hong Kong” OR Iceland OR Ireland OR “Isle of Man” OR Israel OR Italy OR Japan OR Korea OR Kuwait OR Latvia OR Liechtenstein OR Lithuania OR Luxembourg OR Macao OR Malta OR Monaco OR Netherlands OR “New Caledonia” OR “New Zealand” OR “Northern Mariana Islands” OR Norway OR Oman OR Poland OR Portugal OR “Puerto Rico” OR Qatar OR “Russian Federation” OR Russia OR “San Marino” OR “Saudi Arabia” OR Singapore OR “Sint Maarten” OR “Saint Maarten” OR “St. Martin” OR “Saint Martin” OR “Slovak Republic” OR Slovenia OR Spain OR “St. Kitts” OR Nevis OR Sweden OR Switzerland OR Taiwan OR “Trinidad” OR “Tobago” OR Turks OR Caicos OR Uruguay OR “United Arab Emirates” or “U.S. Virgin Islands”) AND PUBYEAR > 2009 ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( LANGUAGE , “English” ) )

#1 pedestrian* or transport* or active or walk or walks or walking or walked or walkers or bike OR bikers OR biking OR bicycl* OR cycling OR cyclist* OR commute* OR commuting OR travel*:ti,ab,kw.

#2 policy or policies or preparation or promotion* or program* or “physical environment” or pilot or project or planning or “built environment” or environment* or evaluat* or engineer* or encourage* or education or equity or enforcement or intervention* or implement* or change or impact or “walk to school” or “safe routes to school” or “walking schoolbus” or “walking school bus” or “walking school buses”:ti,ab,kw

#3 “United Kingdom” OR “United States” OR “Scotland” OR “Wales” OR “England” OR “United States” OR “United Kingdom” OR Andorra OR Antigua OR Barbuda OR Aruba OR Australia OR Austria OR Bahamas OR Bahrain OR Barbados OR Belgium OR Bermuda OR Brunei OR Darussalam OR Canada OR “Cayman Islands” OR “Channel Islands” OR Chile OR Croatia OR Curacao OR Cyprus OR “Czech Republic” OR Denmark OR Estonia OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR “Faeroe Islands” OR Finland OR France OR “French Polynesia” OR Germany OR Greece OR Greenland OR Guam OR “Hong Kong” OR Iceland OR Ireland OR “Isle of Man” OR Israel OR Italy OR Japan OR Korea OR Kuwait OR Latvia OR Liechtenstein OR Lithuania OR Luxembourg OR Macao OR Malta OR Monaco OR Netherlands OR “New Caledonia” OR “New Zealand” OR “Northern Mariana Islands” OR Norway OR Oman OR Poland OR Portugal OR “Puerto Rico” OR Qatar OR “Russian Federation” OR Russia OR “San Marino” OR “Saudi Arabia” OR Singapore OR “Sint Maarten” OR “Saint Maarten” OR “St. Martin” OR “Saint Martin” OR “Slovak Republic” OR Slovenia OR Spain OR “St. Kitts” OR Nevis OR Sweden OR Switzerland OR Taiwan OR “Trinidad” OR “Tobago” OR Turks OR Caicos OR Uruguay OR “United Arab Emirates” or “U.S. Virgin Islands”

#4 School:ti,ab,kw.

#5 #1 and #2 and #3 and #4

Limits – Publication Year from 2010 to 2018

(kw: pedestrian* OR kw:active OR kw:walk OR kw:walks OR kw:walked OR kw:walking OR kw: walkers OR kw:bike OR kw:bikers OR kw:biking OR kw:bicycle OR kw:bicycles OR kw:bicycling OR kw:cycle OR kw:cycling OR kw:cyclist OR kw:cyclists OR kw:commute OR kw:commuting OR kw:transport OR kw:travel or kw:travels or kw:traveling or kw:travelling) AND (kw: policy or kw: policies OR kw: preparation OR kw: promotion OR kw: program or kw:programs or kw:programming or kw: “physical environment” OR kw: pilot OR kw: project OR kw: planning or kw: “built environment” or kw: environment OR kw: evaluate or kw:evaluation OR kw: engineer or kw:engineered or kw:engineering OR kw: encourage OR kw: education or kw: equity or kw: enforcement or kw: intervention OR kw: implement OR kw: change OR kw: impact OR kw: “walk to school” OR kw: “safe routes to school” OR kw: “walking schoolbus” OR kw: “walking school bus” OR kw: “walking school buses”) AND kw:school

LIMITS:2010-2018, English

The search for effectiveness evidence described above (search period through March 2018) also identified economic evidence included in this review. An additional search focused on economic studies within PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and EconLit (search period 1990 July 12, 2018).

Search terms and strategies were adjusted for each database, based on controlled and uncontrolled vocabularies and software. Informal searches were also conducted for unpublished studies and reports from governments and non-government organizations using the Google and Google Scholar search engines. Finally, reference lists in included studies were screened and subject matter experts were consulted for additional studies that may have been missed.

Database: PubMed Date Searched: 7/12/2018 Results: 334/334 unique

Search strategy:.

#5 (“1990/01/01″[PDat] : “2009/12/31″[PDat] ) AND English[lang])

#6 (cost* OR economic* OR financ* OR ROI OR investment*) OR ec[subheading]

#7 #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4 AND #5 AND #6

Database: Scopus Date Searched: 7/12/2018 Results: 638/427 unique

TITLE-ABS-KEY(school) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(pedestrian* or transport* or active or bike OR biker OR biking OR bicycle OR bicycling OR commute* OR commuting OR travel* OR cycling OR cyclist OR walk OR walked OR walking OR walks OR walkers ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (policy OR policies OR preparation OR promotion* OR program* OR “physical environment” OR pilot OR project OR planning OR “built environment” OR environment* OR evaluat* OR engineer* OR encourage* OR education OR equity OR enforcement OR intervention* OR implement* OR change OR impact OR (walk W/3 school) OR (safe W/3 routes W/3 school) OR (walking W/3 schoolbus ) OR (wallking W/3 school W/3 bus )) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“United Kingdom” OR “United States” OR “Scotland” OR “Wales” OR “England” OR “United States” OR “United Kingdom” OR Andorra OR Antigua OR Barbuda OR Aruba OR Australia OR Austria OR Bahamas OR Bahrain OR Barbados OR Belgium OR Bermuda OR Brunei OR Darussalam OR Canada OR “Cayman Islands” OR “Channel Islands” OR Chile OR Croatia OR Curacao OR Cyprus OR “Czech Republic” OR Denmark OR Estonia OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR “Faeroe Islands” OR Finland OR France OR “French Polynesia” OR Germany OR Greece OR Greenland OR Guam OR “Hong Kong” OR Iceland OR Ireland OR “Isle of Man” OR Israel OR Italy OR Japan OR Korea OR Kuwait OR Latvia OR Liechtenstein OR Lithuania OR Luxembourg OR Macao OR Malta OR Monaco OR Netherlands OR “New Caledonia” OR “New Zealand” OR “Northern Mariana Islands” OR Norway OR Oman OR Poland OR Portugal OR “Puerto Rico” OR Qatar OR “Russian Federation” OR Russia OR “San Marino” OR “Saudi Arabia” OR Singapore OR “Sint Maarten” OR “Saint Maarten” OR “St. Martin” OR “Saint Martin” OR “Slovak Republic” OR Slovenia OR Spain OR “St. Kitts” OR Nevis OR Sweden OR Switzerland OR Taiwan OR “Trinidad” OR “Tobago” OR Turks OR Caicos OR Uruguay OR “United Arab Emirates” OR “U.S. Virgin Islands”)) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(cost* OR economic* OR financ* OR ROI OR investment*) AND PUBYEAR < 2010 AND PUBYEAR AFT 1989

(LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE , “English” ))

Database: Cochrane Date Searched: 6/16/2017 Results: 40/24 unique

#4 School:ti,ab,kw

#5 (cost* OR economic* OR financ* OR ROI OR investment*):ti,ab,kw

#6 #1 and #2 and #3 and #4 AND #5 Limits – Publication Year from 1990 to 2018

Database: EconLit Date Searched: 7/12/2018 Results: 693/685 unique

(TX pedestrian* or transport* or active or walk or walks or walking or walked or walkers or bike OR bikers OR biking OR bicycl* OR cycling OR cyclist* OR commute* OR commuting OR travel*)

(TX policy or policies or preparation or promotion* or program* or “physical environment” or pilot or project or planning or “built environment” or environment* or evaluat* or engineer* or encourage* or education or equity or enforcement or intervention* or implement* or change or impact or “walk to school” or “safe routes to school” or “walking schoolbus” or “walking school bus” or “walking school buses”)

(TX “United Kingdom” OR “United States” OR “Scotland” OR “Wales” OR “England” OR “United States” OR “United Kingdom” OR Andorra OR Antigua OR Barbuda OR Aruba OR Australia OR Austria OR Bahamas OR Bahrain OR Barbados OR Belgium OR Bermuda OR Brunei OR Darussalam OR Canada OR “Cayman Islands” OR “Channel Islands” OR Chile OR Croatia OR Curacao OR Cyprus OR “Czech Republic” OR Denmark OR Estonia OR “Equatorial Guinea” OR “Faeroe Islands” OR Finland OR France OR “French Polynesia” OR Germany OR Greece OR Greenland OR Guam OR “Hong Kong” OR Iceland OR Ireland OR “Isle of Man” OR Israel OR Italy OR Japan OR Korea OR Kuwait OR Latvia OR Liechtenstein OR Lithuania OR Luxembourg OR Macao OR Malta OR Monaco OR Netherlands OR “New Caledonia” OR “New Zealand” OR “Northern Mariana Islands” OR Norway OR Oman OR Poland OR Portugal OR “Puerto Rico” OR Qatar OR “Russian Federation” OR Russia OR “San Marino” OR “Saudi Arabia” OR Singapore OR “Sint Maarten” OR “Saint Maarten” OR “St. Martin” OR “Saint Martin” OR “Slovak Republic” OR Slovenia OR Spain OR “St. Kitts” OR Nevis OR Sweden OR Switzerland OR Taiwan OR “Trinidad” OR “Tobago” OR Turks OR Caicos OR Uruguay OR “United Arab Emirates” or “U.S. Virgin Islands”)

(TI School) OR (AB School)

(TX cost* OR economic* OR financ* OR ROI OR investment*)

LIMITS: English

Database: NTIS Date Searched: 7/12/2018 Results: 274/274 unique

(TI School*) OR (AB School*)

LIMITS:1990-2009, English

Review References

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee report. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008a.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008b.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical activity guidelines advisory committee scientific report. Washington (DC): U.S. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018a.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018b.

The availability of federal and state funding for Safe Routes to School programs has been the primary driver for interventions in the United States.

• Safe Routes to School National Partnership
• National Center for Safe Routes to School
• Additional implementation guidance and technical assistance may be available from state and local Safe Routes to School programs .

Safe Routes to School provides additional resources to help communities address particular barriers to program implementation or participation:

• Using Safe Routes to School to Combat The Threat Of Violence
• Implementing Safe Routes to School in Low-Income Schools and Communities
• On the Move: Safe Routes to School Policies in Rural School Districts
• Rural Communities: A Two Pronged Approach for Improving Walking and Bicycling
• Engaging Students with Disabilities in Safe Routes to School

Program planners should consider baseline and follow-up assessments of physical and social barriers specific to the school and neighborhood when selecting and implementing intervention components and activities.

Healthy People 2030

• Increase the proportion of adolescents who walk or bike to get places — PA‑11

Systematic Review

• Adolescent Health
• Motor Vehicle Injury
• Physical Activity
• Recommended (sufficient evidence)
• August 2018
• Adolescents and Young Adults
• Children/Infants
• Parents/Caregivers
• Community Organizing/Community-based
• Environmental Changes

This webpage summarizes information available in the CPSTF Findings and Rationale Statement, located under the Snapshot tab.

Health impact scoping of active travel strategy guidance

• Physical activity

This is a report of a health impact assessment scoping exercise, held on 11 October 2021, to inform a revised version of the Sustrans and Transport Scotland Active Travel Guidance 2014. It has been produced to support local authorities in the development of their own cycling or active travel strategies guidance.

Publications

Health impact scoping of active travel strategy guidance pdf | 566.4kb, general enquiries.

If you have an enquiry relating to this publication, please email .

Media enquiries

If you have a media enquiry relating to this publication, please contact the Communications and Engagement team .

Requesting other formats and reporting issues

If you require publications or documents in other formats, please email [email protected] .

To report any issues with a publication, please email [email protected] .

Older versions of this publication

Versions of this publication released before 16 March 2020 may be found on the  Data and Intelligence , Health Protection Scotland or Improving Health  websites.

Share this page

We use cookies on this website which are essential for it to work. We also use non-essential cookies to help us improve our websites, which you can opt out of in cookie settings. Any data collected is anonymised. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Driving and road transport
• Cycling and walking
• How to complete the active travel fund 4 proforma
• Active Travel England

Guidance note for local authorities to support completion of the active travel fund 4 proforma

Published 10 March 2023

Applies to England

© Crown copyright 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/how-to-complete-the-active-travel-fund-4-proforma/guidance-note-for-local-authorities-to-support-completion-of-the-active-travel-fund-4-proforma

Overall objectives for the fund

The overall investment objectives of active travel fund 4 ( ATF4 ) are to:

create a local authority capital investment programme that optimises delivery of 2025 and 2030 objectives, as set out in the statutory cycling and walking investment strategy ( CWIS 2 ) :

• 50% of short urban trips in England to be walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030
• increase active travel from 41% in 2018 to 46% of short urban trips by 2025
• increase walking to 365 stages per person per year by 2025
• increase cycling from 0.8 billion stages in 2013 to 1.6 billion stages in 2025
• 55% of primary school-aged children to walk to school by 2025
• align investment with Gear Change and wider government objectives, including local growth and productivity, tackling public health issues, decarbonisation, levelling up and cost of living challenges
• increase participation in active travel amongst underrepresented groups

In order to deliver these objectives, Active Travel England ( ATE ) will:

• provide sustained funding linked to national design standards, with design assurance demonstrated before schemes are designed and built
• ensure the majority of investment is focused on authorities with high capability, defined by the authority self-assessment tier, and on schemes that can convert high volumes of journeys to walking, wheeling and cycling relative to the cost of the scheme and needs of the local area (urban and rural)
• fund capital measures that are proportionate to local authority capability and suitable to the local area
• support authorities in monitoring and evaluating schemes to demonstrate, and build evidence of, how schemes are contributing to the 2030 cycling and walking objectives

Scope of funding offered

Capital funding.

Authorities will be provided with indicative capital funding ranges based on levels of capability. You are encouraged to bid for up to 300% of this allocation as pipeline information will be taken into consideration for any future funding rounds. Exceptionally strong bids may be eligible to attract funding above the indicative allocation. Authorities are invited to bid for either scheme ‘construction’, for projects to be built out over the next 12 months, or scheme ‘development’ for construction in later years.

Revenue funding

Revenue funding will be provided in proportion to agreed capital schemes (up to 5% of capital funding). This does not require a separate bid.

Key ATF4 funding principles

All schemes must comply with Manual for streets , Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20) and the DfT’s inclusive mobility guidance . Authorities will be required to show that their designs consider a range of users. For example, we expect to see schemes which enable women to feel safer and more confident in using active travel modes.

All authorities are to undertake network planning to inform prioritisation of schemes, in the form of local cycling and walking infrastructure plans ( LCWIPs ) or similar local strategies.

All schemes must be developed in consultation with local communities, in line with responsibilities under existing legislation (Public Sector Equality Duty and Road Traffic Regulation Act) and the Transport Secretary’s letter of 2020. This will enable a range of views to be considered and given due regard.

All schemes must be supported by local authority leaders and have appropriate design review and assurance, to be managed by ATE .

ATE has developed a change control process that you must commit to should timelines slip, costs increase, infrastructure assets be changed or realignment take place on any schemes in your bid.

ATF4 funding is split into two streams: construction funding and development funding.

Construction funding

Construction funding is for schemes that are ready for delivery within the next 12 months. They may have been developed in previous years, or have been unsuccessful in previous funding rounds, but are ready to construct and still offer good value for money. Construction ready schemes should be evidenced with detailed designs, accurate fees, and a robust delivery timeline.

Development funding

Development funding is for schemes that are at an earlier stage. They may be complex and require extensive modelling and/or consultation. They may also not be sufficiently developed for you to offer assurance on exact timelines. We recommend that you are realistic about construction timelines and apply for the most relevant funding pot.

The proforma should be completed in full for both construction and development projects. Where it is being completed for a development scheme the questions should be answered in relation to the scheme which will be constructed. For instance, where delivery metrics are requested, these will be anticipated or predicted for the final constructed scheme. We expect that delivery metrics will be refined as schemes move towards the construction phase in later years.

The development activities, bids for future funding, and subsequent design reviews, will be used to refine and agree scheme outputs. Future construction funding is not guaranteed for schemes that are provided with development funding. Further information on future funding rounds and the process for releasing any future construction funding will be provided once future budgets are fully understood.

Strategic case for investment

What we want to see in the proforma.

Evidence should be provided that sets out how the proposed capital initiatives support the objectives of the fund as well as deliver your local strategic objectives.

Connections may be made to the following local authority policy priorities:

• transport connectivity and integration
• sustainable local development
• air quality and other environmental benefits
• health and wellbeing
• tackling deprivation and support local growth and employment
• tackling cost of living

References may be made to how proposed initiatives align with the objectives of the fund, including:

• to increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked, wheeled or cycled
• to increase walking and cycling and to increase the percentage of 5 to 10 year-olds who usually walk to school
• increasing participation from under-represented groups
• strong linkages to national design standards, with appropriate local assurance
• investment focused in areas (for example, constituent boroughs) with high capability, routes that are cost effective in converting journeys to walking, wheeling and cycling relative to the needs of the local area (urban and rural)
• how revenue schemes will help to activate active travel infrastructure
• capital measures that are proportionate and suitable to the local capability - see the section of this guidance on Types of infrastructure
• monitoring and evaluating schemes to demonstrate, and build evidence of, how schemes are increasing walking, wheeling, and cycling

Why this is important to us

ATE needs to test alignment of overall funding proposals against the objectives of the fund to maximise value for money and meet minimum quality standards. We also seek to maximise the impact on a range of wider government objectives so that complementary priorities are delivered through this investment.

Cost of scheme

This field in the proforma should detail the estimated financial cost ( EFC ) of the scheme as in previous years. The EFC should be the total of the base cost of the project and the risk allowance, proportionate to the maturity of the scheme. Total cost should be benchmarked against equivalent schemes (further detail can be found in the ATE cost benchmarking guidance). The pro-forma should detail the single total amount of funding being bid for in ATF4 (that is, a single figure no greater than 300% of your authority’s indicative allocation). A table detailing individual project costs to be included in the bid has been included in the proforma.

When completing the scheme cost table, please consider design fees, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and contingency. We would encourage authorities to provide values for all cost lines where possible, even where these costs are attributed on an indicative basis.

Separate bids for engagement, consultation, project management or monitoring and evaluation will not be considered. Scheme costs should also include funding for monitoring and evaluation activities in line with the guidance provided in the section of this guidance on monitoring and evaluation .

When completing funding info, construction schemes should include just the 2022 to 2023 funding required to deliver the scheme. Development schemes should include funding required to develop the scheme in 2022 to 2023 and the projected cost to construct the scheme in future years.

Scheme cost is a key metric in assessing the value for money of bids. Whilst there will be no minimum bid cost, we ask that schemes costing below £100,000 be aggregated into a package of interventions. These should be themed (that is, a programme of crossings, or a programme of school streets, which can be assessed, funded and evaluated as one scheme). This will assist with the efficiency of the bid assessment process.

Value for money

The recommended approach to assessing value for money ( VfM ) is using the active mode appraisal toolkit ( AMAT ). A VfM assessment using AMAT is required for all schemes above £750,000 where AMAT can provide a reasonable assessment of VfM . AMAT is recommended for other schemes but should be proportionate to the scheme type and cost. Where schemes do not make use of AMAT , cost effectiveness information should be provided along with any other supporting evidence that can inform VfM . For more information, including which approach may be best for your bid, please refer to VfM guidance .

We must ensure schemes provide good VfM for the taxpayer and our investment is targeted to where it can be effective at increasing active travel across the country. Medium VfM is expected for active travel programmes (with a benefit-cost ratio ( BCR ) between 1.5 and 2 where this is estimated) and we would expect most schemes to offer Medium or High VfM ( BCR >2) . However, we appreciate that schemes with high strategic importance, network effects or high complexity may have a BCR below this range. This will not disqualify a scheme from funding; however, we would expect to see a strong rationale justifying the inclusion of a scheme with low VfM ( BCR between 1 and 1.5).

To note: high quality cycling schemes that conform to ATE quality standards may struggle to reach medium or high VfM . It is therefore recommended that schemes of this type demonstrate benefits to people walking as well.

Justification

You are also asked to provide a bid priority number for each scheme included in your bid. This should represent the position of each scheme in a ranked list with 1 being the highest priority for funding. This will allow ATE to view your individual schemes from a programme viewpoint to assist with funding decisions.

The capability to deliver complex schemes varies across authorities, however worthwhile schemes will be funded to willing authorities with a sufficient level of capability. To maximise the potential for your schemes to receive funding, your schemes should reflect the capability of your authority to deliver, in line with the capability rating provided to you by ATE . Some ‘stretching’ schemes are welcomed, particularly as part of phased scheme delivery.

ATE is a new executive agency established to deliver on the government’s ambitious active travel goals. We are encouraging bids that meet the criteria as set out in the proforma. Bids for schemes outside the criteria in the proforma will still be considered where sufficient justification can be provided to demonstrate their ability to provide network level benefits. Evidence of why a scheme is being prioritised for funding, for example, its strategic importance to the wider network, will increase the chance that schemes will be supported.

Description and location

Answer the questions in the form to provide an accurate and succinct overview of what the scheme will deliver, the locations of intervention or multiple interventions that make-up the scheme and its location.

Please upload a plain text file with a .txt extension (for example, called “York_scheme1.txt” for a scheme in York) to show where the interventions that make up each scheme are located. The .txt file must contain data in GeoJSON format, an open standard used in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) such as QGIS. Publicly available online tools are available to create GeoJSON files for free, such as atip.uk, Felt.com or GeoJSON.io.

ATE recommends using the Active Travel infrastructure platform ( ATIP ) v1 tool hosted at atip.uk . It allows you to navigate to your authority and rapidly sketch routes, areas or points representing interventions. A brief description of each intervention can be added, along with the name of the scheme.

After you have finished sketching the intervention, or multiple interventions, that make up your scheme, click “Export to GeoJSON” and save the file on your computer as a .txt file. Note: ATIP returns files with the .txt extension by default. You will need to change the file format of files generated by other tools.

Upload the file by clicking the Upload button in the survey form. There is an instructions button in the top left corner of the tool and explanatory videos have been sent directly to local authorities to help with this.

Note: we are asking for a high-level overview of geographic location of the key interventions within each scheme, not for detailed geographic data. For example, it is not necessary to provide detail of each modal filter or bollard included within a scheme.

For a scheme including a route composed of multiple interventions, an overview of the affected traffic management area and the route outline would be sufficient, for example. This level of detail, which should take no more than around 20-30 minutes per scheme, is sufficient to communicate the location of the scheme.

This section of the proforma complements the Scheme justification section and should articulate the ‘what’ following on from why a scheme has been prioritised. This will allow assessments to be made that ensure that funded and delivered schemes deliver on the strategic vision of the fund. Some schemes in earlier tranches may not have attracted funding due to vague descriptions making it difficult to judge whether the scheme is of a category of sufficient ambition to attract funding. Accurate descriptions and location data aid with judging whether a scheme should be supported and will help mapping and tracking schemes going forward.

Type of scheme and outputs - for example, miles delivered, racks installed

With reference to the previous section on scheme type/description, this section should detail the specific outputs for any given scheme type. For example, what will be delivered (for instance, miles of new infrastructure) but also data on outputs regarding walking, wheeling and/or cycling journeys your proposed scheme will generate. Dropdown menus for scheme types and sub-menus for all of the metrics we wish to collect are provided in the proforma.

This is essential information to ensure that schemes are not only high quality, but provide a tangible benefit to the local area, as well as delivering on government objectives. We appreciate that this information may not be readily available dependent on the level of development of the scheme at the time of bid. Therefore, responses should be proportionate to this and justifiable based on the evidence available.

It is a condition of funding that monitoring data is collected for feeding back to ATE . ATE will collect monitoring data at regular intervals to understand the progress of schemes, further information regarding the future scheduling of monitoring commissions will be published in due course. This monitoring data will also be used for evaluation purposes. The monitoring form will follow a similar format to ATF2 and ATF3 monitoring form. See the section of this guidance on monitoring and evaluation .

Having clearly defined outputs from funding provided will help us measure success and make the case for continued investment in the right types of infrastructure, in the right places. It will also help us to aggregate up outputs of our investment to demonstrate what has been delivered in each area.

Delivery dates

Scheme construction dates should be set out per project being delivered. The project timeline should detail all major project milestones from receipt of funding through to scheme completion. At a minimum this should include:

• consultation
• feasibility and design
• design review gates (in line with supplementary design stage gate information)
• scheme construction
• the date the scheme will be open for public use

Authorities may also want to include any complementary activation (behaviour change) measures linked to this scheme within the timeline.

To note: timeline information should be as accurate as possible at the time of bid submission, however where definitive dates are not available, please provide an estimated date that each milestone will be achieved, as this information is crucial for programme planning and management.

Timeline information is a key delivery metric and is vital to effective monitoring of the funds provided by ATE . It is important to provide information that is as accurate as possible at the bid stage as alterations to delivery timelines will be required to go through a change control process and timely delivery of ATF4 capital schemes will be considered when assessing local authority capability in the future.

Design information, including cross section tool analysis if appropriate

ATE would like assurance at the bid stage that the proposed scheme will be able to be delivered in line with relevant design guidance including Manual for streets and Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20). We therefore ask that some preliminary checks are carried out to ensure that it is possible to implement the proposed scheme in the proposed location considering the local environment, including factors such as current road widths, pathway obstructions and pinch points.

ATE has produced design tools specifically for this purpose which will be used in the assessment process and at design ‘stage gate’ reviews. These will be provided as part of the commissioning pack for use in this process by local authorities. However, alternative means of demonstrating compliance will also be accepted.

While not essential, we would also encourage the submission of scheme design information proportionate to the development stage of the scheme, and in line with the design stages outlined in the design stage gate supplementary information, as an annex to your bid submission. This will assist in expediting design reviews for funded schemes.

These tools can be used to test whether a desired layout is feasible along the length of the proposed route. This saves both time and money from the process if desired quality standards are quickly assessed using this technique. This is useful where context and demand for space from other users varies along a proposed route.

Overall, this provides a sense check that major constraints along a route have been considered prior to funding being allocated to a scheme.

Equality approach

Please provide evidence that you have suitable plans in place to deliver the scheme in line with DfT accessibility guidance .

This should include a plan to engage and consult as appropriate with representatives of people with protected characteristics who may be impacted by the scheme. For example, we expect to see schemes which enable women to feel safer and more confident in using active travel modes.

Evidence of how the authority is doing this with existing schemes will be valuable to support a narrative of how it intends to do so. This should also demonstrate that engagement and consultation is not only broad but actively engages with harder to reach groups and stakeholders. There should be clear plans for remaining consultation activities, including as part of ongoing/long term development of network plans and LCWIPs .

Schemes should comply with inclusive mobility guidance. A plan for comprehensive engagement provides reassurance that an authority is mindful of its legal duties and will attempt to ‘land’ schemes as effectively as possible.

Assessment criteria and scoring process, including thresholds

Purpose of this guidance note.

All bids will initially be checked for eligibility against the agreed scheme types and minimum design standards. Eligible bids will then be assessed against a set of agreed criteria including:

• compliance with key principles
• design quality and safety as defined by the ATE inspection tools
• value for money as defined by the guidance provided alongside this note
• deliverability based on past record and evidence of robust construction scheduling
• propensity to convert short journeys to walking, wheeling, and cycling based on LCWIP data or the propensity to cycle tool
• tackling areas with poor health outcomes and with high levels of deprivation, as defined by the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and healthy life expectancy (HLE)

Schemes prioritised by local authorities within their proposed funding allocation will be funded if they meet minimum scoring thresholds. Where these are not met, funding will be recycled and provided to remaining unfunded schemes with the highest scores.

However, we aim to take a proportionate approach to the assessments and understand that there may be exceptions where schemes that do not meet the prescribed criteria are nonetheless necessary to deliver network benefits described in local network plans. Where this is the case, we would expect to see clear and well evidenced justifications for why ‘non-compliant’ schemes have been prioritised and this will be considered when assessing bids.

ATE ’s ambition is to deliver maximal active travel benefits across the country, and it is important that bids reflect this. We also wish to give authorities the best possible chance of producing high quality bids, through providing a clear direction on priority scheme types and the evidence required to support them.

Monitoring and evaluation

ATE is building on the department’s evaluation programme to generate evidence on the delivery and impact of active travel schemes.

To improve the quality and consistency of evidence generated, the department is undertaking a much larger piece of work that seeks to understand what data is being collected across local transport for monitoring and evaluation purposes, and how this can be streamlined. For example, streamlining what metrics are collected across active travel to evaluate increases in cycling rates. The initial phase of this work will be complete in early 2023 and will feed into the development of an active travel framework and revised monitoring and evaluation guidance to be disseminated in early 2023, before ATF4 projects commence.

Authorities will be expected to provide monitoring data to ATE at regular intervals (either quarterly or every 6 months) to enable progress to be tracked. The monitoring form will follow a similar format to the ATF2 and ATF3 monitoring form, including details of budget spent, project status and miles/number of schemes constructed. Providing this monitoring data is a condition of funding and will likely also be shared with the department.

Implementing high quality evaluation can be challenging and needs to be thought about from the start. Authorities are encouraged to carry out an evaluation of their active travel schemes, especially where schemes are high in cost, larger scale or particularly innovative. See the government’s guidance on evaluation for further information . Authorities are encouraged to consider all forms of evaluation, including impact, process and value for money evaluation.

Any evaluation costs must be included within ATF4 bids (see Scheme cost section). This can include for example, costs associated with appointing an evaluation partner, purchasing automatic cycle counters, primary data collection, management and processing of data.

Impact evaluation

In terms of impact evaluation, the use of a counterfactual is considered best practice. In the case of active travel infrastructure, this involves:

• Collecting data on cycling and walking rates (1) where the scheme is being built and (2) a comparison site, where no new scheme is being built. This data can be collected in a variety of ways (for example, sensors, manual counts and/or road user intercept surveys).
• Collecting count data before the scheme is built both locations. This is called baseline data collection. After the scheme is built, authorities will collect another round of count data at both sites.

Consideration should also need to be given to whether wider counts will be required (for example, where schemes involve larger network changes and/or where the evaluation will need to ensure traffic is not just displaced to another location).

This impact evaluation approach will enable an assessment of cycling and walking rates – in addition to other factors (for example, changes in local traffic) – before and after a scheme is implemented. By assessing the differences observed at intervention and comparison site, this will enable any impacts to be attributed to the intervention itself, as opposed to other factors occurring within the local area. Using a counterfactual approach is not always possible or appropriate, and authorities should consider other using other methods where appropriate (including pre and post methods).

Where authorities have installed automated traffic counters, they will be expected to share count data with ATE and the department for monitoring and evaluation purposes. Authorities will also be expected to continue collecting data once the monitoring and evaluation programme has finished to continue to learn how the network is being used and the longer-term impacts. If using sensors, authorities will need to include costs associated with setting up and/or utilising an existing application programming interface ( API ).

Other data collection

To deliver high quality evidence, authorities may also be required to conduct additional data. For example:

• conduct road user intercept surveys ( RUISs ) to understand who is using the new infrastructure and why
• undertake qualitative research, including case studies or travel diaries to better understand users and non-users, or local residents/businesses
• use and/or facilitate access to any local data sources that could help with the evaluation, including relevant evidence collected through consultations

National evaluation of active travel funding

The evaluation of ATF4 will likely adopt a similar approach to the ATF2 evaluation, where a sub-set of authorities have worked with the evaluation contractor to implement a robust impact evaluation. This will likely follow the approach outlined above (using automatic traffic counts to collect data at the site and a comparison site).

The national evaluation partner will be responsible for analysing this data, but selected authority will be expected to collaborate (for example, to install sensors or share data). The national evaluator will provide more tailored support to this sub-set of authorities included within the national evaluation, including supporting the selection of an appropriate comparison site where sensors will also need to be installed to enable robust evaluation. This selection will be done after funding is awarded.

Types of infrastructure

This section sets out the categories and sub categories of infrastructure interventions and how they will be measured.

New segregated cycling facility

Segregated cycle route types and LTN 1/20 reference.

New junction treatment

Junction approaches and LTN 1/20 reference.

New permanent footway

New shared use (walking and cycling) facilities, improvements to make an existing walking/cycle route safer, area-wide traffic management (including by tros (both permanent and experimental)), bus priority measures that also enable active travel (for example, bus gates), provision of secure cycle parking facilities, new road crossings, restriction or reduction of car parking availability.

For example, controlled parking zones. Usually only as a component of other schemes.

School streets

Is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Active Travel Strategy Guidance

The requirement for Active Travel Strategies (ATS), setting out a strategic approach to plan infrastructure and behavioural interventions, was introduced in the Cycling Action Plan for Scotland in 2013. Active Travel Strategy Guidance was issued in 2014 to support local authorities and other statutory bodies to prepare an ATS for their area. 

This revised guidance has been produced collaboratively by Transport Scotland and key delivery partners, including local authorities, Regional Transport Partnerships and Public Health Scotland. It reflects key changes to national policy with implications for active travel strategies and provides advice on the ATS development process, with greater emphasis on using data and evidence to inform the strategy, and demonstrate the most impactful suite of interventions for the local context has been identified. The guidance will be periodically updated to take account of significant changes to policy or best practice.

• Media Centre

Find out what we stand for and how our work around the UK is making a difference.

• Board of Trustees
• Paths for Everyone
• In Scotland
• In Northern Ireland

Explore fantastic walking and cycling routes across the UK

Information

• Find a route on the Network
• About the National Cycle Network
• Our future vision
• Find other cycle routes

Inspiration

• Route collections
• Great walks on the Network
• Traffic-free family rides
• Making space for nature on the Network
• For professionals

Work in partnership with us to tackle the challenges of congestion, air pollution, physical inactivity, and social inequality, by making it easier for people to walk and cycle.

Policy area

• Policy positions
• The Walking and Cycling Index
• Streets for everyone
• Disabled Citizens' Inquiry

Sector Experience

• Cycling infrastructure
• Urban design and planning
• Research, monitoring and evaluation
• Our approach

Get involved

Your support helps to give children access to the training and equipment they need to ride a bike safely - starting a cycle of good that can go on to benefit their health, education and future.

• Leave a gift in your Will
• Donate in memory
• Corporate partnerships
• Give a virtual gift

Give your time

• Work for Sustrans
• Log in to Assemble
• Fundraising and challenge events
• Become a Sustrans fundraiser
• Infrastructure

Walking and cycling infrastructure design guidance

Current guidance and best practice

We've pulled together a collection of high-quality UK design guidance for walking and cycling infrastructure.

They are grouped into themes, including nation-specific guidance.

These documents are for designers and decision-makers planning and delivering walking and cycling infrastructure.

We recommend referring to all of these documents. However, it is your responsibility to ensure that any guidance you use is applicable to your specific context and that all designs comply with the relevant regulations for your region.

Covid-19 temporary infrastructure interventions

We've put together a list of useful guidance on the delivery of temporary walking and cycling interventions during the lockdown and beyond.

General guidance for England

• Department for Transport LTN 1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design
• Highways England CD 195 Designing for cycle traffic
• Department for Transport Local Transport Notes
• LCWIP Technical Guidance for Local Authorities (DfT).

General guidance for London

• London Cycling Design Standards (TfL)
• Healthy Streets toolkit (TfL)
• The Planning for Walking Toolkit (TfL)
• New cycle route Quality Criteria (TfL).

General guidance for Scotland

• Cycling by Design (Transport Scotland)
• Designing Streets toolkit

General guidance for Wales

• Active Travel Act guidance
• Planning Policy Guidance (Wales).

Traffic-free routes and greenways

• Sustrans Traffic-free routes and greenway design guide
• Lowland Path Construction Guide (Paths for all).

Low-traffic neighbourhoods

• Sustrans introductory guide to low-traffic neighbourhood design  
• Manual for Streets
• Slow Streets Sourcebook (Urban Design London)
• Streetscape Guidance (Transport for London)
• Achieving lower speeds: the toolkit (TfL).

National Cycle Network

• National Cycle Network design principles
• Temporary diversions of National Cycle Network routes

Will Haynes

Infrastructure Director at Sustrans

Looking for more information?

• Sustrans and infrastructure
• Sustrans urban design and planning
• Re-allocating road space to make walking and cycling safer during Covid-19 and beyond