CWIS3 consultation – guidance for campaigners

The government is consulting on the third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS3), the government’s national active travel strategy for England for the period 2025-30. The closing date for submissions is 23:59pm on Monday 15 December

We’ve created some guidance, including suggested responses to each question, to make it easy to fill out.

The most important questions to respond to are Q1-Q6. We recommend that you choose ‘disagree’ for each option so that the box to add extra comments (‘If you disagree, please explain why’) appears.

The more people who respond saying similar things, the more likely they’ll listen.

Respond to the consultation

Overview of Cycling UK’s response

The government says it wants to make cycling the easy choice for everyone by 2035. Without clear targets to build the safe, high-quality cycle routes we need, and current funding levels, that won’t happen.

Currently CWIS3 is vague and lacks a clear theory of change, risking being all talk and no action.

The strategy needs a clear narrative of the scale of the problems the country faces that active travel can help address, such as pollution, the cost-of-living crisis and road danger.

Cycling UK is recommending the inclusion of achievable and measurable objectives tied to clear outcomes that challenge Active Travel England (ATE) and Local Transport Authorities (LTA) to make cycling safer and easier for everyone:

• More people cycling, an increase in the share of women cycling, and reductions in risks of death and serious injury while cycling
• Active travel contributing to a greater proportion of children achieving the minimum recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity
• Increasing miles of good-quality active travel network and reducing the number of critical safety issues
• Improving and extending the National Cycle Network

Question by question

We have given some suggestions below on how you might answer the consultation questions. However please feel free to add you own personal experiences or suggestions to these, or alter as you wish.

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed national vision for active travel?

Disagree

Question 2: If you disagree, why do you disagree with the proposed national vision for active travel and what potential alternatives do you suggest?

I like the long-term national vision’s focus on making walking, wheeling and cycling a safe, easy and accessible option for everyone, particularly its emphasis on inclusion.

The proposed draft is, however, too passive and vague. It should be active, recognising the significant influence and power government has, for example, to direct investment, guide design and provide political leadership.

I’m concerned the vision of achieving a safe and welcoming built environment and cultural shift that allows everyone to walk, wheel or cycle by 2035 is unrealistic, given the current funding available. The IPPR suggested at least £2billion a year is needed by 2030.

Question 3: Do you agree or disagree with the objective: ‘Ensure people are safe to travel actively’?

Disagree

Question 4: If you disagree, why do you disagree with the objective: ‘Ensure people are safe to travel actively’ and what potential alternatives do you suggest?

Our primary concern is that these objectives are not specific, measurable, realistic, achievable or timebound.

I would like to see more objectives, more tightly focused on distinct priority outputs and outcomes from the strategy, such as a specific objective for addressing cycling’s gender gap – both increasing cycling overall while narrowing the gender gap between men and women.

Question 5: Do you agree or disagree with the objective: ‘Ensure people feel it is an easy choice’?

Disagree

Question 6: If you disagree, why do you disagree with the objective: ‘Ensure people feel it is an easy choice’ and what potential alternatives do you suggest?

While I like the focus on making active travel an easy choice, our primary concern is that this objective will be difficult to measure and judge progress against.

To make this objective measurable we would suggest wording around people’s confidence walking, wheeling and cycling with a robust key performance indicator (KPI).

Accessibility also needs to be threaded through from the long-term vision to the objectives.

Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed key performance indicators?

Disagree

Question 8: If you disagree, explain why.

The lack of a theory of change throughout the document makes it hard to comment on the chosen KPIs.

I broadly welcome the indicators, particularly the road safety risk measure (number of people killed or seriously injured (KSIs) per billion miles). However, without a Vision Zero objective and a theory of change behind it that would guide progress, we are left assuming that CWIS3 infrastructure and behaviour change initiatives contribute to KSI risk reduction.

There should be national performance indicators for infrastructure built, improved or maintained, given this is the main output by which the strategic outcomes will be achieved and the success of the CWIS and ATE judged.

Question 9: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to performance monitoring of LTA outcomes frameworks using the performance indicators outlined?

Disagree

Question 10: If you disagree with the proposed approach to performance monitoring of LTA outcomes frameworks using the performance indicators outlined above, explain why.

I support the framework-led approach to monitoring LTA activity.

While there is a risk-based safety measure at a national level, this should be included at the local level. For example, using a denominator for activity on the number of KSIs to better understand relative risk rather than absolute casualties (which could be reduced by reducing activity).

At a local level, there is a need for a KPI that recognises the value of small-scale schemes or ‘non-linear’ projects that may not contribute additional miles, but still contribute significantly to enhanced active travel rates, broaden participation and enhance safety.

Question 11: How can ATE support local authorities in delivering local targets?

ATE should develop a standardised monitoring and evaluation tool kit, so that Local Authorities can be more efficient in the development and delivery of local monitoring.

Question 12: Do you agree or disagree with the indicators relating to the work of ATE?

Disagree

Question 13: If you disagree, explain why.

The KPI for active travel capability ratings should be ‘maintained or improved’ to give equal focus on maintaining highly capable LTAs alongside capacity building in others.

ATE should own an output KPI for high-quality infrastructure built, focusing on the clear task at hand.

The DfT should consider a KPI for service of satisfaction with ATE from LTAs to judge the success of its partnership with local and combined authorities.

DfT should also consider an outcome KPI for the planning system that seeks to track ATE’s influence on new developments.

Question 14: Do you have any other comments?

Here you can add anything that’s important to you that Cycling UK might’ve missed.

Respond to the consultation