Opinion: There’s new money for active travel, but is it enough?

By Adam Tranter, CEO, Fusion

Image: Fusion CEO Adam Tranter at Downing Street during Boris Johnson’s premiership. It wasn’t that long ago that £2bn was being announced for active travel over a similar time period. Politics moves fast, as they say.

The 2025 Spending Review brought a number of significant announcements for transport, and in a welcome change, walking and cycling weren’t left out.

We should remember that not that long ago, cycling and walking were not things the previous Government really wanted to talk about. But also, not that long ago, the largest ever funding for active travel was announced (Remember Boris Johnson’s £2bn over 5 years?), to meet a goal that 50% of all journeys in towns and cities should be walked or cycled by 2030.

Politics moves fast, as they say.

The headline for active travel in today’s Spending Review announcement from the Chancellor is the £616 million settlement for Active Travel England (ATE), allocated across 2026–2030. It’s a positive move that finally introduces some long-term stability to a funding stream that has too often been short-term, reactive, and vulnerable to cuts.

The former Secretary of State Louise Haigh MP had previously outlined the need for long-term funding. Hopefully, this settlement gives ATE the ability to support local authorities in planning, delivering and maintaining walking and cycling schemes with greater certainty, something I’ve long said is essential. To make the most of the cash, and the certainty it can bring, ATE should give local authorities sight of planned annual allocations so local authorities can build their network.

While I’m delighted to see funding for active travel it would be remiss of me not to highlight that this isn’t a transformative level of funding.

The legal backdrop

With impeccable and coincidental timing, this announcement comes just one day after the Court of Appeal ruled that the Treasury’s March 2023 cuts to dedicated active travel funding, under the last Government, were unlawful. In a landmark judgment upon appeal, the court sided with Transport Action Network (TAN), confirming that the Government breached its statutory duty under the Infrastructure Act 2015 by failing to specify the resources available for cycling and walking. “Specify” means just that—not “guess”, “project” or “wait and see”. This legal precedent should now firmly establish active travel on the same statutory footing as roads and rail.

And yet, the damage from those 2023 cuts still stands.

Although the Government announced some new funding at the end of 2024, it didn’t restore the cut amounts from the previous Conservative Government. In fact, according to recent written parliamentary answers, active travel funding in 2024/25 is just £111.2 million - well below the levels seen in 2021/22 (£279m) and 2022/23 (£274m). The figure for 2025/26 (£246.4m) is also lower in real terms, especially when adjusted for inflation. So while the four-year £616 million package is welcome, it averages out to roughly £154 million per year - less than we were spending before the cuts.

OK, so how much should we be spending?

The National Audit Office (NAO) highlighted in its 2023 inquiry that the Department for Transport has known too little about what has been achieved and has not been able to influence the local delivery of schemes consistently. This has led to patchy delivery of active travel schemes, and it is unlikely that DfT’s objectives for increased active travel by 2025 will be achieved.

There is consensus that more significantly more funding is required to meet stated active travel objectives. IPPR’s report “Stride and ride” suggested a minimum of £2bn per year, approximately 10% of the transport budget.

When asked at a Transport Select Committee in January 2025, National Active Travel Commissioner Chris Boardman told the committee that to achieve the 50% of trips in towns and cities to be walked or cycled by 2030, “and we focus on urban areas and estimate at the time that it will cost about £8 billion for a country to achieve the target, and if we want to do it equitably and include all areas with that level of service, it is £16 billion, I am absolutely fine with either. That is a political choice.”

It’s not a luxury spend, as the NAO pointed out. Active travel delivers extraordinary value for money, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.3:1, according to DfT’s own figures. The vast majority of these benefits come from improved public health, lower emissions, reduced congestion, and enhanced liveability of towns and cities.

But stability matters more than spin

Local authorities desperately need consistency. The stop-start nature of funding over the past five years has left many councils hesitant to plan ambitious schemes or develop the in-house capability needed to deliver them. And, the change in rhetoric confuses local governments on where to prioritise because of a risk in having to abort work or scale projects back. In many areas, schemes have been watered down, delayed, or abandoned - not necessarily because of lack of vision, but because of a lack of confidence in future funding and a slow place of delivery not keeping up with inflation.

Positive signs for cities

The Spending Review also included major announcements for city-region transport. The Transport for City Regions (TCR) settlements will provide £15.6 billion in capital funding by 2031–32, with £9 billion allocated during 2026–30. These funds will support a wide range of sustainable transport measures, including zero-emission buses, trams and local rail. We know that great progress is coming from combined authority or city region areas on active travel so it’s likely more funds will be allocated from this pot.

But not everywhere has a Combined Authority - in fact, only around 4 in 10 people live in one (although that figure is growing). For those local authorities not within a Combined Authority area, the Government is investing £2.3 billion in the Local Transport Grant over Phase 2 for local transport improvements including bus lanes, cycleways and “congestion improvement measures” (which, could in theory, also be cycleways) in the places outside of those areas receiving TCR settlements. They say this will deliver a fourfold increase in funding in 2029-30 compared to 2024-25.

Crucially, Transport for London (TfL) has also been awarded its largest multi-year capital settlement in over a decade: £2 billion for infrastructure renewal between 2026 and 2030. In a city as complex and congested as London, this kind of long-term security is vital. It gives TfL the confidence to invest not only in core assets like the Tube and Overground, but also in cycling, walking and bus priority measures that underpin the entire network’s efficiency.

A shift in road-building rhetoric?

One of the more quietly significant parts of the Spending Review is the absence of a long list of new road projects - a departure from the norm in such statements. Instead of another rehashed list of delayed or contested road schemes, the focus for National Highways and local authorities appears to be firmly on maintenance and renewal, with £24 billion allocated to improving the long-term condition of the road network.

This is a welcome shift. New road building often creates more congestion over time, not less, and typically leads to increased emissions, environmental damage, and greater car dependence. By prioritising road renewal and naming a long list of sustainable transport initiatives, the Government is perhaps implicitly recognising that simply building more isn’t the answer.

Where next?

Local authorities are starting to get the tools they need to act. The shift away from new roads and towards renewal sends a valuable signal about changing priorities.

But we’re not there yet. ATE’s budget remains far below what the National Audit Office recommends. Funding for 2024 and 2025 hasn’t been restored. The third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS3) is overdue, and a legally required progress report to Parliament hasn’t been published since 2022.

The legal framework is in place. The economic case is proven. Now it’s time for local authorities to show they can deliver and for the government to fund active travel at the scale that modern transport systems, healthy communities, and climate commitments demand.

About the author

Adam Tranter is the CEO of Fusion Media, the agency for movers, focusing on communications and public affairs.

He was the Cycling & Walking Commissioner for the West Midlands under Mayor Andy Street. He is the co-host of the Streets Ahead podcast.