“Glaring mismatch” in CWIS2 goals and funding, says Cycling UK

Cycling UK has followed Bikeability and Sustrans with a reaction to the second Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS2), but cut a very different tone in the reaction to the contents.

Campaigns and Policy Director Roger Geffen MBE, never one sugarcoat a reaction, outlines his belief that there exists a “glaring mismatch between the increases in cycling and walking the Department for Transport (DfT) is aiming to achieve, and the funding available for doing so.”

In an analytical blog on the subject, Geffen dismantles what you may assume to be an increased funding pot (The figure of £3.784bn emerged in the CWIS2 document).

“The allocation of £2bn of ringfenced funding for cycling and walking over the 5 years up to March 2025 is still there. Mind you, I’m puzzled about why the amount allocated for the period of CWIS2 itself (i.e. the last 4 of these years) seems to be only £1.298bn, given that only £250m of ringfenced funding was allocated in the first year 2020/1. Where has the other £450m gone?”, asks the Policy Director.

While the current Government turbulence could mean that what comes to fruition from one moment to the next is anyone’s guess, Geffen is nonetheless attentive to ambiguous words such as “may” and “short”, the latter in reference to the paper seemingly only targeting low mileage journeys. This, says Geffen, is a “very regrettable steps backwards. Not only do they suggest a rather low level of ambition, but they also suggest that the available funding will continue to be concentrated largely in urban areas.”

Further commenting on sending the wrong messages to rural communities, Geffen says it matters because of a given area’s ability to access funding.

“This is precisely the wrong moment to reinforce the perception of many rural councils that promoting day-to-day cycling and walking is really viable in urban areas, and that they wouldn’t get Government funding for cycling and walking even if they tried,” he writes.

Crunching the numbers in more forensic detail, Geffen looks at the ring-fenced tallies and the non-ringfenced and compares the figures from CWIS1 to that now revealed. There is an increase, he states, but England falls behind Wales and Scotland, both of which have begun to bound ahead in spend on active travel.

It is calculated that CWIS1’s spend per person amounted to £13.80 outside London, with the caveat that it was just £1.33 if only ringfenced funding was counted.

In comparison, CWIS2 proposes a £17.26 per person annual spend, of £6.90 if only ringfenced funding is counted. This does mean that ringfenced funding is markedly up in England, but as before Wales’ budget is £23.66 per person for the 2021/22 year and Scotland’s, currently £21 per person, per year is soon to explode to reach £58.50 by 2024/25.

Quickly following this, Geffen asks why is the Government still sat on its own evidence, promised to be published, that outline that to meet its stated ambition would require between £1.2 to £1.6 billion every year (starting in 2020).

This, says Geffen, makes it “arguable that CWIS2 doesn’t even meets the legal requirements of a CWIS” in so much that the mathematics seem broadly off.

As mentioned in the original analysis this week, should Boris Johnson finally let go of his position in No.10 it is likely that long-term cycling champion and advisor Andrew Gilligan will go too.

What risks then lie ahead for Active Travel England, only just established and now permanently headed up by Chris Boardman. If, for example, Steve Baker were to become PM, we are already aware of pledges to scrap all things ‘green’.

For all his criticism of the Government’s ambition, Geffen is conciliatory that Boris has helped cycling along during his tenure.

“We must hope that Active Travel England can now survive and thrive without him. We owe him a big debt of gratitude for the progress made over the past 2 years,” he says.

Despite the takedown of the CWIS2 document, Cycling UK’s policy head has hopes that progress can still be made.

He concludes: “Although the funding is almost certainly insufficient to meet the 2025 targets, at least it is finally in the right order of magnitude. It’s worth recalling that the ringfenced funding is 80 times what DfT allocated when it set up Cycling England in 2005 (Cycling England was in many ways a precursor to the new Active Travel England, though it was shamefully abolished in 2011). We have come a very long way, even though has been painfully slow progress – and we still have a way to go yet.”

Criticism of available funding very briefly landed at the recent All Party Parliamentary Cycling and Walking Group bike ride, with Tier’s Georgia Yaxley stating that “£2 billion is not enough” to achieve a wide range of goals across walking and cycling.