How did your local authority rank in securing active travel cash?

A document detailing the allocation of funding for active travel projects reveals the winners and losers by local authority, ranked according to initial allocation versus actual funding to be delivered on bids.

The Emergency Active Travel phase one cash was awarded based on the ambition shown by each local authority and the viability of their plans in altering streets to prioritise cycling and walking. Those who put forward ambitious and well thought out plans gained cash, seemingly at the expense of those who perhaps did not.

In total £37,102,451 of £39,999,000 of phase one cash is now allocated.

The emergency fund, which applies to England only, came to fruition in the face of the Coronavirus crisis and forms part of the £2 billion funding package outlined by the Conservative Government, to be delivered over the five-year term. It is from this pot that the Government’s Bike Repair Voucher scheme will also draw funds. Bike shops and mechanics can now apply to take part here.

Statutory guidance was fast tracked and put into effect immediately, calling on local authorities to come up with a reallocation of road space, something that has been shown to stimulate cycle use and walking.

“In towns and cities, some streets could become bike and bus-only while others remain available for motorists. More side streets could be closed to through traffic, to create low-traffic neighbourhoods and reduce rat-running while maintaining access for vehicles,” said the Government in its announcement of the fast-track funding.

Funding is to be delivered in two tranches, the first of which will be spent on temporary projects designed to enable social distancing and the second for longer term projects that may become more permanent. The second tranche of cash is expected to be far greater than the first and will likewise have to be applied for by local authorities; though indicative figures have been published.

The phase one winners and losers by top five are as follows:


Essex: Indicative: £1,937,000 – Actual: £968,500 (Loss of £968,500)
Surrey: Indicative: £1,696,000 – Actual: £848,000 (Loss of £848,000)
Hertfordshire: Indicative: £1,698,000 – Actual: £1,247,329 (Loss of £450,671)
Nottinghamshire: Indicative: £573,000 – Actual: £263,250 (Loss of £309,750)
Oxfordshire: Indicative: £597,000 – Actual: £298,500 (Loss of £298,500)

A perhaps fairer assessment of performance is the by percentage final allocation. Bedford, Blackpool and Rutland faired worst, each gaining only 25% of their indicative phase one allocation.


West Midlands ITA: Indicative: £3,447,000 – Actual: £3,850,997 (Gain of £86,895)
West of England CA: Indicative: £741,000 – Actual: £827,895 (Gain of £86,895)
Lancashire: Indicative: £700,000 – Actual: £7,827,895 (Gain of £69,657)
Brighton and Hove UA: Indicative: £594,000 – Actual: £663,657 (Gain of £69,657)
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CA: Indicative: £575,000 – Actual: £642,429.00 (Gain of £67,429)

Each of the above took 111.73% of their initial allocation.

A full breakdown of England’s local authority breakdown can be seen in this spreadsheet, as shared earlier today by the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group.