Back in 2015, I was heading off to university. I didn’t know what my plan was.

I studied history because my grandad had done it, because my teacher had said that I was good at it, and because the open day sold it as a way to go into law, which I’d heard paid well.

The government also didn’t really have a plan for walking, wheeling and cycling. London had just started being more ambitious with their Cycle Superhighways, and there were pockets of progress elsewhere, but not much brought it together.

With others, Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (then known as Sustrans) wanted to change that. Rachel White, now our Head of Policy and Communications (and my boss), was key to convincing the government that they should put a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy into law, including not just funding but clear objectives.

Over a decade later, we can see the benefits of that. There are safer streets all over the country thanks to the funding the strategies have provided.

Now, the government’s confirmed England’s third Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy to cover 2025-30. It’s ambitious. But does their plan add up?

I’ve already looked at whether the funding is enough in a previous blog. Now, I want to turn to the objectives. Have they got them right?

Vision: impossible

First, they’ve set a vision. That “walking, wheeling and cycling are safe, easy and accessible for everyone”. I don’t think anyone could disagree with that.

And it’s possible. If government can’t get that right, what hope do they have for knottier problems?

We’re pleased to see the addition of the word “accessible” from the draft strategy I wrote about earlier this year. Disabled people face the biggest barriers, so accessibility needs to be a clear focus.

However, as you’ll see below, there isn’t enough to back this up – a target around disabled people’s journeys, or a new programme of work.

Making it easy and safe for everyone to be active

They’ve then got three objectives. These are a bit different from the objectives in the first and second strategies: they aren’t “smart”.

Our sense is that this is because the government is worried they could be legally challenged if they don’t provide enough funding to meet the objectives.

However, as you’ll see below, there are still targets. We’re not overly concerned about whether they’re legal “objectives”: we’ll hold them to account, even if they don’t need to meet their targets legally.

The first objective is about getting people active, particularly those who are the least active. That makes sense: it’s good for them and it’s good for society.

The second is to “make active travel the easy and integrated choice”. This, again, shows welcome progress from the draft, which was apologetic about boosting active travel. It only wanted to help people walk, wheel or cycle “if they choose”.

People want to walk, wheel and cycle more, but if it’s easier to jump in the car, they will.

Finally, they want to improve safety. Grand.

Right on target

Now, to the numbers. They want 5.3 million more people to be physically active through active travel. Today, 16.2 million people travel actively at least twice every 28 days, out of 47.8 million in England. No arguments with that.

They also want to decrease the percentage of people concerned about personal safety when walking, wheeling and cycling.

It’s good that they’re focusing on perceptions of safety: it’s not just accidents themselves that put people off.

However, we’d like a clear target for this, to really drive change. And it’d be good to think about those who aren’t currently travelling actively, not just those brave enough to ignore those feelings.

The modes du jour

As ever, there’s a target for more walking and cycling stages: 2.2 billion and 600 million respectively.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Absolute numbers can’t stand on their own. As the population rises, you might get more walking stages simply because there are more people.

That’s why we pushed for a “modal shift target”.

They’ve dealt with that. There’s a target that 55% of all short stages in towns and cities will be walked or cycled by 2035.

That means that the proportion of different modes of transport will change.

This is ambitious, but pragmatic. Right now, the proportion is 48%, because many people have no choice but to drive.

To achieve this percentage, we’ll need a sustained change. But it’s not out of reach.

I’m particularly optimistic about this because they’re focusing on “stages”, not full “journeys”. That includes, for example, walking to the bus.

It’s good that the government gets that people’s journeys are complex in reality. Investment in public transport boosts walking, wheeling and cycling. And vice versa.

What’s next?

So, by and large, we think the government is focusing on the right things.

They listened to our feedback, and now they’ve got ambitious but realistic targets.

That’s crucial, because national government can’t change things alone. They need to work with mayors, councils, and other partners like us.

Without setting yourself ambitious targets, it’s very hard to tell partners that you’ve put your neck on the line. That means they won’t offer their own necks.

Now, we need to bring those partners on board. To do that, we think there need to be targets for areas of the country.

Urban areas are likely to be able to move faster than more rural ones, so they’ll need to have higher targets, offsetting others.

The government has said there will be targets for areas with integrated settlements. We think this should be extended everywhere, even if it’s complex to do.

Because if we’re going to change how we travel, everywhere will need to play its part. Wherever you live in England, we want it to be possible for you to walk, wheel or cycle.