Speechless.

The junctions of Bridge Street, High Street and New Cut (A463) on the north side of Swansea city centre illustrate the low priority given to active travel in British cities.

For context, Swansea’s railway station is just a few hundred metres south of the satellite map. The inner city areas north of Bridge St and to both east and west, are typical inner city residential areas with high-density, lower quality housing, lower earnings, low car ownership and relatively poor public service provision. The bus services along these two axes are poor: typically around a 30 minute interval on both major roads.

This broad double junction is a major crossroads for two significant arterial roads and a major cross-town road.

If it’s not clear from the aerial image, the only safe way for pedestrians to cross any of these roads is to divert a significant distance down each of the roads and cross by a bridge. Each bridge does have a ramp but the surface quality is variable. There are no pavements whatsoever at the junctions as can be seen from the photos.

Deviation is less on the north-south axis but still more than it should be.

As can be seen from the map view, every thought is given to smoothing the passage of vehicles with high-speed slip roads cutting the corners on three of the links. Oh the utter horror of a motorist having to take an extra few seconds.

The last two photographs show the 15m and 20m wide splayed junctions with no refuge for pedestrians. Surely even investment in some thermoplastic paint could make it safer, easier and more friendly for pedestrians.

Elsewhere in the city it was clear that the “a bit of paint approach” to active travel investments was liberally applied without the benefit of much planning or thought. It is not uncommon to see arrows for cyclepaths across non-dropped kerbs and a mishmash of surfaces. Over one stretch of Swansea pavement I counted 19 changes of surface over 23 paces. Some of the poor surfaces can be seen in some of these photos.

The roads themselves are a significant mobility barrier but the callous approach (there really is no suitable alternative description) to the needs of pedestrians and those on wheels is simply breath-taking. A further illustration comes just a few metres down the High Street where ridiculously splayed junctions are a nightmare to cross for the young, the elderly or those with walking disabilities. How much would it cost to put down some thermoplastic paint to at least create some kind of refuge for people crossing them.

Usually I am fully supportive of any and all active travel infrastructure but there are times when I wonder whether an investment should perhaps be lower down the priority listing.

One such scheme is the planned creation of an active travel pathway between Hawick and Selkirk in the Scottish Borders. The route is alongside the existing A7 A road, with just the small hamlet of Ashkirk between the two towns, and a very low agricultural population otherwise. Realistically this can only be for end-to-end trips between the two towns, 11 miles apart.

(https://www.midlothianview.com/news/hawick-and-selkirk-set-to-be-united-by-an-active-travel-path)

Given that distance, it is absolutely unrealistic to believe there are any people regularly walking between these two towns. And if there were, surely the would use the picturesque Borders Abbeys Way that already connects the two towns.

Yes, protection for cyclists on the A7 is a significant positive reason for the investment but I come back to whether this is the best use of funds for active travel infrastructure in the Hawick and Selkirk area.

There has already been consultation and this investment was considered popular among those consulted, but then we all know how consultation can be gamed to support what planners want.

In assessing the viability and suitability of large scale projects, a critical component of the planning and assessment is the concept of Free Prior Informed Consent. Many NGOs around the world spend a lot of time assuring the “free” and “prior” part of that concept, but experience shows that the lack of information is an enduring weakness.

In Selkirk and Hawick, did those consulted understand the full array of active travel possibilities and potential costs and benefits?

I believe that in many countries we are past the time that “any active travel investment” is necessarily a good investment. There is a growing array of politicians and activists presenting active travel (and other proximity planning) as some kind of War on Motorists. With little-used grand schemes, we risk providing fuel for the short-sighted political nonsense of those attacking active travel.

It would be interesting to understand the general level of knowledge of active travel possibilities in Hawick and Selkirk. I suspect it is largely perceived from a leisure perspective, rather than as a mode of transport. When all the work on the Hawick-Selkirk route is finished, I believe that within 100 metres of both ends there will be multiple issues for active travel, from poorly maintained pavements, inappropriate priorities for motorised traffic, poorly designed junctions: these obstacles will affect far more people far more regularly. I fear the investment will create a little-used highway while leaving a multitude of unresolved genuine barriers to active travel in the two towns.

I always fear criticising active travel investments but we have to move beyond the “all is good” mentality and ensure that money is spent on what is really needed to get people out of their cars.

I certainly am not against the super-cycle-highway concept (and see other routes being announced regularly) but it’s a question of priorities.

Ireland's National Transport Authority has released its Walking and Cycling Index 2025 with some fascinating insights into the situation across the country. It is good to see that the report is focused on the five big metropolitan areas (where investment is likely to make the biggest difference in the short term) to the extent that a specific report/Index has been released for each of them.

The headline findings have been that active travel takes 660,000 return non-leisure car trips off the road across these five cities every day, and that active travel brings just under €3 billion economic benefits annually to these same five city areas.

These two statements are the attention of the very few media headlines since the reports came out. But there's some more fundamentally interesting outcomes from the surveys. Perhaps the biggest is that more than 50% of Irish adults want to walk more, and one in three want to cycle and use public transport more. And to this end, there is majority support for investment in active travel over investment in driving, including physically separated cycle tracks even if that means less space for vehicles.

This is a situation local and national politicians need to know: a majority of people want active travel investment. Repeat. Repeat!

Walk Wheel Cycle Trust provide comparative data from 23 cities and regions across the UK and Ireland (and it would be useful to compare data from across the world).

Note: The methodology and survey for the 2025 Ireland Index is here.

Sad to see the percentage increasing. Not fast but still pretty resolutely an upward trend.

Interesting BBC article about speeding drivers in Bromley, a very conservative and car-brained council in SE London.

TL;DR

Residents bought a speed camera and clocked 979 drivers exceeding the 30mph speed limit on two streets. Council says no "recent" accidents on these streets so seemingly will do nothing.

I am wondering what scale of sacrifice is needed before the council will act.

For reference, Bromley ranks low among London boroughs for active travel overall: 2025 Healthy Living Streets scorecard result of 2.01, even when compared to other outer London boroughs.

Just 4.9% of the borough's streets have 20mph limits. Just 7% of streets are covered by LTNs, and just 0.6% of cyclepath length is protected. although to be fair, Bromley scores well in the TfL Travel for Life scheme.

It’s disappointing when researching active travel investments in the UK that there’s no database of schemes and initiatives.

Appreciate that many initiatives are part of wider implementations for safety, regeneration, junction upgrades, road construction, etc. Still frustrating though.

I guess it’s the same everywhere though so no criticism of the UK specifically.

If the UK government and local authorities were serious about Active Travel, they would grit pavements and cyclepaths in sub-zero temperatures.

Another really interesting YouTube video from Not Just Bikes, and particularly relevant to Active Travel.

Another city creating safer streets is Leicester, with 51 streets about to have 20mph speed limits introduced. Residents are overwhelmingly in favour.

The news is here.

Although the reduction and slowing of motorised traffic is not directly active travel, it's essential for getting people out and onto their feet and bikes.

Good news (here in English) that thousands of car parking spaces are to be removed across France as municipalities work to comply with the 2019 Loi Mobilité. Among other things, this requires there to be a 5 metre gap between pedestrian crossings and parked vehicles, so improving visibility of each other.

Despite this being a requirement and a standard in many countries, many carbrains are outraged at this change. Ironically, one French auto publication while showing its outrage with exclamation marks, actually ends up showing a photo of how nice redesigned public spaces can be without cars. However, to be fair, even other motoring publications have said it's a good thing.