Guidance

Active Travel Fund monitoring and evaluation

Published 17 July 2025

Introduction

The Active Travel Fund

The aim of the Active Travel Fund (ATF) is to provide a range of measures in local areas across England, which will help make walking, wheeling and cycling safer and facilitate more trips by active modes.

Guidance purpose

This guidance sets out ATE’s requirements and recommendations for the M&E of schemes funded through the ATF and the suggested approaches to data collection.

The guidance should be followed for ATE-funded capital schemes. We also encourage its use for any active travel capital schemes funded by government, including cross-modal schemes with an active travel element.

The guidance is designed to offer a light-touch, proportionate, resource-efficient approach that seeks to balance the needs for accountability and evidence base development with the financial and time burdens of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activity.

Collection of the required and recommended evidence will support local authorities with future bids and the securing of funding.

Monitoring and evaluation principles

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring is the collection of data to check progress against planned targets. It is the formal reporting of evidence that spend and outputs are successfully delivered and milestones met. Monitoring data also plays a key part in evaluation by tracking changes in outcomes over time.

Evaluation is a systematic assessment of the design, implementation and outcomes of an intervention. There are 3 main types of evaluation to consider in relation to funded schemes. These are:

• impact evaluation, which seeks to understand what difference the intervention has made
• process evaluation, which seeks to understand what can be learned about how the intervention was provided
• value for money evaluation, which aims to understand whether the intervention was a good use of resources

A proportionate M&E plan should be developed for all active travel interventions. For larger scale or higher value schemes and programmes (including those costing £2 million or more), the commissioning of an independent organisation with strong evaluation skills should be considered to carry out M&E activities on your behalf.

Logic models

A logic model describes the causal connections between activities and desired impacts. They can be a useful tool in developing a framework for an M&E programme, because they explain how the intervention is supposed to work by laying out the components and the order of the steps needed to achieve the desired result.

When designing effective M&E, it’s important to measure:

1. Inputs (for example personnel employed, active travel investment funding).
2. Outputs (direct products of the activities, for example number of interventions built, length of new routes constructed, traffic counts data). Outputs tend to be quantifiable.
3. Outcomes (including a more comprehensive and better-connected active travel network, better quality infrastructure for walking, wheeling and cycling, and improved awareness of the opportunities and benefits of active travel).
4. Impacts associated with increased walking, wheeling and cycling. For example increased fitness and activity and improved mental wellbeing plus faster, more reliable and safer journeys.

The logic model for the ATF (recently developed to support ATE’s active travel portfolio evaluation) is provided.

Context

Active travel is good for the environment, economy and public health. We want to make walking, wheeling and cycling the natural choices for shorter journeys or as part of a longer journey by 2040.

Investment in active travel infrastructure is needed which:

• meets minimum quality requirements
• is integrated into wider transport and growth plans
• will maximise impact on wider government objectives
• will focus on increasing safety

Actors

Potential actors involved are:

• national government and agencies
  • Active Travel England
  • Department for Transport
  • other departments
• local and regional government
• behaviour change delivery partners
• communities
• developers
  • local delivery partners, including NGOs

Inputs

Existing infrastructure

Grant funding to local transport authorities and delivery partners could include:

• active travel investment funding
• other sources of capital funding

Knowledge, experience, time and leadership from:

• local authorities
• ATE support (for example planning, design, scheme appraisal)

Policy, legislation and guidance applicable is:

• cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20)
• inclusive mobility guidance
• national design guides
• Manual for Streets

Activities

Development of local schemes for new and improved infrastructure, in combination with and separately from behaviour change programmes.

Behaviour change programmes, which support infrastructure use

Design and improvement of schemes, which includes: 

• site and scheme appraisal 
• public engagement and consultation 
• network design 
• scheme planning and design 
• M&E 
• working with the planning system 
• scheme appraisals 
• inspections

Outputs

New and improved infrastructure, which includes:

• new segregated cycling facilities
• new junction treatments
• new permanent footway
• new shared-use (walking and cycling) facilities
• improvements to make an existing walking and cycling route safer
• area-wide traffic management
• bus priority measures that also enable active travel
• provision of secure cycle parking facilities
• new road crossings
• restriction or reduction of car parking availability
• school streets

Outcomes

These include:

• active places that are or have:
  • more comprehensive (extensive and connected) active travel network
  • better active travel connectivity between more places
  • better quality infrastructure for walking and wheeling
  • better designed places and developments
  • more active travel schemes built to consistent standards
  • increased bicycle security
  • better designed infrastructure to include mobility principles
• active behaviours that include:
  • improved awareness of opportunities and benefits
  • increased motivation to travel actively
  • everybody able to walk, wheel or cycle and more people choosing to do so
  • safer places for active travel

Outcomes and impacts

Ambitions of the second Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS2) are:

• short journeys walked or cycled in towns and cities
• children (aged 5 to 10) walking to school
• cycling stages per person
• walking stages per person per year

Health and wellbeing outcomes and impacts are:

• increased physical fitness and activity
• improved mental health
• improved wellbeing
• reduced isolation and loneliness

Outcomes and impacts for journeys are:

• improved times and resilience 
• less congestion

Economic outcomes and impacts are:

• workforce and firm productivity 
• local economic growth and development

Environmental outcomes and impacts are: 

• reduced emissions (PM10, NOx, CO2, noise) 
• biodiversity gain 
• transport decarbonisation

Potential unintended outcomes

These include: 

• disruption to journeys during construction adversely affects local businesses, organisations and access to facilities 
• improved transport infrastructure displaces economic activity from other areas 
• more active journeys reduce public transport use 
• gentrification effects increase local house prices 
• increased pressure on local services due to increased accessibility

Monitoring and evaluation requirements and responsibilities

An active travel scheme is an infrastructure project designed to support walking, wheeling or cycling. A scheme can refer to a single measure or group of related measures with the same objectives, such as to encourage more active travel trips and reduce traffic flows. For example, a corridor scheme might be a series of investments along a given route to promote active travel such as a new segregated cycle lane, junction improvements and new signage. Alternatively, an area-wide scheme might represent a programme of similar investments over a wider geographic area to achieve a given objective; for example, a programme of junction safety improvements to reduce cyclist casualties at collision hotspots.

Monitoring requirements – for all schemes

All ATF schemes or programmes, regardless of their value, are required to collect and submit monitoring data to ATE. Data collection for monitoring should be undertaken, at minimum, at scheme completion plus 6 and 12 months after completion. Optimal practice is for continuation of scheme monitoring after this point to understand the long-term benefits of the intervention.

To enable progress to be tracked, authorities will be expected to provide quarterly monitoring data to ATE though the ‘Update Your Capital Schemes service’. Providing this monitoring data is a requirement of funding and will likely also be shared with the Department for Transport.

Schemes that cost £2 million or more in value

ATE requires all ATE-funded capital schemes costing £2 million or more to be formally evaluated. This should be supported by an M&E plan that puts in place processes to carry out impact, value for money and process evaluations of the intervention.

ATE will periodically request these plans from authorities to provide constructive feedback and support the development of authorities’ M&E capability. Analysis of these plans will also support the development of a consistent set of metrics and M&E requirements from across all ATE funds, with the aim of reducing the burden on authorities.

Schemes costing between £1 to £2 million

Authorities are strongly encouraged to undertake formal evaluation of schemes or programmes costing between £1 to £2 million.

Schemes that cost under £1 million

It is recommended that authorities monitor the impact of schemes that cost under £1 million. This is to build their evidence base on what does and doesn’t work, and be able to evidence future bids. Evaluation should also be considered, particularly for innovative and temporary or pilot, schemes being implemented in a new context plus those that have the potential to be contentious (for example those that result in road closures or restrict parking).

The evaluation of schemes under £1 million in value and temporary or pilot schemes is at the discretion of the authority.

The costs of M&E should be included in overall scheme bids and are typically not funded separately. The proportion of scheme costs that should be set aside for M&E may vary, but should be in accordance with government guidance in the Magenta Book. The proportion should reflect the scheme size, risks, complexity and the strength of the existing evidence base. A rule of thumb to support good practice is for 5 to 10% of the overall scheme cost to be spent on M&E.

ATE has commissioned and funded a National Evaluator (NE) who has responsibility for programme-level evaluation of the ATF. This may include conducting a meta-analysis of the evaluations of higher value interventions, as well as evaluation of a sub-set of lower value schemes and those considered to be novel or contentious. The NE will select a sample of schemes to include in the national evaluation. All local authorities should be prepared to participate in the national evaluation, and work with the NE to share development or develop appropriate M&E plans if selected. To avoid duplication of effort, the NE will draw on evaluation data collected as part of evaluations undertaken by local authorities where available. The NE will also offer advice and support on the design and implementation of evaluation plans to local authorities providing higher value schemes and programmes and to those selected to be part of the national evaluation.

To support this national evaluation, it is important that there is consistent monitoring across local authorities. Therefore, ATE has provided recommendations on metrics and data collection in the sections for ‘monitoring and evaluation of schemes’ and ‘implementing data collection’.

Support offer from ATE

ATE will support local authorities to perform effective monitoring, including by:

• periodically running webinars and communications sessions
• sharing training and lessons learned materials on its website related to this fund and the wider capability programme
• providing responses to authorities’ questions on M&E, ATE can be contacted at contact@activetravelengland.gov.uk

Monitoring and evaluation of schemes

All ATF schemes or programmes, regardless of their value, are required to collect and submit monitoring data to ATE. As detailed, ATE requires a formal evaluation and M&E plan for all permanent schemes costing £2 million or more, and strongly encourages evaluation of schemes costing between £1 to £2 million.

This guidance sets out the minimum M&E required for schemes that meet the £2 million threshold and requirements for data collection. Local authorities are responsible for designing an M&E approach and providing data that meets the requirements stated.

Data collection requirements

Modal shift

The primary objective for all schemes funded through the ATF is to support a transport modal shift to walking, wheeling or cycling. Therefore, all M&E approaches should include a component that measures modal shift.

Other data collection

To support local authorities to conduct M&E, we have defined a simple scheme typology to identify what data is needed to evaluate schemes. There are 3 broad typologies presented, along with examples of schemes and data collection methods.

Note that these categories are not mutually exclusive. Many schemes will span more than one category. When this is the case, the scheme’s M&E will need to either collect data from across categories or to prioritise one.

Table 1: Typology of Schemes

Category	Schemes types	Data collection methods
New cycling or walking infrastructure.	New segregated cycleway (permanent). New segregated cycleway (temporary). New permanent footway. New temporary footway. Park and cycle or stride facilities. E-scooter trial and e-scooter facilities. Provision of secure cycle parking facilities. New shared use facilities (in exceptional circumstances). New road crossings.	Scheme usage levels.
Adaptations to existing infrastructure.	Installing segregation to make an existing cycle route safer. Widening existing footway or cycleway. Area-wide interventions (for example pedestrian and cycling zones plus modal filters and filtered permeability). Upgrades to existing facilities (for example surfacing, signage, signals).	User perception surveys. Scheme usage levels.
Traffic restraint.	Restriction or reduction of parking availability (for example closing bays or complemented by increasing fees). Area-wide traffic management and selective motor vehicles restrictions using Traffic Regulation Orders. Traffic calming (for example lane closures, reducing speed limits). School streets. Bus priority corridor measures (for example bus lanes, bus-only streets). Bus priority measures at single locations (for example bus gates).	User perception surveys. Vehicle flow. Scheme usage levels.

Data collection methods

The remaining information in this section introduces and discusses different methods to collect data for each of the scheme categories. The ‘implementing data collection’ section provides greater detail on how to implement some of these data collection methods.

Measuring modal shift

This is to understand whether the schemes have contributed to more people walking, wheeling or cycling, or if current cyclists have changed their routes.

ATE has a number of ways of collecting this data. This includes a list of methods that can be used to collect modal shift data. Not all methods are expected to be used and local authorities should pick those most appropriate to their schemes and the local context.

User surveys

These can be user intercept surveys or links to an online survey – for example, included on leaflets. Guidance on public opinion surveys can be requested from ATE.

Business surveys

Employees of businesses near the scheme site can be surveyed to collect data on pre- and post-intervention travel patterns and commuting journeys.

Manual cordon or screenline counts

Some schemes may cross a pre-existing cordon or screenline on which manual counts of all modes of travel are undertaken at the same time every year^{[footnote 1]}. Where this is the case, data from multiple years (before and after construction of the scheme) can be analysed to understand whether pedestrian and cycle mode share increases (and car mode share decreases) at the scheme location, and overall.

Public opinion surveys

Residents in relevant locations can be asked about their active travel behaviours though public opinion surveys. For example, surveys can be conducted pre- and post-construction with questions on how often residents cycle or walk and whether changes to cycle or footpath infrastructure have changed their behaviours. Support on running these types of survey can be requested from ATE.

Measuring scheme usage levels (walking, wheeling and cycling infrastructure)

This is to understand whether and to what extent the schemes encourage walking, wheeling or cycling.

ATE recommends collecting scheme usage by automatic cycle counts (ACCs). Minimum data requirements are:

• installation of an ACC, ideally prior to construction of new infrastructure, to enable the collection of baseline data. Thought should be given to the best place to install ACCs along cycle paths to pick up cycling traffic along the route. Where this is not possible, alternative data collection methods should be employed to collect baseline data (for example using manual counters) and at least one round of data collection post-scheme implementation. Manual and automatic data should be compared to understand the risk of error arising from changing the data collection method
• maintenance of the ACC to enable collection of reliable data for three years after scheme completion (to help understand the full ‘build-up’ of cycle flows over time).

It should be noted that the ACC will not give pedestrian count data and therefore may then not be suitable in isolation for schemes that are not cycling only.

If ACCs are not used, the alternative is manual cycle and pedestrian or wheeler counts. Minimum data requirements are data:

• data for this method should be collected during a 12-hour period (7am–7pm) and recorded hourly. This should be done on a neutral day (for example not a bank holiday)
• data should be collected before scheme implementation, and at the same time of year approximately one year after scheme completion. Where possible, ensure that neutral months are used (for example not during school or university holidays), especially for commuting routes. If possible, both manual counts should be taken on the same day of the week, or as close as possible
• ideally data should be capable of recording the direction of user flows or other information about how the scheme is used

ATE recommends consideration of video capture or other technologies (over manual count processes) that enable remote or offline analysis, which is safer for analysts and capable of supporting more comprehensive data beyond raw counts (for example user movements, speed, flows, user types).

Local authorities should detail where ACCs and manual counts will be located. ‘Before’ and ‘after’ manual counts should be in the same location to ensure consistency.This includes:

• schemes that also had Active Mode Appraisal Toolkit (AMAT) assessments can be evaluated by comparing the data collected with the estimated number of walking, wheeling and cycling trips per day without the proposed scheme from the AMAT
• it is best practice to also identify one or more similar locations in your local authority where there has been no intervention that could act as comparator sites. If ACCs are being used to monitor cycle flows at the scheme, you should select one or more similar locations where there is already an ACC to act as comparator sites. If manual counts are being used to monitor cycle flows at the scheme, you should undertake manual counts at the comparator site or sites at the same times as data is collected for the scheme. The difference between trends at the scheme and at comparator sites can then be compared to understand the true impact of the scheme. For some schemes it may be difficult to identify comparator sites, as distance from the city centre, the type of road or route, and volume of cycle flows and son on need to be taken into account. This is not an ATE requirement for every scheme but is considered good practice

Reporting should include a description of how data was collected at these schemes for example manual counts, ACC (and if manual, the dates of counts should be recorded) and precisely what is recorded (for example direction of flow,movements around a junction, whether cyclists are on the road or on adjacent facilities and so on).

Authorities may wish to consider appropriate methods to visualise complex data on scheme usage. For example, heat maps can be an effective way of showing the impact of a scheme on pedestrian volumes and flows.

Things to consider

Scheme usage can vary significantly for example by season, school, college or university holidays. Therefore, where possible, manual count data should be collected during neutral months (e.g. not during holidays) with baseline and post-scheme implementation data being collected at the same time of year, so that like-for-like months can be compared. This is particularly important for commuting routes.

Comparator sites should be chosen so as to be free of influence of the new scheme. For example, it is not affected by displacement of journeys from one route to another.

Separately, it may be appropriate to set up monitoring of, for example, parallel or boundary routes if understanding how journeys are displaced is important and is potentially part of the scheme rationale (for example encouraging cyclists to use a safer route; moving through traffic from one route to another).

Further guidance about the design of impact evaluations can be found in the Magenta Book.

Measuring scheme improvements

Where a scheme is adapting existing infrastructure to improve it for active travel, there is a need to measure the degree to which the adaptation has achieved its goal. Different goals will need different data collection methods. For example, where the scheme is aiming to increase the safety of a cycle path through implementing new segregation, cycle path users need to be asked whether they feel safer. Other themes that should be considered include appeal, views on journey quality (previously termed ‘ambience’ in transport appraisal), journey times and ease of use.

The data collection methods for these are the same as for modal shifts (excluding the counting method).

Measuring vehicle flow

This is to understand the impact of reallocation of road space on total peak- period road capacity, vehicle journey times (including buses), traffic flows and any reductions in street parking capacity.

ATE only recommends this type of monitoring for schemes that involve substantial reallocation of road capacity from moving traffic (cars and buses) to pedestrian and cycle facilities (for example cycle tracks, wider pavements).

ATE recommends that the following options are considered on an individual basis. Not all will be appropriate or relevant for every scheme. The options include:

• manual classified counts during peak hours only (for example 8 to 9am) before, immediately after, and one year after scheme completion. These enable the total (all mode) peak-period capacity of the corridor to be estimated before and after the scheme has been installed. It may be efficient to combine these counts with 12-hour manual cycle counts (where these are already planned to monitor scheme usage)
• bus journey time and reliability statistics for bus routes affected by the scheme, if such data is already being routinely collected
• vehicle speed and journey time data for individual links, where this is readily available.
• traffic flow on roads bordering those where an intervention has been implemented, and traffic has been displaced to assess whether any changes in traffic flow patterns and traffic levels have been observed over time.

Implementing data collection

Across all data collection methods, data should be collected in neutral months. These are months not during school or university holidays. In terms of days of the week, Mondays and Fridays may also not be representative due to homeworking patterns and different flow or peak profiles.

It is important to consider the cost-effectiveness of different counting approaches and to select the options that are proportionate to the level of funding.

Automatic cycle counters

ACCs should be regularly checked to ensure they are working correctly (it is recommended that this is done every 3 months) to limit any gaps in the data series due to malfunctioning equipment. Missing values in the data series of individual counters should be investigated and interpolated.

Counters should remain in the same location and not be moved to a different area along the scheme.

Anomalous values or sudden shifts in counts should be investigated and explanations reported (e.g. road works, changes to layout of the cycle path, opening of new buildings). If interpolation or other adjustments are applied to the raw data, these should be noted and recorded.

Care should be taken to minimise the influence of external factors when reporting and interpreting the results (for example weather, temporary road works).

There are a number of ACC techniques available, including:

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) sensors, which are designed to capture highly accurate multimodal transport data, providing insights into speeds, movements, turning behaviours, near-miss incidents and traffic flow
• inductive loops, which consist of a coiled wire buried within the carriageway or cycle track (which can be bound or unbound surfaces) to create an electromagnetic field. When a bicycle crosses the field, its presence is recorded by the counter unit. This type of ACC has the advantages of being relatively inexpensive, low-maintenance and up to 95% accurate
• pneumatic tube counters, which are surface mounted and laid in pairs and can detect the presence of bicycles as well as the speed and direction of travel. The capital costs of installation are relatively low, but the associated maintenance costs can be high as they are subject to damage by vehicles. Pneumatic tubes tend to be used as a temporary count solution
• piezoelectric counters, which work by detecting the pressure exerted on an embedded strip by a passing bicycle. These counters are generally more expensive than inductive loops and are usually as accurate, but can be vulnerable to wear on the strip.
• radar detectors, which can provide good accuracy (over 90%) and detect cyclists within mixed traffic flows. However, the need to site them to avoid the risk of vandalisation can make data retrieval more difficult and hence more costly
• video observation, which tends to be a temporary, short-term approach to counting. Video cameras are installed on existing street infrastructure by survey companies. The observation data is converted to a count by the commissioned company

There remain a number of issues that affect the different designs and techniques to a greater or lesser extent. In particular, when installing ACCs you should take into account:

• when sited within the carriageway, ACCs can be triggered by passing vehicles unless they are sited where only cyclists may be expected to pass or trigger the counter, for example on the very near kerbside
• ACCs may be triggered by other road or pavement users, such as those using wheelchairs or mobility scooters
• ACCs can only record bicycles that pass within range or over them (in the case of loops)
• ACCs are unable to distinguish between single and groups of cyclists
• all ACCs require calibration and control sites to be monitored to establish the accuracy and robustness of counts

ACCs tend to work better on segregated facilities. However, as technologies improve, ACCs are becoming much more reliable in all settings. Consideration should be given to alternative routes for cyclists within the wider route corridor (for example footway or carriageway, desire lines and so on) during the analysis.

If ACCs are installed on a temporary basis, it is recommended to collect data for a minimum of 2 weeks per month. If monitoring is to be undertaken on a periodic repetitive basis, perhaps through the rotation of available counters around defined sites, it is essential that the data collection periods are the same in consecutive periods.

ACC data may be used to calculate total annual flows as well as the average (median) daily counts of cycles recorded at each counter location in each month of the time series (the Monthly Median Daily Total (MMDT)). Some methods for analysis of cycle flow data for individual schemes are set out in the cycle city ambition programme interim report.

Manual counts

Manual cycle and pedestrian count data may be collected to:

• provide an indication of the number of cyclists or pedestrians at a given point on a defined route
• validate ACC data. In this case, manual count data only needs to be collected for one day during a 12-hour period (7 to 7pm) and recorded hourly. This should be done on a neutral day (for example not a bank holiday)
• provide an indication of the changes in cycling for the same time period before and after scheme installation

Pre- and post-intervention manual cycle counts should take place in exactly the same location along the scheme, and at the same time of year approximately one year after scheme completion. Where possible, ensure that neutral months are used (for example not during school or university holidays), especially for commuting routes. Both manual counts should be taken on the same day of the week, or as close as possible.

Route User Intercept Surveys

Route User Intercept Surveys (RUIS), originally developed by Sustrans, are short interviews with cyclists undertaken on segregated cycle routes. Leaflets can also be handed out at sites with a link to an online survey for users to complete.

The data can be used to explore:

• factors influencing users’ decision to use the route
• demographic reach of an intervention
• change in trip type, length and destination patterns
• people who have changed their travel behaviour due to the scheme

Some methods for analysis of RUIS are set out in the cycle city ambition programme interim report.

RUIS can also easily be adapted to understand walking behaviour.

ACC or manual counts should be undertaken concurrently with RUIS to provide an estimate of the sample achieved at the site.

Seasonality should be considered, for example trying to avoid administering surveys in the winter months, as the weather impacts travel behaviour. Spring is the optimal time of year to administer surveys, and if spring is not possible then autumn or summer are the next preferred options.

Scheme usage can change depending on school, college or university term times. It is best to carry out surveys during neutral months, for example during term time.

When reporting, highlight the limitations of the approach. The survey will not be representative of all users. For example, as some users will choose not to complete surveys, there would be a self-selection sample bias in this instance.

Guidance on public opinion surveys can be requested from ATE, including example questions. Local authorities should consider drawing on these example questions to allow for comparison across schemes.

Business surveys

Employees of businesses near scheme sites can be surveyed to generate businesses’ views on how their staff and customers travel to them (particularly important for retail and hospitality) and any impacts on levels of patronage, mix of customer types, and typical spend levels.

Businesses can be contacted and asked to circulate a link to a survey.

When reporting, highlight the limitations of the approach. The survey will not be representative of all users, as not all users will be employees working nearby. In addition, respondents choose whether to complete the survey so there will be a self-selection sample bias.

Other methods

The number of times a pedestrian crossing is called within an hour can serve as a proxy for pedestrian flows and crossing demand. This data can be found from signal controller logs (where these are enabled) and is also easier if connected to an Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) system.

AI camera technology can also be used to measure cycle parking occupancy.

Monitoring and evaluation guidance

Collecting the data

Try and use existing data sources where possible.

Important consideration should be given to factors such as the time of year and contextual issues that could bias results, such as the weather or road works.

It is recommended that local authorities consult the Magenta Book, which offers guidance on how to decide what data to collect.

Timeframe for collecting the data

In order to track changes over time, the monitoring data needs to be collected before the scheme is built, if possible, or upon implementation (baseline) and at multiple points after building.

For schemes that are part of longer term network or area improvements, it may be necessary to provide data from before the COVID-19 pandemic (2020 to 2023) and account for its impact on journey patterns.

The data should be collected in a consistent and comparable fashion. The frequency of data collection will depend on the data sources available.

Having more data points available within the timeframe provides an increased opportunity to observe and understand changes over time. However, there needs to be a balance between frequency of data collection and a proportionate monitoring approach.

It may take some time for the full effect of a cycle scheme to be realised. Evidence from the Cycle City Ambition Programme and CWIS Active Travel Investment Model evidence review suggests cycle flows continue to build up after a new scheme is built for at least 2 years, and sometimes longer. It is therefore valuable to collect data over a timeframe of 1 to 3 years after scheme implementation.

Baseline data

Local authorities are encouraged to consider what data is available to set baselines. Where existing data sources are being used as part of the monitoring and evaluation, historic time series are valuable and should be reported.

Confounding variables

Aside from ATF scheme investment, there are many factors that may affect observed changes in travel behaviour (for example a road closure or weather conditions). These factors should be taken into account where possible in the planning of data collection and, if relevant, confounding factors should be recorded to give context to reported results.

Other funded schemes (funded by, for example, the Transforming City Fund, City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements or Levelling Up Fund) may also be built in the area at the same time as the ATF scheme. These could affect overall cycling levels in the area. These should be included in the reporting of the findings to provide context.

Data validation

Where possible, multiple data sources should be used to validate each other and provide greater confidence in the reliability of data or flag up issues with a specific data source. For example, evidence from manual counts may be cross-checked against evidence from ACC data.

Other monitoring and evaluation evidence of interest

This guidance is focused on the monitoring data that local authorities should collect in order to feed into a national evaluation of the effectiveness of the ATF.

However, some local authorities may also wish to undertake their own evaluation activities. If you do so, some topics that you may wish to consider are listed.

To reiterate, you are not required by ATE to collect and evaluate data to answer these questions. But if you do so, ATE will be interested in your findings.

Process evaluation

When evaluating process, you should ask:

1. Was the scheme built as designed?
2. What worked well and less well and why in terms of planning and delivering the scheme?
3. Were there any safety concerns in the existing corridor or junction? If so, did the cycling improvement scheme successfully address the issue?

Impact evaluation

When evaluating impact, you should ask:

1. What is the demographic of users?  
2. To what extent are people with different protected characteristics and underrepresented groups using the scheme?  
3. To what extent are people who previously had low levels of physical inactivity using the scheme?This is to understand whether the scheme is disproportionately being used by one type of demographic and help identify any potential barriers or accessibility concerns held by people from different backgrounds. Tthis information can be collected through user intercept surveys.
4. What is the journey type of users? This provides more detail on what the scheme is being used for. This can be collected through user intercept surveys.
5. What are users’ attitudes towards the scheme, for example safety? This is useful to understand as an aim of this funding is to make walking, wheeling and cycling safer.
6. What is the effect on others? For example, on disabled people, freight deliveries, buses and emergency vehicles.

Value for money

What was the final value for money of the scheme?

This is informed by an assessment of uplift in walking, wheeling and cycling that draws on the analysis of counts or observed data collected before scheme implementation, and at the same time of year approximately one year after scheme completion.

Local authorities should also be prepared to re-run AMAT assessments to understand the actuals in terms of costs and so on.

As part of the national evaluation, the evaluator may re-run AMAT assessments using information on final scheme costs to determine actual end-result value for money and to update the initial uplift assessment.

ATE is interested in developing a more sophisticated understanding of the benefit cost ratios of different scheme types in different contexts to improve future versions of AMAT, and would welcome local M&E evidence to support this.

Footnotes

1. A screenline is a line that a counter draws across a path or roadway. Pedestrians and cyclists are counted when they cross this line. A cordon presents an area or a line network made up of a number of screenlines that completely enclose a specific area or district. ↩