Guidance

Guidance note for local authorities to support completion of the active travel fund 4 proforma

Published 10 March 2023

Applies to England

Overall objectives for the fund

The overall investment objectives of active travel fund 4 (ATF4) are to:

• create a local authority capital investment programme that optimises delivery of 2025 and 2030 objectives, as set out in the statutory cycling and walking investment strategy (CWIS 2):

  • 50% of short urban trips in England to be walked, wheeled or cycled by 2030
  • increase active travel from 41% in 2018 to 46% of short urban trips by 2025
  • increase walking to 365 stages per person per year by 2025
  • increase cycling from 0.8 billion stages in 2013 to 1.6 billion stages in 2025
  • 55% of primary school-aged children to walk to school by 2025
• align investment with Gear Change and wider government objectives, including local growth and productivity, tackling public health issues, decarbonisation, levelling up and cost of living challenges
• increase participation in active travel amongst underrepresented groups

In order to deliver these objectives, Active Travel England (ATE) will:

• provide sustained funding linked to national design standards, with design assurance demonstrated before schemes are designed and built
• ensure the majority of investment is focused on authorities with high capability, defined by the authority self-assessment tier, and on schemes that can convert high volumes of journeys to walking, wheeling and cycling relative to the cost of the scheme and needs of the local area (urban and rural)
• fund capital measures that are proportionate to local authority capability and suitable to the local area
• support authorities in monitoring and evaluating schemes to demonstrate, and build evidence of, how schemes are contributing to the 2030 cycling and walking objectives

Scope of funding offered

Capital funding

Authorities will be provided with indicative capital funding ranges based on levels of capability. You are encouraged to bid for up to 300% of this allocation as pipeline information will be taken into consideration for any future funding rounds. Exceptionally strong bids may be eligible to attract funding above the indicative allocation. Authorities are invited to bid for either scheme ‘construction’, for projects to be built out over the next 12 months, or scheme ‘development’ for construction in later years.

Revenue funding

Revenue funding will be provided in proportion to agreed capital schemes (up to 5% of capital funding). This does not require a separate bid.

Key ATF4 funding principles

All schemes must comply with Manual for streets, Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20) and the DfT’s inclusive mobility guidance. Authorities will be required to show that their designs consider a range of users. For example, we expect to see schemes which enable women to feel safer and more confident in using active travel modes.

All authorities are to undertake network planning to inform prioritisation of schemes, in the form of local cycling and walking infrastructure plans (LCWIPs) or similar local strategies.

All schemes must be developed in consultation with local communities, in line with responsibilities under existing legislation (Public Sector Equality Duty and Road Traffic Regulation Act) and the Transport Secretary’s letter of 2020. This will enable a range of views to be considered and given due regard.

All schemes must be supported by local authority leaders and have appropriate design review and assurance, to be managed by ATE.

ATE has developed a change control process that you must commit to should timelines slip, costs increase, infrastructure assets be changed or realignment take place on any schemes in your bid.

ATF4 funding is split into two streams: construction funding and development funding.

Construction funding

Construction funding is for schemes that are ready for delivery within the next 12 months. They may have been developed in previous years, or have been unsuccessful in previous funding rounds, but are ready to construct and still offer good value for money. Construction ready schemes should be evidenced with detailed designs, accurate fees, and a robust delivery timeline.

Development funding

Development funding is for schemes that are at an earlier stage. They may be complex and require extensive modelling and/or consultation. They may also not be sufficiently developed for you to offer assurance on exact timelines. We recommend that you are realistic about construction timelines and apply for the most relevant funding pot.

The proforma should be completed in full for both construction and development projects. Where it is being completed for a development scheme the questions should be answered in relation to the scheme which will be constructed. For instance, where delivery metrics are requested, these will be anticipated or predicted for the final constructed scheme. We expect that delivery metrics will be refined as schemes move towards the construction phase in later years.

The development activities, bids for future funding, and subsequent design reviews, will be used to refine and agree scheme outputs. Future construction funding is not guaranteed for schemes that are provided with development funding. Further information on future funding rounds and the process for releasing any future construction funding will be provided once future budgets are fully understood.

Strategic case for investment

What we want to see in the proforma

Evidence should be provided that sets out how the proposed capital initiatives support the objectives of the fund as well as deliver your local strategic objectives.

Connections may be made to the following local authority policy priorities:

• transport connectivity and integration
• sustainable local development
• air quality and other environmental benefits
• carbon
• health and wellbeing
• tackling deprivation and support local growth and employment
• tackling cost of living

References may be made to how proposed initiatives align with the objectives of the fund, including:

• supporting the objectives set out in the second cycling and walking strategy:
  • to increase the percentage of short journeys in towns and cities that are walked, wheeled or cycled
  • to increase walking and cycling and to increase the percentage of 5 to 10 year-olds who usually walk to school
• increasing participation from under-represented groups
• strong linkages to national design standards, with appropriate local assurance
• investment focused in areas (for example, constituent boroughs) with high capability, routes that are cost effective in converting journeys to walking, wheeling and cycling relative to the needs of the local area (urban and rural)
• how revenue schemes will help to activate active travel infrastructure
• capital measures that are proportionate and suitable to the local capability - see the section of this guidance on Types of infrastructure
• monitoring and evaluating schemes to demonstrate, and build evidence of, how schemes are increasing walking, wheeling, and cycling

Why this is important to us

ATE needs to test alignment of overall funding proposals against the objectives of the fund to maximise value for money and meet minimum quality standards. We also seek to maximise the impact on a range of wider government objectives so that complementary priorities are delivered through this investment.

Cost of scheme

What we want to see in the proforma

This field in the proforma should detail the estimated financial cost (EFC) of the scheme as in previous years. The EFC should be the total of the base cost of the project and the risk allowance, proportionate to the maturity of the scheme. Total cost should be benchmarked against equivalent schemes (further detail can be found in the ATE cost benchmarking guidance). The pro-forma should detail the single total amount of funding being bid for in ATF4 (that is, a single figure no greater than 300% of your authority’s indicative allocation). A table detailing individual project costs to be included in the bid has been included in the proforma.

When completing the scheme cost table, please consider design fees, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and contingency. We would encourage authorities to provide values for all cost lines where possible, even where these costs are attributed on an indicative basis.

Separate bids for engagement, consultation, project management or monitoring and evaluation will not be considered. Scheme costs should also include funding for monitoring and evaluation activities in line with the guidance provided in the section of this guidance on monitoring and evaluation.

When completing funding info, construction schemes should include just the 2022 to 2023 funding required to deliver the scheme. Development schemes should include funding required to develop the scheme in 2022 to 2023 and the projected cost to construct the scheme in future years.

Why this is important to us

Scheme cost is a key metric in assessing the value for money of bids. Whilst there will be no minimum bid cost, we ask that schemes costing below £100,000 be aggregated into a package of interventions. These should be themed (that is, a programme of crossings, or a programme of school streets, which can be assessed, funded and evaluated as one scheme). This will assist with the efficiency of the bid assessment process.

Value for money

What we want to see in the proforma

The recommended approach to assessing value for money (VfM) is using the active mode appraisal toolkit (AMAT). A VfM assessment using AMAT is required for all schemes above £750,000 where AMAT can provide a reasonable assessment of VfM. AMAT is recommended for other schemes but should be proportionate to the scheme type and cost. Where schemes do not make use of AMAT, cost effectiveness information should be provided along with any other supporting evidence that can inform VfM. For more information, including which approach may be best for your bid, please refer to VfM guidance.

Why this is important to us

We must ensure schemes provide good VfM for the taxpayer and our investment is targeted to where it can be effective at increasing active travel across the country. Medium VfM is expected for active travel programmes (with a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) between 1.5 and 2 where this is estimated) and we would expect most schemes to offer Medium or High VfM (BCR>2). However, we appreciate that schemes with high strategic importance, network effects or high complexity may have a BCR below this range. This will not disqualify a scheme from funding; however, we would expect to see a strong rationale justifying the inclusion of a scheme with low VfM (BCR between 1 and 1.5).

To note: high quality cycling schemes that conform to ATE quality standards may struggle to reach medium or high VfM. It is therefore recommended that schemes of this type demonstrate benefits to people walking as well.

Justification

What we want to see in the proforma

You are also asked to provide a bid priority number for each scheme included in your bid. This should represent the position of each scheme in a ranked list with 1 being the highest priority for funding. This will allow ATE to view your individual schemes from a programme viewpoint to assist with funding decisions.

The capability to deliver complex schemes varies across authorities, however worthwhile schemes will be funded to willing authorities with a sufficient level of capability. To maximise the potential for your schemes to receive funding, your schemes should reflect the capability of your authority to deliver, in line with the capability rating provided to you by ATE. Some ‘stretching’ schemes are welcomed, particularly as part of phased scheme delivery.

Why this is important to us

ATE is a new executive agency established to deliver on the government’s ambitious active travel goals. We are encouraging bids that meet the criteria as set out in the proforma. Bids for schemes outside the criteria in the proforma will still be considered where sufficient justification can be provided to demonstrate their ability to provide network level benefits. Evidence of why a scheme is being prioritised for funding, for example, its strategic importance to the wider network, will increase the chance that schemes will be supported.

Description and location

What we want to see in the proforma

Answer the questions in the form to provide an accurate and succinct overview of what the scheme will deliver, the locations of intervention or multiple interventions that make-up the scheme and its location.

Please upload a plain text file with a .txt extension (for example, called “York_scheme1.txt” for a scheme in York) to show where the interventions that make up each scheme are located. The .txt file must contain data in GeoJSON format, an open standard used in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) such as QGIS. Publicly available online tools are available to create GeoJSON files for free, such as atip.uk, Felt.com or GeoJSON.io.

ATE recommends using the Active Travel infrastructure platform (ATIP) v1 tool hosted at atip.uk. It allows you to navigate to your authority and rapidly sketch routes, areas or points representing interventions. A brief description of each intervention can be added, along with the name of the scheme.

After you have finished sketching the intervention, or multiple interventions, that make up your scheme, click “Export to GeoJSON” and save the file on your computer as a .txt file. Note: ATIP returns files with the .txt extension by default. You will need to change the file format of files generated by other tools.

Upload the file by clicking the Upload button in the survey form. There is an instructions button in the top left corner of the tool and explanatory videos have been sent directly to local authorities to help with this.

Note: we are asking for a high-level overview of geographic location of the key interventions within each scheme, not for detailed geographic data. For example, it is not necessary to provide detail of each modal filter or bollard included within a scheme.

For a scheme including a route composed of multiple interventions, an overview of the affected traffic management area and the route outline would be sufficient, for example. This level of detail, which should take no more than around 20-30 minutes per scheme, is sufficient to communicate the location of the scheme.

Why this is important to us

This section of the proforma complements the Scheme justification section and should articulate the ‘what’ following on from why a scheme has been prioritised. This will allow assessments to be made that ensure that funded and delivered schemes deliver on the strategic vision of the fund. Some schemes in earlier tranches may not have attracted funding due to vague descriptions making it difficult to judge whether the scheme is of a category of sufficient ambition to attract funding. Accurate descriptions and location data aid with judging whether a scheme should be supported and will help mapping and tracking schemes going forward.

Type of scheme and outputs - for example, miles delivered, racks installed

What we want to see in the proforma

With reference to the previous section on scheme type/description, this section should detail the specific outputs for any given scheme type. For example, what will be delivered (for instance, miles of new infrastructure) but also data on outputs regarding walking, wheeling and/or cycling journeys your proposed scheme will generate. Dropdown menus for scheme types and sub-menus for all of the metrics we wish to collect are provided in the proforma.

This is essential information to ensure that schemes are not only high quality, but provide a tangible benefit to the local area, as well as delivering on government objectives. We appreciate that this information may not be readily available dependent on the level of development of the scheme at the time of bid. Therefore, responses should be proportionate to this and justifiable based on the evidence available.

It is a condition of funding that monitoring data is collected for feeding back to ATE. ATE will collect monitoring data at regular intervals to understand the progress of schemes, further information regarding the future scheduling of monitoring commissions will be published in due course. This monitoring data will also be used for evaluation purposes. The monitoring form will follow a similar format to ATF2 and ATF3 monitoring form. See the section of this guidance on monitoring and evaluation.

Why this is important to us

Having clearly defined outputs from funding provided will help us measure success and make the case for continued investment in the right types of infrastructure, in the right places. It will also help us to aggregate up outputs of our investment to demonstrate what has been delivered in each area.

Delivery dates

What we want to see in the proforma

Scheme construction dates should be set out per project being delivered. The project timeline should detail all major project milestones from receipt of funding through to scheme completion. At a minimum this should include:

• consultation
• feasibility and design
• design review gates (in line with supplementary design stage gate information)
• scheme construction
• the date the scheme will be open for public use

Authorities may also want to include any complementary activation (behaviour change) measures linked to this scheme within the timeline.

To note: timeline information should be as accurate as possible at the time of bid submission, however where definitive dates are not available, please provide an estimated date that each milestone will be achieved, as this information is crucial for programme planning and management.

Why this is important to us

Timeline information is a key delivery metric and is vital to effective monitoring of the funds provided by ATE. It is important to provide information that is as accurate as possible at the bid stage as alterations to delivery timelines will be required to go through a change control process and timely delivery of ATF4 capital schemes will be considered when assessing local authority capability in the future.

Design information, including cross section tool analysis if appropriate

What we want to see in the proforma

ATE would like assurance at the bid stage that the proposed scheme will be able to be delivered in line with relevant design guidance including Manual for streets and Cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20). We therefore ask that some preliminary checks are carried out to ensure that it is possible to implement the proposed scheme in the proposed location considering the local environment, including factors such as current road widths, pathway obstructions and pinch points.

ATE has produced design tools specifically for this purpose which will be used in the assessment process and at design ‘stage gate’ reviews. These will be provided as part of the commissioning pack for use in this process by local authorities. However, alternative means of demonstrating compliance will also be accepted.

While not essential, we would also encourage the submission of scheme design information proportionate to the development stage of the scheme, and in line with the design stages outlined in the design stage gate supplementary information, as an annex to your bid submission. This will assist in expediting design reviews for funded schemes.

Why this is important to us

These tools can be used to test whether a desired layout is feasible along the length of the proposed route. This saves both time and money from the process if desired quality standards are quickly assessed using this technique. This is useful where context and demand for space from other users varies along a proposed route.

Overall, this provides a sense check that major constraints along a route have been considered prior to funding being allocated to a scheme.

Equality approach

What we want to see in the proforma

Please provide evidence that you have suitable plans in place to deliver the scheme in line with DfT accessibility guidance.

This should include a plan to engage and consult as appropriate with representatives of people with protected characteristics who may be impacted by the scheme. For example, we expect to see schemes which enable women to feel safer and more confident in using active travel modes.

Evidence of how the authority is doing this with existing schemes will be valuable to support a narrative of how it intends to do so. This should also demonstrate that engagement and consultation is not only broad but actively engages with harder to reach groups and stakeholders. There should be clear plans for remaining consultation activities, including as part of ongoing/long term development of network plans and LCWIPs.

Why this is important to us

Schemes should comply with inclusive mobility guidance. A plan for comprehensive engagement provides reassurance that an authority is mindful of its legal duties and will attempt to ‘land’ schemes as effectively as possible.

Assessment criteria and scoring process, including thresholds

Purpose of this guidance note

All bids will initially be checked for eligibility against the agreed scheme types and minimum design standards. Eligible bids will then be assessed against a set of agreed criteria including:

• compliance with key principles
• design quality and safety as defined by the ATE inspection tools
• value for money as defined by the guidance provided alongside this note
• deliverability based on past record and evidence of robust construction scheduling
• propensity to convert short journeys to walking, wheeling, and cycling based on LCWIP data or the propensity to cycle tool
• tackling areas with poor health outcomes and with high levels of deprivation, as defined by the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and healthy life expectancy (HLE)

Schemes prioritised by local authorities within their proposed funding allocation will be funded if they meet minimum scoring thresholds. Where these are not met, funding will be recycled and provided to remaining unfunded schemes with the highest scores.

However, we aim to take a proportionate approach to the assessments and understand that there may be exceptions where schemes that do not meet the prescribed criteria are nonetheless necessary to deliver network benefits described in local network plans. Where this is the case, we would expect to see clear and well evidenced justifications for why ‘non-compliant’ schemes have been prioritised and this will be considered when assessing bids.

Why this is important to us

ATE’s ambition is to deliver maximal active travel benefits across the country, and it is important that bids reflect this. We also wish to give authorities the best possible chance of producing high quality bids, through providing a clear direction on priority scheme types and the evidence required to support them.

Monitoring and evaluation

ATE is building on the department’s evaluation programme to generate evidence on the delivery and impact of active travel schemes.

To improve the quality and consistency of evidence generated, the department is undertaking a much larger piece of work that seeks to understand what data is being collected across local transport for monitoring and evaluation purposes, and how this can be streamlined. For example, streamlining what metrics are collected across active travel to evaluate increases in cycling rates. The initial phase of this work will be complete in early 2023 and will feed into the development of an active travel framework and revised monitoring and evaluation guidance to be disseminated in early 2023, before ATF4 projects commence.

Monitoring

Authorities will be expected to provide monitoring data to ATE at regular intervals (either quarterly or every 6 months) to enable progress to be tracked. The monitoring form will follow a similar format to the ATF2 and ATF3 monitoring form, including details of budget spent, project status and miles/number of schemes constructed. Providing this monitoring data is a condition of funding and will likely also be shared with the department.

Evaluation

Implementing high quality evaluation can be challenging and needs to be thought about from the start. Authorities are encouraged to carry out an evaluation of their active travel schemes, especially where schemes are high in cost, larger scale or particularly innovative. See the government’s guidance on evaluation for further information. Authorities are encouraged to consider all forms of evaluation, including impact, process and value for money evaluation.

Any evaluation costs must be included within ATF4 bids (see Scheme cost section). This can include for example, costs associated with appointing an evaluation partner, purchasing automatic cycle counters, primary data collection, management and processing of data.

Impact evaluation

In terms of impact evaluation, the use of a counterfactual is considered best practice. In the case of active travel infrastructure, this involves:

• Collecting data on cycling and walking rates (1) where the scheme is being built and (2) a comparison site, where no new scheme is being built. This data can be collected in a variety of ways (for example, sensors, manual counts and/or road user intercept surveys).
• Collecting count data before the scheme is built both locations. This is called baseline data collection. After the scheme is built, authorities will collect another round of count data at both sites.

Consideration should also need to be given to whether wider counts will be required (for example, where schemes involve larger network changes and/or where the evaluation will need to ensure traffic is not just displaced to another location).

This impact evaluation approach will enable an assessment of cycling and walking rates – in addition to other factors (for example, changes in local traffic) – before and after a scheme is implemented. By assessing the differences observed at intervention and comparison site, this will enable any impacts to be attributed to the intervention itself, as opposed to other factors occurring within the local area. Using a counterfactual approach is not always possible or appropriate, and authorities should consider other using other methods where appropriate (including pre and post methods).

Where authorities have installed automated traffic counters, they will be expected to share count data with ATE and the department for monitoring and evaluation purposes. Authorities will also be expected to continue collecting data once the monitoring and evaluation programme has finished to continue to learn how the network is being used and the longer-term impacts. If using sensors, authorities will need to include costs associated with setting up and/or utilising an existing application programming interface (API).

Other data collection

To deliver high quality evidence, authorities may also be required to conduct additional data. For example:

• conduct road user intercept surveys (RUISs) to understand who is using the new infrastructure and why
• undertake qualitative research, including case studies or travel diaries to better understand users and non-users, or local residents/businesses
• use and/or facilitate access to any local data sources that could help with the evaluation, including relevant evidence collected through consultations

National evaluation of active travel funding

The evaluation of ATF4 will likely adopt a similar approach to the ATF2 evaluation, where a sub-set of authorities have worked with the evaluation contractor to implement a robust impact evaluation. This will likely follow the approach outlined above (using automatic traffic counts to collect data at the site and a comparison site).

The national evaluation partner will be responsible for analysing this data, but selected authority will be expected to collaborate (for example, to install sensors or share data). The national evaluator will provide more tailored support to this sub-set of authorities included within the national evaluation, including supporting the selection of an appropriate comparison site where sensors will also need to be installed to enable robust evaluation. This selection will be done after funding is awarded.

Types of infrastructure

This section sets out the categories and sub categories of infrastructure interventions and how they will be measured.

New segregated cycling facility

Segregated cycle route types and LTN 1/20 reference.

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
High complexity	Urban, high density, complex junctions, side roads	Miles of cycle route, number of junctions
Medium complexity	Suburban, medium density, fewer junctions/turning movements	Miles of cycle route, number of junctions
Low complexity	Out of town location, low density, few/no junctions	Miles of cycle route, number of junctions

New junction treatment

Junction approaches and LTN 1/20 reference.

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
High complexity	Separation in time and space for all active travel movements, protected junctions.	Junctions treated
Medium complexity	Protection of key movements for walking and cycling across a junction.	Junctions treated
Low complexity	Minor advantages to enable defensive positioning.	Junctions treated

New permanent footway

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
High complexity	Large-scale town centre pedestrianisation including area-wide traffic and car parking removal	Miles of footway
Medium complexity	Conversion of carriageway to footway on a medium to large scale	Miles of footway
Low complexity	Addressing severance in existing walking routes	Miles of footway

New shared use (walking and cycling) facilities

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
Medium complexity	Provision of a traffic-free rural or suburban route linking settlements as an alternative to hostile road conditions.	Miles
Low complexity	An off-road route for example through parks or green spaces. Schemes should connect settlements and/or tackle severance in walking/cycling networks	Miles

Improvements to make an existing walking/cycle route safer

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
Medium/high complexity	Use of permanent kerbs, side road treatments, junction improvements for walking/cycling	Miles of improved walking or cycle route, number of improved junctions
Low complexity	Installation of infrastructure (for example, wands), or changes to speed limits to improve conditions for walking and cycling.	Miles of improved walking or cycle route, number of improved junctions

Area-wide traffic management (including by TROs (both permanent and experimental))

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
High complexity	Large scale, area-wide traffic management in a highly populated/town centre location OR very large scale fast/heavy traffic management in rural ‘quiet lanes’	Size of area improved for walking/cycling
Medium complexity	Area-wide through traffic management on a smaller/less ambitious scale, including smaller town centres.	Size of area improved for walking/cycling
Low complexity	Modal filtering that is not part of an area-wide scheme	Size of area improved for walking/cycling

Bus priority measures that also enable active travel (for example, bus gates)

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
Medium complexity	A bus priority measure that significantly improves conditions for walking and cycling as a result (for example, as a result of the bus gate, x miles of road is now suitable for cycling in mixed traffic as described at table 4.1 LTN1/20).	Miles of road improved for walking/cycling

Provision of secure cycle parking facilities

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
Medium complexity	Large-scale provision of free and publicly accessible on-street cycle parking or secure parking at schools/workplaces/hospitals/transport interchanges	Number of parking spaces
Low complexity	Sheffield/Hornsey stands or similar in public places	Number of parking spaces

New road crossings

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
Low complexity	Crossing addresses a severance issue and will create a continuous walking/cycling route (for example, new signalised crossing of a main road between LTN cells)	Number of new road crossings
Low complexity	For example, introducing a pedestrian phase on existing signalised crossing, side road treatments, only if part of high propensity walking route	Number of new road crossings

Restriction or reduction of car parking availability

For example, controlled parking zones. Usually only as a component of other schemes.

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
Low complexity	Introduction of a controlled parking zone in a way that will specifically be of benefit to walking and cycling, including as part of wider scheme proposals for an area. Examples might include the elimination of pavement parking to improve walking connectivity, or as a complimentary traffic management measure to reduce overall number of car parking spaces and/or reduce commuter parking in residential areas (for example, close to destinations such as shops/NHS sites/transport interchanges).	Miles of footway made accessible, number of parking spaces removed

School streets

Sub-category - should reflect the challenge of delivery from both a technical and political perspective	What does this scheme sub-category look like?	How will this be measured?
Low complexity	Timed restriction of motor vehicle access to a road or roads outside or close to a school, including in rural areas	Number of school streets