On 10 February RTPI Cymru responded to the Active Travel Act Guidance (ATAG) 2026 consultation. Read the response below.

RTPI Cymru recognises that Active Travel is a key component of ‘liveable’ communities, and the prevalence of motorised transport presents a continuing challenge to planners and other built environment professionals seeking to create healthy and sustainable places. Therefore, RTPI Cymru welcomes this review of the Active Travel Act Guidance in particular the addition of the placemaking chapter which brings a strong foundational guidance for achieving placemaking goals in active travel developments.

RTPI Cymru has long called for stronger links to be made between policy areas including planning, flooding, transport and connectivity, and energy if we are to adapt to climate change. The latest Wales Infrastructure Investment Strategy (WIIS) 2021 also supports progress in this area, including a section on placemaking. We very much hope these important documents set a standard for further integration, not only in relation to outcomes on the ground, but future iterations of the WIIS and all plans, strategies and guidance, including regional and local plans.

While we support this review, we remain concerned regarding capacity and resources in the system to deliver Active Travel ambitions. Time and support are required to deliver Active Travel ambitions on the ground.

Our response to the consultation questions is set out below.

Question 1A): Design Elements DE401 (p.436), DE403 (p.442) and DE504 (p. 454) introduce a decision tree to support the assessment of shared use surfaces being appropriate for the local circumstances. This is intended to reduce instances of the incorrect use of shared use paths. Do you find this helpful?

Please provide any additional information in the box below

Yes

Question 1B): A revised Table 11.5 (p.178) guides designers to provide greater widths where numbers of people cycling is between 100 and 200 per hour.

It suggests full separation for situations where more than 300 people cycling per hour are expected. This is intended to improve the user experience on shared use paths. Do you think this will be effective? 

Please provide any additional information in the box below

Please give your reasons

Yes, the rise in bike usage – with the rise of food delivery services and the results of recent policy and investment - needs to be correctly accommodated without hindering the experience of walking or disabled pedestrians.

Question 2: Design Element 605 (p.471) and Sections 12.5.15 – 12.5.17 (p.210-211) have been updated, and now include tactile paving.

The changes proposed to blended side road entry treatments are intended to have a positive impact on accessibility and user experience, compared to the previous 2021 guidance. Do you support these changes?

Yes, these steps are very inclusive

Question 3A): We have included new guidance on aligning cycle facilities away from bus-routes wherever possible to reduce the number of locations where cycle track continuation at bus stops will be required. Do you think that the proposed changes are an improvement on the previous 2021 guidance?

Yes, buses overtaking cyclists comes at a huge risk. Bus stops tend to accumulate large groups of people so keeping bus lines and cycle lines as separated as possible is ideal.

Question 3B): We have made amendments to section 11.31(p.189) and DE502, 503 and 504 to help reduce the risk and severity of collisions, where cycle track continuation at bus stops is required.

Do you support these changes compared to the previous 2021 guidance?

Please give your reasons

There needs to be safe and designated accessibility to the bus stop island for pedestrians. Whilst, this may interfere the continuity of the cycle path it will be safer for pedestrians if they are considered at the top of the hierarchy within transport developments.

Question 3C: Are there any other alternative arrangements for cycle track continuity at bus stops that should be added to the guidance?

As mentioned in the question above, a measure to mark the crossing for pedestrians on to the bus stop island, highlighting pedestrian priority.

Question 4A): Figures G1, G2 and G3 introduce a decision tree to support the assessment of shared use surfaces being appropriate for the local circumstances. Would you like to see more decision trees for other themes of the document in future revisions?

Yes, decision trees are a good concept to make the best choices in many scenarios when investigating complex transport lines and systems.

Question 4B): ‘Table 11.1 Cycle provision on links’ (p.162) and ‘Table 12.1 Suitable crossings for speed/vehicle flows’ (p.207) have been updated. The intention is to improve accessibility, user experience and deliverability in real world scenarios. Do think that the changes proposed will on balance have a positive impact, compared to the previous 2021 guidance?

Yes, Table 11.1 and Table 12.1 shows a very clear and easy to understand guideline for cycle paths, the colour coding. For example removing the gradient change, and overall display of the tables are far more clear and direct than the 2021 guidance.

Question 4C): ‘Table 9.9: Cycle route type and desirable/absolute minimum widths’ (p.130) and Table 11.1: Cycle provision on links (p.161) have been updated. The intention is to improve accessibility, user experience and deliverability in real world scenarios. Do think that the changes proposed on path widths and cycle link provision will on balance have a positive impact, compared to the previous 2021 guidance?

In general, yes. The removal of the mid band width in table 11.1 and suggesting all >250 peak hour cycle flow should have a desirable width of 2.5 metres will enhance user experience. Whilst this is just a desirable width and the absolute minimum hasn't changed then this shouldn't impact accessibility and real-world delivery too much, some councils may feel pressured to meet the desirable width and it may limit the opportunity for more cycle lanes. However, it is also may be viewed as a possible tool for ambition that doesn’t add constraints, increasing standards is a good thing overall and increases the accessibility of bikes and other non-motorised vehicles.

Question 4D): Appendix H (route audits) was revised, and a new Appendix L, Decision Log, was introduced. These revisions and the new Appendix L are intended to better support people planning, designing and using new active travel schemes. Do you think that these appendices are an improvement compared to the previous 2021 guidance?

No comment

Question 5A): The updates made to this guidance pdf document are intended to improve document accessibility to an acceptable standard. Are you satisfied that this is sufficient?

No comment

Question 5B): One of the key updates to the language used is clarifying throughout the document that active travel includes walking, wheeling, and cycling, along with more inclusive language, designing for diverse users, and highlighting the needs of women, girls, and vulnerable road users. 

Do you agree that these updates support inclusive participation in walking, wheeling and cycling?

Yes, changes of terms are positive and inclusive for example moving on from using the term ‘walkers’ for all pedestrians.

Question 6: For this updated guidance we have included a new chapter on placemaking; Chapter 8 (p.85-101) Does this meet your expectations and requirements for this guidance to enable the development and delivery of high-quality schemes meeting multiple placemaking objectives?

Broadly yes, the inclusion of the Placemaking Wales Charter and explaining the role of Local Placemaking Plans, provides strong policy context for decision making. The focus on ‘Play’ is really strong and will be unique to Welsh guidance. The four key focuses also come with good details and questions to developers to ensure that placemaking objectives are made and the case studies are useful examples to showcase policy principles in application.

Whilst the four key focuses have well developed points, not all factors of placemaking are mentioned such as cultural identity. Mix of uses is mentioned but only briefly. So overall, while it provides a good foundational guide to most but not all placemaking objectives there are some gaps that may need to be filled by other documents.

Question 7: What, in your opinion, would be the likely effects of the proposed updates to Active Travel Act Guidance on the Welsh language? We are particularly interested in any likely effects on opportunities to use the Welsh language and on not treating the Welsh language less favourably than English. 

Do you think that there are opportunities to promote any positive effects?

Do you think that there are opportunities to mitigate any adverse effects?

Please provide any information in the box below

There is strong potential to create positive aspects for Welsh language, but the updated guidance isn’t forceful enough in this case. For example, naming items e.g. places, roads, terms with Welsh names. Placemaking holds a strong opportunity to foster the Welsh language by creating those areas. We must ensure equal priority in signage, maps and digital tools to support intergenerational use of Welsh language transmission.

In your opinion, could the proposed updates to Active Travel Act Guidance be formulated or changed to:

- have positive effects or more positive effects on using the Welsh language and on not treating the Welsh language less favourably than English; or 

- mitigate any negative effects on using the Welsh language and on not treating the Welsh language less favourably than English?

 Please provide any information in the box below

Make bilingual provision mandatory and meaningful, integrated from day one and not later. Engage with Welsh speaking communities early, so that the value of Welsh language and culture is properly included.

We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them:

Further rural proofing is required, supported by realism in what can be achieved in rural areas.

It is important that TfW continues to be supported and well-equipped to support the delivery of Active Travel. An important issue to address is the relationship between TfW and CJCs. It is vital that this relationship is clear to all stakeholders and TfW’s capacity and skills in this area are utilised by the CJCs not replaced or duplicated.

Longer term certainty over funding is essential to ensure schemes can progress with confidence. There is a lack of revenue funding to maintain Active Travel networks in the longer term. Linked to this, Active Travel routes must secure SuDS Approval Body (SAB) 

approval, a complicated process that has additional maintenance costs and where routes are passing through existing built up areas, practical solutions can be challenging.

Behaviour change is currently under funded and under recognised and yet forms a significant part of the requirements of delivering the Act. Much more emphasis is needed on behavioural change. This goes beyond what can be delivered on the ground and includes partnership working across the sectors including Government, communities, businesses, educators, the health sector etc. The Wales Centre for Behaviour Change and other institutes could be a useful stakeholder to engage with. More should be done in wider areas, to support behaviour change - e.g. car sharing, workplace travel planning etc, which we are starting to see come through in draft RTPs currently out to consultation across Wales, which should be supported. Regional and national coordination of skills and expertise assisted by local consultation and delivery will be key to turning policy into practice and delivery. The RTPI Cymru Living Locally report sought to discuss some of the issues in respect of rural areas. A further gap in the delivery of culture change is the traditional approach taken by some Local Authority Highway Departments, for example, the over-engineering of roads and a reluctance to agree reduced parking requirements in sustainable locations. Elected members also have a role to play in this respect, in recognising the wider impacts of their decision-making and communicating national policy with local communities.

RTPI Cymru asks to improve the monitoring and evaluation for enhanced data collection through a new National Travel Survey. Data collection and monitoring is important to evaluate schemes and provide a feedback loop that can inform future provision and delivery. Sophisticated technology exists to capture movement patterns and travel modes, however it is often prohibitively expensive and data is not shared. Support for monitoring and evaluation is essential, including funding, and a long-term vision is required. 

Measurements could include:

• Mode shift data
• Road safety statistics
• Public attitude

Guidance should clarify who is responsible for ensuring schemes are delivered as intended.