Words vs Wheels: Why Kirklees Needs to Fund Cycling Properly
Last weekend we were working with EPIKS and Walk Wheel Ride Kirklees to film cycling routes in and out of Huddersfield Town Centre. The aim is to create a series of videos to help new cyclists find the safest routes. As part of the initial route finding we worked on routes out to the Birkby/Bradley Greenway, Longroyd Bridge, and Lockwood Spa.
Despite changes a couple of years ago to cycle infrastructure on Leeds Road, Huddersfield’s ring road still exists as a significant barrier to people wishing to travel by bicycle in and around Huddersfield. Promised improvements in the direction of St John’s Road and Trinity Street are yet to materialise, and even travelling across the town centre itself requires a few cheeky turns or trips through pedestrian zones. At present, there is no legal way to cycle from Huddersfield’s rail or bus stations to the Town Hall without joining the ring road.
A Strategy Without a Spine
These local route-finding efforts are vital, but they also highlight a wider truth: Huddersfield – and Kirklees more broadly – remains difficult to navigate by bike unless you already know your way around. Although sporadic changes are being made – like the Leeds Road cycle tracks and other small projects across the district – the bigger picture remains patchy and disjointed. Cross-town cycling still involves navigating hostile junctions, dodging fast-moving traffic, and making do with indirect, often improvised, routes.
It’s not for lack of ambition. The Kirklees Active Travel Interim Position Statement makes clear that walking and cycling are a priority “embedding active travel across the Council” The Draft Kirklees Transport Strategy aligns with national goals around decarbonisation and accessibility, aiming to “deliver a more inclusive and sustainable transport network” that supports short trips by foot and bike, especially for commuting and education.
Regionally, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority has a target to triple cycling trips by 2027. Nationally, the Gear Change strategy promised “a golden age of cycling,” with safe, accessible infrastructure modelled on Dutch best practice. But ambition alone doesn’t lay tarmac.
Budgeting for Business-as-Usual
These strategies and statements show that the council understands the value of active travel. But warm words and visionary documents don’t build safe cycle routes. Real-world progress remains slow – and critically, the funding simply isn’t matching the rhetoric.
Cycling UK recommends that local authorities allocate at least 5% of their transport budgets to cycling and walking infrastructure, rising to 10% over time. That kind of consistent investment is essential if we’re to build a reliable, joined-up network that people can actually use.
It’s also important to recognise that cycling has different infrastructure needs to walking. While pedestrians can usually rely on footways and crossings, cycling requires dedicated, connected, and protected space on the road network—something that can’t simply be bolted on or shared with footpaths. Treating cycling as just an extension of walking risks underproviding for both.
The Kirklees Cabinet meeting on 6th May approved the Capital Highways Plan for this financial year and the next. Buried in the meeting documents is a breakdown of funded projects. Our review of the figures shows that just 0.34% – £126,616 of the £37.2m – is being spent on cycling infrastructure. Over half of that allocation goes to drainage and surfacing on rural bridleways – unsealed isolated routes that lead to the middle of fast-moving roads, with no onward links making them unsuitable for any strategic cycle network. The rest is split between Public Rights Of Way signage, and traffic signal detection for cycles and pedestrians.
We have often heard from moto-normative (an unconscious bias towards car travel) commentators that councils are spending too much money on cycling when so few people currently travel by bike but Kirklees has opted not to commit to spending cycling’s fair share. Less than half of 1% of the total capital budget is being earmarked for cycling projects – well below even the current 1% of journeys made by bike, and far short of what’s required to triple that figure.
Cycling Delivers Exceptional Value for Money
Investing in cycling infrastructure offers substantial economic returns. The Department for Transport (DfT) estimates that active travel schemes yield a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of approximately 4.3:1, meaning that for every £1 invested, there’s a return of £4.30 in benefits. Other studies have found even higher BCRs for cycling projects, ranging from 2.22:1 to 11.77:1, depending on factors like the extent of modal shift from cars to bicycles.
In contrast, traditional road infrastructure projects often have lower BCRs. The DfT classifies investments with a BCR greater than 4.0 as offering “very high” value for money, while those between 2.0 and 4.0 are considered “high.” Many road projects fall into these categories, but few match the upper range of returns seen in cycling infrastructure investments.
This disparity underscores the economic efficiency of cycling investments, which not only provide high returns but also contribute to public health, environmental sustainability, and congestion reduction.
Planning Needs a Backbone, Not Just a Bid
Instead of committing to sustained local investment, Kirklees appears to be relying on external grant funding, like the Active Travel Fund, to support cycling projects. While these grants can supplement a budget, they can’t form the backbone of a transport strategy. They’re short-term, competitive, and subject to shifting political winds – hardly the basis for building a coherent, long-term network.
Some additional funding may come through the Consolidated Active Travel Fund, with £12.8 million allocated to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. Over 100 schemes have been submitted for review, and details of those selected are expected on 16th June. While this funding is welcome, it reinforces the reactive nature of current planning. Competitive grants often prioritise shovel-ready schemes over the kind of long-term, strategic network-building that’s truly needed.
This overreliance creates an ad hoc approach to cycling infrastructure. Projects become scattered, disconnected, and opportunistic rather than strategic. The result? People who might cycle simply won’t – because the network they need isn’t there.
This fragmented approach doesn’t just fail in theory – it affects real people. The current lack of safe, continuous infrastructure particularly disadvantages children who might otherwise cycle to school, people living in areas with limited public transport, and households who can’t afford to own a car. For these groups, cycling could be a vital, affordable, independent mode of travel – but only if it’s made safe and accessible.
If we want more people to choose cycling – for commuting, school runs, errands or leisure – we have to make it the safe, easy, and obvious option. That means properly funding the design and implementation of segregated cycleways, safer junctions, and low-traffic neighbourhoods. The strategy documents are in place. The climate, health, and congestion cases are all made. Now it’s time for Kirklees to follow through – and put the money where the ambition is.
kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet kampungbet toto slot slot gacor hari ini