The ‘Level 4 spreadsheet’ accompanying the Scottish Government’s draft budget shows Support for Active and Sustainable Travel rising by an incredible 66.3%, from £135.8m in 25/26 to £226m in 26/27. This has been widely commended.
However, when the smoke and mirrors are removed, it seems likely that total funding for active travel will actually fall slightly in cash terms, and, as a % of total transport, from 4.3% in 25/26 to less than 4% in 26/27.
How can such an apparently good news story be so misleading? We discuss this in detail later below, but, in summary…
- the big combined rise in Active and Sustainable looks likely to be for Sustainable (specifically, bus infrastructure) whilst Active looks likely to fall
- the quoted £135.8m for Active and Sustainable is misleadingly low, which makes the 66% increase to £226m look misleadingly high. A fairer comparison says 19%.
1. Active Travel as a % of total transport
But, first, how does this fall fit into the trend of Scottish Government budgeted funding for Active Travel in recent years? As the table below shows, this would be the first time since 21/22 that the AT budget has fallen below 4%, down from a budgeted high spot of 5.6% in 24/25 (though cut later that year, so never fully spent) and way down from the previous commitment to reach 10%.
| Budgets (£100k) | 21/22 | 22/23 | 23/24 | 24/25 | 25/26 | 26/27 |
| Total transport | 3306.0 | 3485.4 | 3578.6 | 3925.4 | 3906.9 | 4145.3 |
| Total AT estimate | 115.5 | 150.0 | 189.2 | *219.9 | 166.1 | 163.4 (?) |
| AT as % | 3.5% | 4.3% | 5.3% | *5.6% | 4.3% | 3.9% (?) |
- Figures up to 24/25 are from previous articles; figures for 25/26 and 26/27 are from the table below (section 4)
- The 26/27 ‘?’ figures assume that BIF will receive £60m from the Active and Sustainable budget line, as discussed in 2(c) below. In the unlikely event that it is substanially different from £60m this could affect the AT % significantly
- The table above shows the budgeted figures but in some years AT funding was cut during the year and so actual investment never reached the totals or %’s shown in this table. * In the worst case, 24/25, the £220m originally budgeted was cut to £155m during the financial year, meaning that actual AT investment was only around 4% of total transport rather than the originally budgeted 5.6%
2. Why are the budget documents so misleading?
- Not comparing like with like… £226m is the 26/27 budgeted figure. The true comparison with 25/26 should be the equivalent figure in the original 25/26 budget, namely £188.7m, not the £135.8m quoted, which was the result of an in-year (autumn) budget revision. So, whilst there is indeed a significant rise in Sustainable and Active funding between the 25/26 and 26/27 budgets, it is most fairly described as a rise of 19.8% from £188.7 rather than a 66.3% rise from £135.8m. It’s also worth noting that in some years not all the money budgeted may be actually allocated and used. For the 25/26 year, by 17.11.25, only £178.5m of the budgeted £188.7m had been allocated (see this government letter).
- Moving sums to other budget headings for delivery… In answer to a query, we were told that the £135.8 figure “subtracts any values transferred from the budget to other Government areas for delivery, this includes £37.5m delivered through the Local Authority settlement, known as ATIF Tier 1/CWSR, £4m to Trunk Roads Active Travel Investments, and £2m that contributes to Active Travel Road Safety initiatives” – so the actual 25/26 investment is the above £178.5m, whereas the £135.8m quoted is just part of the total.
- [the biggest issue] Redefining budget lines in a non-transparent way… Spokes has highlighted this obfuscation ever since it began in the 25/26 budget, when the Active Travel budget line was renamed Active and Sustainable, and included a new Bus Infrastructure Fund (BIF) in addition to AT infrastructure and behaviour change funding. The budget documents don’t specify how much of this budget line will go to BIF, to ATIF or to behaviour change, and this only becomes apparent as the year progresses. However, there are multiple strong evidences [including 1,2] that BIF will rise to £60m in 26/27 from £20m in 25/26, a £40m increase. This would outweigh the total budget line increase (£226m-£188.7m = £37.3m), thus meaning a cut for AT funding.
- A % falls when taken from a larger pool… for 26/27 the overall transport budget rises by a significant amount, from £3906.9m in 25/26 to £4145.3m, for a variety of reasons, trunk roads being the greatest with a rise of nearly £90m between the two budgets. Obviously this means that the % of the total going to AT falls unless AT shares in the increase, which it does not.
3. Bus Infrastructure Fund, BIF
For the avoidance of doubt, we stress that Spokes strongly supports BIF money and other measures to encourage modal shift away from car use. We welcome a long overdue substantial sum, expected to be £60m, for 26/27 BIF.
What we do not support is the government’s decision to lump BIF in with active travel, a handy means to disguise AT funding cuts. It also threatens to pit bus funding against AT funding, whilst distracting attention from the £90m rise in the trunk roads budget between 25/26 and 26/27 – a sum which rather puts into perspective the £37m increase in the Active and Sustainable budget line.
There is more about bus infrastructure funding in this article.
4. Calculating the % for active travel
The table below (and footnotes) explain our calculations of likely total budgeted 26/27 AT funding, and how these calculations compare to the previous two years.
| Budget areas | 24/25 budget (£m) | 25/26 budget (£m) | 26/27 budget (£m) | 26/27 budget doc reference* |
| Total transport | 3925.4 | 3906.9 | 4145.3 | Table 8.01 |
| Total Active & Sustainable(**) | n/a | 188.7 | 226.0 | Table 8.04 |
| Bus Infrastructure Fund, BIF (***) | n/a | -20.0 | -60 (?) | |
| Other sustainable non-active (***) | n/a | -2.6 | -2.6 (?) | |
| Total AT | 219.9 | 166.1 | 163.4 (?) | |
| AT as % of total transport budget | 5.6% | 4.3% | 3.9% (?) | |
| AT actual spend (***) (****) | 155m (cut of 65m approx) | Approx 156m (by 17.11.25) | n/a |
- Budget main document / Level 4 spreadsheet
- ** The 26/27 budget has a single entry for Active & Sustainable, 226.0m. The 25/26 budget included 164.8m for Active & Sustainable + 23.9m further for Active (called CWSR, Cycling Walking Safer Streets), total 188.7m. Before 25/26 the budget specified Active Travel alone, and Sustainable was bundled (unspecified) in other budget lines
- *** These sums are not specified in the budget and only emerge as the financial year progresses. However there is a strong evidence (see 2c above) that BIF in 26/27 will be £60m. We also assume that the small “other sustainable non-active” amount will be similar to last year. See this 6.11.25 government letter.
- **** Above this line, the figures in the table are based on the budget and how it was used or (26/27) is intended to be used. However the budget is not always fully used, and details only emerge well on in the financial year. In 24/25 there were very severe AT cuts in an Autumn Budget Review. For 25/26 our underspend figure is provisional and is based on this 17.11.25 government letter to the Net Zero Committee, explaining how £178.5 (of the £188.7) had been allocated.
5. Active Travel Investment Fund, ATIF
[This is a slightly nerdy section, so only read if interested. It is to explain the apparent contradiction outlined in the first para below]
Although it is clear (see 4 above) that total active travel funding is likely to fall slightly (from around £166m in 25/26 to around £163m in 26/27), the level 4 spreadsheet states that ATIF, the active travel investment fund, will rise. Assuming this is correct, the explanation has to be that some other elements of active travel funding will be cut further in order to compensate for the rise in ATIF.
ATIF comes in two blocks. ATIF-1 goes automatically to all councils, depending on population size and other (less clear) factors. The ATIF-1 total was £37.5m in 25/26 (see table below) and appears to be rising to £40m in 26/27 (table 4.15 in the budget). ATIF-2 (£53.6m in 25/25) is allocated as the year progresses, based on bids from councils, so its total will not be known for many months.
In summary, in order to keep within the overall active and sustainable budget total, given a £40m rise in BIF and a £2.5m rise in ATIF-1, there will have to be corresponding cuts in some of the other elements of AT funding shown in the 25/26 table below. This could be reductions in ATIF-2, or People and Place, or National Cycle Network, or other headings. We are unlikely to know where these cuts will fall until the allocations are made public later in the year.
The breakdown of how the 25/26 budget was allocated is in the table below, from this government letter (only £178.5m of the £188.7m had been allocated at that time. The rest may be allocated later, or may be lost).
| Programme | Delivered in Partnership | 25-26 (£m) Committed |
| Bikeability | Cycling Scotland | 2.5 |
| Trunk Road Casualty Reduction | Transport Scotland | 4.0 |
| Road Safety Improvement Fund | Transport Scotland | 2.0 |
| People and Place – RTP Grant | Regional Transport Partnerships | 23.4 |
| Ian Findlay Paths Fund (Walking Scotland) | Walking Scotland | 1.8 |
| Places for Everyone | Walk Wheel Cycle Trust | 3.9 |
| National Cycle Network | Walk Wheel Cycle Trust | 11.0 |
| Infrastructure Development Support Programme | Walk Wheel Cycle Trust | 2.5 |
| ATIF Tier 2 Design | Transport Scotland Administered, targeting Local Authorities | 11.0 |
| ATIF Tier 1 (CWSR) | Transport Scotland Administered, targeting Local Authorities | 37.5 |
| ATIF Tier 2 – Construction | Transport Scotland Administered, targeting Local Authorities | 53.6 |
| Local Authority Direct Award | Local Authorities | 4.5 |
| Mobility as a Service | Transport Scotland Administered | 0.1 |
| Staffing | Transport Scotland | 0.5 |
| Energy Saving Trust Loan Scheme | Energy Savings Trust | 0.1 |
| Bus Infrastructure Fund | Transport Scotland Administered, targeting Local Authorities | 20.0 |
| Cycling Without Age | Cycling Without Age | 0.1 |
| Total | £178.5m |
6. What you can do
A simple letter to your MSPs would be useful – find them here, using your postcode. Two important points are…
- Active Travel now looks likely to receive only around 4% of the total transport budget – at a time when spending on trunk roads is rising substantially. Because of the climate, public health and transport benefits of walking, wheeling and cycling, the government should return to its dropped promise to increase this to 10%. With Scottish Parliament elections near, over 60 Scottish organisations have joined together to urge that the 10% policy is reinstated
- The exact level of government investment in active travel is no longer transparent in the budget, because bus infrastructure has been bundled in with active travel. Although the combined budget for both is rising, the expected very large rise in bus infrastructure funding means that the total allocated to active travel as a whole will fall. More bus funding is very welcome, but should not come at the expense of cutting active travel. The Scottish government should return to having a dedicated budget line for Active Travel.
7. Resources
- Budget documents including The Budget and Level-4 Spreadsheet
- Budget commentary by Edinburgh Bus Users Group
- Budget commentary by Transform Scotland
- Last year (25/26) Budget – initial Spokes commentary 8.12.24 / update 4.2.25 / Programme for Government 25/26 /