We make it possible for more people to walk, wheel and cycle safely, healthily and joyfully – working directly with communities to make change happen. Then we evidence the impact to influence policies that push those changes further. Until September, we were called Sustrans.
We’re best known for caring for the National Cycle Network, 13,000 miles of routes for walking, wheeling, cycling and exploring outdoors. There are 259 bus stations and 967 railway stations within 5km of the Network, and we’re working to link them up.
But, we do so much more. In our new strategy, we’re focusing on two areas which are relevant to this inquiry.
We’re making longer journeys possible for everyone by making it easy to walk, wheel and cycle to bus and train stations. For example, we manage community rail partnerships. We’re also working with developers and local authorities to support transport on new developments.
Walking, wheeling and cycling are the glue which holds together an integrated transport system. Almost all bus journeys start with a walk or wheel. Whether walking long or short distances, inside or outside, the accessibility and comfort of this part of the journey is key.
There’s also considerable untapped potential for people to cycle to buses and trains if we supported this with high-quality routes and parking. An integrated transport system would value sustainable modes equally.
Multi-modal journeys are relatively uncommon in England right now – they’re only 7% of all journeys.[1] To understand what makes a transport system feel joined up, we should look at the barriers which people identify to making these journeys.
These are:
Of course, many of these factors are linked: coverage affects reliability, which, in turn, affects timetable co-ordination, for example.
The stage with the lowest satisfaction can determine the overall satisfaction of the journey.[8] If people are not satisfied with a particular stage of a multi-modal journey, it will reduce satisfaction for the whole journey. For example, people may walk to get a train into town for an evening out. On the return journey, however, they may get a taxi home for the whole journey if they feel unsafe walking.
The interchange is the worst rated part of a trip, and people seek to minimise the number of interchanges.[9] A lack of shelter or seating at interchanges can make people feel uncomfortable or even unsafe, whether from fear of illness, slips or other people.[10]
Short walks between modes are also favoured – whether this is between public transport modes or between the parking for a car or cycle and another mode.[11]
A truly integrated transport system provides choice. Having various options not only caters for different people, it also allows for different needs on different days. This could be based on what they’re carrying, the weather, and whether they want to prioritise comfort, affordability or speed, for example. Choice ensures that people feel that their transport options are robust when something goes wrong. It turns transport modes into a positive choice and provides variety. It's no wonder that journey satisfaction is increased by having the option to choose from different travel modes, rather than feeling stuck with one option.[12]
National transport investment and policy decisions have for many years prioritised private motor vehicles. A “predict and provide” approach to transport modelling and planning has assumed that historic transport trends will continue. As a result, we’ve assumed that car use will continue to rise.
Instead, the government should clearly state that an integrated system is good for our health, our wellbeing, our world and our economy. It can then use policy levers to deliver this vision. We welcome the government’s endorsement of this “vision-led” approach within the planning system. Now, it needs to incorporate this into all its work through the Integrated National Transport Strategy.
One other area which may support this is the government’s new approach to transport funding. Consolidated, cross-mode funding pots for local and combined authorities will allow them to choose the best transport solutions for each corridor, rather than the corridors they’ll prioritise for each funding pot. Long-term funding will also allow councils to create more complex, cross-mode schemes, rather than having to work on smaller quick wins, which are more likely to focus on single modes.
This long-term approach should now be extended to other transport pots, including the grant for the National Cycle Network. This will allow the Network to play its part in schemes around public transport modes, where timelines can slip outside the planned financial year.
If we’re to ensure that transport is joined-up, we need to continue moving towards “vision-led” transport planning, assessment and appraisal. This requires change not just to transport planning, but also to how we approve and design housing.
We should ensure that we build at densities which make it easy to provide public transport for new housing or enable people to walk, wheel or cycle to it. Guidance since the 1970s has suggested that bus stops should be within 400m, for example.[13] Site allocation and decision-taking should therefore give more priority to walkable proximity and connectivity to services.
Some local authorities in England already do this well, but it’s not widespread. Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework have set the right direction of travel in England, by emphasising the importance of “sustainable locations”.[14] The government now needs to back this up with clear planning practice guidance.
This approach should also be included in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ Land Use Framework. All departments should consider how we can make it easier to access land in a sustainable way.
Public transport infrastructure and services often aren’t provided until a development reaches a certain size. By this point, existing residents have set their travel habits, potentially buying cars they don’t need. As far as possible, developers, councils and national government should work to reduce this.
More generally, joined-up transport will not be possible while we continue to prioritise the car above other modes of transport. There are technical areas which can be addressed, such as ensuring that car journey times aren’t prioritised too highly in transport appraisal.[15]
However, to make a true step change, the government needs to set a clear direction of travel. The government should be clear in their desire for modal shift, with a strategy and targets to get there. This must be laid out clearly within the Integrated National Transport Strategy and then supported in other plans, within the department and in local and combined authorities.
Finally, prioritising cycling is key. While multi-modal journeys including walking are already common, these require nearby public transport services. Making it safer, more accessible and more attractive to cycle to public transport services can increase the catchment of that public transport by 20 times, based on the average length of walks and cycles.[16]
Given the small number of multi-modal shifts made already, integration will inherently create modal shift. This will particularly happen where it is needed most. Multi-modal transport behaviour varies by region. London, which has the most integrated network in the country and the lowest car use, has the highest proportion of multi-modal trips at 16% down to 3% in the North East. In London, analysis has shown oyster card users average 1.3 stages per trip.[17]
Building an integrated network will be particularly pivotal for walking. Walking is the glue that connects multi-modal trips and helps to integrate transport. For example, in Greater Manchester, 95% of public transport trips included a walking stage.
Women, disabled people, people on a low income, people of colour, young people and older people are less likely to own a car. This means they are more likely to be dependent on public transport and, therefore, multi-model journeys. Many of these groups face a transport accessibility gap. For example, disabled people take 29% fewer trips than non-disabled people.[18] Young people aged 16-24 take 21% fewer trips than other working-age adults.[19]
Disabled travellers report additional barriers to multi-modal journeys. Accessibility while changing modes – whether getting on or off a service or around the interchange – is a key barrier.[20] They’re also concerned about arranging assistance.[21] Finally, disabled travellers and women are more likely to raise safety concerns.[22]
Older travellers can have greater difficulty in identifying signs, in reading timetables, listening to loudspeakers and responding.[23] The more interchanges which they have to make, the more likely they are to run into these issues. It’s therefore vital that integration isn’t used primarily as an excuse for cutting services. Instead, it should increase the offer.
Integration will not necessarily improve accessibility. For example, disabled people cite poor pavements as the most common barrier they face while travelling.[24] This must be dealt with regardless of integration.
Transport in rural areas has particular challenges. Sparse populations reduce the viability of public transport, as well as the services which people need every day. This forces people to travel further, making it more likely that they need to use a car.
Meanwhile, low population density reduces the cost-benefit ratio of investment in infrastructure such as walking, wheeling and cycling routes.
This means that different options are required. In a report we commissioned, the case was made for models such as car clubs, community transport systems and “mobility as a service”.[25]
However, we should not see rural areas as completely different from city travel. For example, active travel is still viable for many trips. Our research found that lack of safe infrastructure, like in urban areas, was a main factor.[26] As use of e-bikes has increased, the possibility for longer journeys in rural areas has also increased.
Nonetheless, the solutions may be different. For example, many villages don’t have pavements on all roads, so focusing on providing paths to enable walking is a first step. In rural Scotland, we delivered a new path between two villages, increasing walking and cycling trips between them by 560%.[27]
Equally, bus stops in rural areas are likely to be further away from where people live. In this case, the provision of cycle parking may be more helpful than in urban areas.
Our research recommended that “anchor towns and villages” should act as transport hubs in rural areas.[28] This approach accepts that there may not be direct public transport or active travel connections between all villages. It allows the system to be more than the sum of its parts.
A crucial part of integrating transport in urban areas is understanding how to use space. We should learn from cities in the UK and around the world which are using Streetspace Allocation Frameworks. These decide which streets should prioritise different modes of transport, to reduce conflict between these modes. For example, they separate primary bus and car corridors.
This practice has been commonplace for many years in Belgium and has been approved recently in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
We found that 65% of disabled people support the creation of Streetspace Allocation Frameworks.[29]
The most successful Streetspace Allocation Frameworks have been implemented alongside a Traffic Circulation Plan. These plan how traffic moves around an urban centre or region. To create space for other forms of transport, traffic should circulate primarily on roads designed for higher volumes of private motor vehicles.
Ghent implemented its traffic circulation plan overnight in 2017. The circulation plan acts like a large low traffic neighbourhood by reducing through traffic in the central parts of the city. Within the ring road, neighbourhoods are divided up into five areas and a pedestrianised central zone. This means cars must exit back onto the ring road to travel to a different area. Buses, trams and people cycling can still cross the city directly, although on many streets cycling is banned during shopping hours. The circulation plan helps to reduce the impact of cars, ensures buses are more reliable, and improves safety for walking, wheeling and cycling. The plan’s meant that the proportion of journeys by bus have increased from 9% to 14% and cycling journeys from 22% to 35% between 2012 and 2018. At the same time, journeys by car have declined from 55% to 39%. People who drive in Ghent also benefit from the Circulation Plan, because congestion is almost absent from the area. Whilst journey distance might be slightly longer, journey times have typically decreased because of less congestion.
Cities in the UK including Oxford, Birmingham and Edinburgh are proposing various forms of traffic circulation plans to reduce through traffic across central parts of their cities.
October 2025
Endnotes
[1] Department for Transport, 2025. National Travel Survey 2024: mode share and multi-modal trips.
[2] McIlroy, 2023. “This is where public transport falls down”: Place based perspectives of multimodal travel. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 98, 29–46.
[3] McIlroy, 2023. “This is where public transport falls down”: Place based perspectives of multimodal travel. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 98, 29–46.
[4] McIlroy, 2023. “This is where public transport falls down”: Place based perspectives of multimodal travel. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 98, 29–46.
[5] McIlroy, 2023. “This is where public transport falls down”: Place based perspectives of multimodal travel. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 98, 29–46.
[6] Department for Transport, 2024. Understanding multistage journeys and what enables them.
[7] Department for Transport, 2024. Understanding multistage journeys and what enables them.
[8] Gao et al, 2020. Prevalence of alternative processing rules in the formation of daily travel satisfaction in the context multi-trip, multi-stage, multi-attribute travel experiences. Transportation, 47(3), 1199–1221.
[9] Department for Transport, 2024. Understanding multistage journeys and what enables them.
[10] Department for Transport, 2024. Understanding multistage journeys and what enables them.
[11] Department for Transport, 2024. Understanding multistage journeys and what enables them.
[12] Susilo and Cats, 2014. Exploring key determinants of travel satisfaction for multi-modal trips by different traveller groups. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 67, 366–380.
[13] Department of Environment Circular 82/73, 1973.
[14] Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2024. National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 11.
[15] Transport Planning Society, 2022. State of the Nations.
[16] Walk Wheel Cycle Trust analysis based on Department for Transport, 2024. Walking and cycling statistics, England.
[17] Seaborn, C., Attanucci, J., and Wilson, N. H. M., 2009. Analyzing multimodal public transport journeys in London with smart card fare payment data. Transportation Research Record, 2121, 55–62.
[18] Department for Transport, 2025. National Travel Survey 2024: Disability.
[19] Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (was Sustrans), 2023. Transport to Thrive.
[20] McIlroy, 2023. “This is where public transport falls down”: Place based perspectives of multimodal travel. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 98, 29–46.
[21] Department for Transport, 2024. Understanding multistage journeys and what enables them.
[22] Department for Transport, 2024. Understanding multistage journeys and what enables them.
[23] Susilo and Cats, 2014. Exploring key determinants of travel satisfaction for multi-modal trips by different traveller groups. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 67, 366–380.
[24] Transport for All, 2023. Barriers to transport for disabled people in 2023 Are we There Yet?, 19.
[25] IPPR, 2024. Wheels of change, 17.
[26] IPPR, 2024. Wheels of change, 18.
[27] IPPR, 2024. Wheels of change, 19.
[28] IPPR, 2024. Wheels of change, 33.
[29] Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (was Sustrans), 2025. Transforming mobility, 36.