Transport for London's analysis of the potential for more cycling was flawed and a new approach to planning for cycling is needed, integrating wider land use and transport issues. London should aim for much higher cycling levels, in particular in outer London where cycling levels have dropped. A big shift to more cycling would not just reduce pressures to build new roads and spaces for car parking, it could help reconnect Londoners' to the surrounding countryside.

Following the abolition of the regional tier of government, there is clearly a need for ‘larger than local’ planning of strategic transport, as neither the local and national levels of government are suited to deliver this. We strongly support the principle of larger than local transport consortia or bodies to help fill this gap. Beyond that, however, we believe the proposals in this consultation to be fundamentally flawed as they are:  geographically of the wrong scale, democratically challenged, lacking a true partnership approach,  lacking any strategic basis, able to propose too limited transport options.

A joint response from Campaign to Protect Rural England and six partner NGOs highlights concerns that the statement is too focused on economic goals and neglects social and environmental issues. The response argues the policy should respect the need for limits on carbon emissions, and place greater emphasis on improving the choice of public transport and provisions for walking and cycling.

Whether Government policy can be challenged in public inquiries, depends as to whether it is high level or involves local considerations and whether it has been overtaken by fresh material considerations. This is the opinion of CPRE's honourary standing Counsel, considering the wider impact of the successful judicial review against Heathrow's Third Runway.

Our policy on transport.

Transport Principles is a supplementary document to be read with our Policy Guidance Notes for Transport.

New guidance on Local Transport Plans proposes a a 'new relationship' between the Department for Transport and local authorities' Local Transport Plans.  While welcoming greater flexibility, CPRE is concerned that without new powers and common indicator sets it will become harder to reduce carbon emissions and integrate transport with land use planning.

CPRE strongly supports proposals for a fund to incentivise local authorities to implement best practice. This fund should, however, cover the whole country not just urban areas.

The London branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE London) welcomes a number of the the strategy's high-level ideas, such as better public space, greater use of the Thames, public transport upgrades, car clubs and cycle hire. However, we are concerned that the strategy does not do enough to support the growth of cycling and walking, and could hinder London's economic development, carbon impact and quality of life (including tranquillity and air quality).

The Spending Review needs to be rural-proofed to ensure that rural bus services and road maintenance does not suffer disproportionately. New ways to appraise transport investment and ensure effective sub-national planning of transport schemes are needed.  NB This written evidence has been submitted to the Transport Committee and is now its property.