Spend £2.5bn on active travel: note

Central fiscal result

+£2.5bn - Net fiscal impact in 2028-29

Low case: +£1.5bn. High case: +£5.0bn. Positive numbers are fiscal costs or borrowing pressure. Negative numbers are Exchequer savings or receipts.

Scenario and baseline

• Models spend £2.5bn on active travel by 2028-29.
• Baseline is current policy or published departmental plans.
• Central case uses published party or official anchors where available.
• Wider manifesto interactions are excluded unless stated.

Affected population

• Affected units are people, firms, households or providers depending on policy.
• Direct exposure follows the manifesto or government target group.
• Indirect exposure includes suppliers, workers, consumers and taxpayers.
• Weakest counts are widened in the low and high cases.

Gross impact

• Published anchor or scenario central is +£2.5bn in 2028-29.
• Gross costs or receipts are adjusted for behaviour and delivery risk.
• Tax, benefit or procurement offsets are separated in the fiscal build-up.
• The range is deliberately wider where implementation detail is thin.

Fiscal build-up, central case

• Gross programme or delivery cost: +£2.9bn
• Tax and receipt offsets: -£0.2bn
• Administration and evaluation: +£0.1bn
• Behavioural and pass-through effects: -£0.3bn

Central net impact: +£2.5bn in 2028-29.

Behaviour and pass-through

• Low case assumes stronger delivery or receipts than central.
• Central case applies moderate behavioural leakage and pass-through.
• High case allows weaker delivery, larger take-up or higher costs.
• Output effects follow incidence, capacity and investment channels.
• Distributional gains do not automatically imply GDP gains.

Phasing

• 2026-27: +£0.2bn. Phased implementation and take-up.
• 2027-28: +£1.4bn. Phased implementation and take-up.
• 2028-29: +£2.5bn. Phased implementation and take-up.
• 2029-30: +£2.5bn. Phased implementation and take-up.

Main source groups

• Graham and Gibbons, "Quantifying Wider Economic Impacts of Agglomeration" (Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 2019): Transport improvements can raise productivity through agglomeration, but benefits are location-specific; relevant to rail, bus and active-travel investment.
• Institute for Fiscal Studies, "Green Party manifesto: a reaction" (2024): Used to define the pledge wording, policy scope and implementation scenario being modelled.
• Local Government Association, "Green Party manifesto summary" (2024): Used to define the pledge wording, policy scope and implementation scenario being modelled.
• Parry and Small, "Does Britain or the United States Have the Right Gasoline Tax?" (Journal of Urban Economics, 2005): Efficient motoring taxes should reflect congestion, accidents, pollution and revenue needs; relevant to EV mileage and fuel duties.
• Department for Transport, "Transport Statistics Great Britain" (2025): DfT statistics track travel demand, mode share and transport investment baselines; useful for scaling public-transport and active-travel policy.
• HM Treasury, "Spending Review 2025" (2025): Transport capital and resource baselines affect additional-cost estimates; used to anchor fiscal additions.
• Green Party of England and Wales, "Manifesto for a Fairer, Greener Country" (2024): The manifesto defines the tax, spending, climate, housing and public-service proposals modelled here; used to define the scenario, not as an official costing.