Open-Source Tools for Policy Delivery

Evidence from English Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) and Active Travel Fund Allocations

Authors
Affiliation

Robin Lovelace

University of Leeds

Tom Auer

University of Leeds

Published

September 3, 2026

Abstract

Governments worldwide are committing billions in capital funding toward active travel infrastructure to meet net-zero, public health, and urban mobility targets. However, funding alone does not guarantee cost-effective or joined-up network delivery. This paper evaluates the multi-year implementation of the open-source Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) and its role in supporting England’s parallel statutory planning policy, the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) framework (2017–2026). Using a reproducible automated pipeline combining LLM-assisted document extraction across published LCWIP strategies with official Department for Transport (DfT) and Active Travel England (ATE) funding datasets, we analyse the depth of tool adoption and its alignment with £1.5B+ in capital and revenue allocations.

Keywords

active travel, transport policy, open-source software, infrastructure investment, cycle network planning, LCWIP, Propensity to Cycle Tool, public spending cost-effectiveness

1 Introduction

The transition toward sustainable transport systems requires unprecedented investment in dedicated walking and cycling infrastructure. However, funding allocations frequently suffer from fragmented planning, ad-hoc project selection, and variable analytical capability across sub-national authorities.

This paper investigates how the provision of an open-source, evidence-based planning tool—the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT)—supported the implementation of national active travel policy in England over nearly a decade. We explore how an openly available digital tool became embedded in statutory local plans and evaluate the relationship between tool usage and capital funding allocation.

A core message of this work is that when national governments establish capital funds for active travel, they must concurrently invest in open-source planning tools and data infrastructure. Providing accessible tools levels the playing field across resource-constrained local authorities, enhances scheme quality, and maximises the cost-effectiveness of taxpayer investment.

2 Policy & Planning Context

2.1 The UK LCWIP Framework (2017–2026)

In 2017, the UK Department for Transport introduced the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) technical guidance, encouraging local authorities to develop 10-year strategic plans for active travel networks.

2.2 The Role of Open Tools in National Policy Delivery

The parallel development and national rollout of the PCT provided local authorities—many of which lacked dedicated GIS or transport modelling teams—with free, immediate access to spatial travel demand forecasts and corridor analysis.

2.3 Evolution of Active Travel Funding (ATF)

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Corpus Assembly & Discovery

3.2 Automated LLM-Assisted Extraction Pipeline

3.3 Entity Reconciliation & Funding Integration

3.4 Metric Formulation

4 Empirical Findings

4.1 Widespread and Sustained National Adoption

4.2 Substantive Application vs. Tokenistic Citation

4.3 Geographic Coverage & Spatial Distribution

4.4 Capital Allocation Alignment

5 Discussion: Why Open Tools Increase Funding Cost-Effectiveness

5.1 Overcoming Analytical Inequalities Across Local Authorities

5.2 Preventing Stranded Assets Through Evidence-Based Prioritisation

5.3 Open Science, Transparency, and Public Trust

5.4 The Policy Imperative: Fund the Tools with the Infrastructure

6 International Transferability & Comparative Lessons

7 Conclusion & Policy Recommendations

References