Active Travel Audits: Mitigating Tensions Between Subjectivity and Technical Precision

Active travel needs infrastructure, and cities and towns need active travel. More active travel reduces traffic congestion, reduces vehicle emissions, and improves public health. Active travel infrastructures are critical infrastructures. But how do transport practitioners assess the quality of active travel infrastructures? Who decides which active travel infrastructures meet best practice design standards, and what are the consequences of these decisions? Taking the empirical example of the Welsh Government Active Travel Act Guidance (ATAG) (2021) active travel route audits, this paper seeks to provide a commentary (but not answers) to these questions. The paper presents three examples from the ATAG (2021) audits to illustrate how tensions can exist between subjectivity (i.e., positionality and experience) and technical precision (i.e., data), including: (1) density of network, (2) time: delay on links, and (3) effective width without conflict. Despite recognition of subjectivity within active travel audit guidance, this commentary argues that subjectivity might be a strength, and not necessarily a limitation of audit processes. Embracing subjectivity, beyond professional judgement, as part of the audit process could potentially lead to better outcomes for beneficiaries of active travel provision. It does not challenge the need for best practice design guidance but rather emphasises the need for active travel audit consensus, in addition to audit consistency. At a minimum, this paper echoes calls for a greater diversity of active travel infrastructure co-auditors. Why? Because active travel needs equitable infrastructure, and towns and cities need diverse active travel. Continuously improving procedural design guidance is one approach toward this globally relevant and urgent policy ambition.