Making the Most of 2025/26 Transport Budgets: Why Evidence Matters

Transport planners are being asked to deliver more with less.

Budgets are constrained. Expectations are rising. Scrutiny is sharper than ever — from members, funders and the public.

For 2025/26, the challenge is not simply identifying which schemes to deliver. It is prioritising investment with confidence and demonstrating that decisions are grounded in robust, real-world evidence.

Because when resources are limited, the quality of evidence behind a scheme matters as much as the scheme itself.

From Assumption to Evidence-Led Planning

Most authorities already rely on modelling, traffic counts, collision data and consultation feedback. These remain essential tools.

But they provide only part of the picture.

Counts tell us how many people pass a location.
Collision data tells us where serious harm has already occurred.
Consultation captures perception at a specific moment in time.

Increasingly, planners are being asked more searching questions:

• Where are cyclists experiencing near misses?

• Which junction layouts are creating hesitation or evasive behaviour?

• Where is surface condition affecting rider comfort?

• Why are certain routes underused despite new provision?

• Are schemes genuinely improving confidence and safety?

These are questions about lived experience and infrastructure performance — and answering them requires richer evidence.

Adding Behavioural Insight to Infrastructure Decisions

Traditional datasets often focus on outcomes that are visible or already recorded. But infrastructure performance is also shaped by behaviour — how people respond to road layouts, surface condition, traffic interaction and perceived risk.

See.Sense technology captures anonymised, sensor-based AI insight data from everyday journeys, transforming routine cycling activity into location-specific evidence.

For planners, this adds a practical layer of behavioural and infrastructure insight that complements existing tools.

In practice, this can support:

• Identifying emerging safety risk before collisions occur

• Pinpointing locations where riders brake or swerve unexpectedly

• Detecting deteriorating surface conditions

• Understanding route choice and avoidance patterns

• Assessing behavioural change following intervention

Rather than replacing modelling or counts, this strengthens the evidence base underpinning transport decisions.

Evidence in Action

Across the UK, authorities are already using real-world cycling insight to inform planning and prioritisation.

In London, behavioural data helped identify locations where cyclists experienced sudden braking and swerving — early indicators of potential conflict not yet visible in collision records. This supported proactive safety investigation aligned with Vision Zero objectives.

In North East Lincolnshire, ride data informed development of the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. Surface quality issues and evasive manoeuvres were identified through behavioural signals, providing granular evidence to support route prioritisation.

In Belfast, integration with public hire bikes provided large-scale insight into how people actually move through the city. The data revealed where riders avoided certain infrastructure and where network pressure points existed, informing both strategic planning and operational decisions.

In Ealing, bikes equipped with sensor technology generated measurable evidence of participation, physical activity and carbon impact. This strengthened reporting and demonstrated programme outcomes beyond simple usage counts.

These examples illustrate how continuous, real-world evidence can improve both scheme design and investment confidence.

Stronger Evidence, Stronger Decisions

As transport funding increasingly emphasises demonstrable outcomes, the robustness of an authority’s evidence base matters more than ever.

Evidence-led planning supports:

• More confident scheme prioritisation

• Clearer justification in cabinet reports and business cases

• Stronger LCWIP evidence

• Earlier identification of infrastructure issues

• More precise evaluation of scheme impact

Importantly, behavioural insight provides context that traditional datasets alone cannot.

Understanding how infrastructure is experienced — not just how often it is used — allows planners to refine designs, target investment and respond to emerging risks more effectively.

Making Every Pound Count in 2025/26

With limited capital and revenue budgets, prioritisation is critical.

Evidence-led transport planning provides clarity:

Clarity about where risk is emerging.
Clarity about how infrastructure is functioning in practice.
Clarity about whether schemes are delivering intended outcomes.

For 2025/26 programmes, strengthening the evidence base is not about adding complexity. It is about reducing uncertainty.

When decisions are grounded in continuous, real-world transport evidence, planning becomes more targeted, proactive and defensible.

And in today’s environment, that level of confidence is increasingly essential.

If you’re reviewing your 2025/26 programme and considering how to strengthen the evidence behind prioritisation or scheme performance, we’d be happy to share examples of how other authorities are approaching this. A short conversation can often clarify where additional insight could add value.