Wirral’s Cycling Strategy: Bureaucratic Box-Ticking or Real Change?

The future of cycling in Wirral is at a crossroads. After pushing for a real, usable, and joined-up cycling strategy, I finally received a response from Wirral Council’s Assistant Director for Highways & Infrastructure, Paul Traynor. On the surface, it looks like a reasonable reply—funding constraints, the importance of the Core Active Travel Network (CATN), and an assurance that consultation is happening.

But scratch beneath the surface, and it becomes clear: this isn’t a meaningful response—it’s bureaucratic deflection.

1. Maintaining What Exists Before Expanding – Ignored

One of the key points in The Future of Cycling on Wirral white paper was simple: fix what we already have before adding more. Right now, much of Wirral’s cycle infrastructure is unusable—poorly maintained, disconnected, and ultimately a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Council Response: Funding is ringfenced, so money for active travel can’t be used for general highway maintenance.

The Reality: This is a convenient excuse to avoid addressing failures. Yes, funding may be allocated in specific ways, but strategic planning should ensure that existing infrastructure is fit for purpose before throwing money at new, isolated projects. If the council really cared about getting people on bikes, they’d prioritise making the current network usable, safe, and connected.

Paul Traynor’s response also implies that active travel funding incidentally improves road infrastructure by upgrading crossings, footways, and general streetscape features. But this completely dodges the issue—we’re not talking about general road maintenance, we’re talking about cycling infrastructure that has been neglected, poorly implemented, and in some cases actively dangerous. The claim that funding can’t be reallocated does not explain why Wirral’s existing cycle lanes—such as those on Fender Lane—have been left in a state of disrepair while new plans are rushed through.

2. A Network on Paper Doesn’t Mean a Network in Practice

Wirral’s Core Active Travel Network (CATN) is supposedly the first “comprehensive” plan for cycling, walking, and wheeling. But when you look at the post-consultation amendments, you see minimal changes, meaning the same flawed routes are just being rubber-stamped again.

Council Response: The CATN isn’t just about cycling lanes; it includes wider improvements to public spaces and accessibility.

The Reality: This is a classic strawman argument. The white paper never argued against improving public spaces or accessibility. What it challenged was the disjointed, impractical nature of Wirral’s cycle routes—routes that don’t connect, that force cyclists into dangerous conditions, and that fail to provide realistic commuting options. The CATN, as currently designed, does not solve these problems.

Traynor’s response is an attempt to shift the debate away from its core issue—that the planned infrastructure lacks real-world usability. Simply adding aesthetic improvements or vague “public realm enhancements” does nothing if the fundamental issues of connectivity, safety, and usability remain unaddressed. The real question is whether the CATN will actually increase cycling uptake, not whether it ticks a policy box.

3. The Myth of “Multi-Modal and Inclusive” Solutions

Cycling infrastructure in Wirral has become a battleground—motorists vs. cyclists, pedestrians vs. council planners. The white paper called for an end to this divisive narrative, advocating instead for transport solutions that work for everyone.

Council Response: The CATN is part of a wider multi-modal strategy integrated with the Liverpool City Region’s transport plans.

The Reality: This is empty jargon. Saying that the CATN fits into a wider transport plan does not address the fundamental issues of public resistance and poor execution. The white paper highlights how active travel has been politicised, with council policy alienating both cyclists and motorists rather than fostering cooperation.

Traynor’s response offers no new solutions for bringing communities together or addressing the fact that poorly communicated, poorly designed schemes actually make active travel less popular. If the council truly wanted a multi-modal approach, it would have put far greater effort into genuine engagement with all road users, rather than imposing pre-approved designs and calling it collaboration.

4. Public Consultation: A Box-Ticking Exercise?

One of the biggest complaints about Wirral’s active travel plans is that consultation has been superficial at best, manipulative at worst. The Have Your Say Wirral consultation saw 64% of respondents disapprove of the CATN. What did the council do? Minimal amendments, no fundamental rethink.

Council Response: We have undertaken extensive consultation and welcome further suggestions.

The Reality: Consultation is meaningless if you ignore the results. The sheer volume of opposition should have triggered a major review of the CATN—not a minor set of tweaks. The council must stop using consultation as a rubber-stamping exercise and start actually engaging with the community in a way that earns trust.

Traynor’s response makes consultation sound like an ongoing, evolving process, but the reality is that opposition to the CATN was largely dismissed rather than incorporated. Consultation should be about co-designing solutions with the public, not just collecting feedback and then proceeding as planned.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The problem isn’t just the CATN. It’s the entire approach to cycling in Wirral—a failure to listen, a failure to connect the network properly, and a failure to build public confidence. Until these fundamental issues are addressed, new cycling projects will continue to fail at the first hurdle.

What should happen next?

• Stop ignoring existing infrastructure problems. Make Wirral’s current cycling routes safe and usable before adding more lines on a map.

• Deliver a cycling network that works for real people. A connected, functional cycling network should prioritise usability—not just meeting funding criteria.

• End the “us vs. them” approach. Transport solutions need to work for cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians alike.

• Make consultation real. The council must engage with the public before decisions are made, not just after they’re already locked in.

Wirral deserves better than bureaucratic excuses. It’s time for real change.