LONDON (CU)_When it comes to traveling the first thing many people do is research where they want to be going to. Now most often than not there are forums and websites created where other travellers can leave little tips and ratings of the places they have been to and most often than not these are very useful.
Now a lot a of countries has started certain travel plans within their countries taking into account the crisis that has been taking with the lack of fuel for the whole world. One of the greenest ones we have seen so far is the initiative England counties are taking and that is their active travel initiative.
This is basically the government appointing a body to handle funds to create more foot path and cycle path for locals and tourist to use when they are on holiday or visiting. Now each county is responsible for using these funds in a positive way to make improvements and the councils will be able to give them ratings. The higher the rating the more attractive it will be for visitors to use.
Now the Worcestershire County Council has not been doing to well with the ratings as they have managed to score the worst possible and the lowest possible rating which in a big fat zero by Active Travels England. Active travels England is the government body previously spoken about, they had gone to the extent of telling the council that if they wanted to continue to get these funds then improvements need to be made ASAP or there would be considerations of the county not getting anymore funds fo0r their improvements.
Now these ratings are given based on the fact that certain requirements are being met by the councils. The Worcestershire council managed to get this absolutely abysmal rating by not even meeting the basic of requirements for their cycling paths and walking paths. Minimum standards are kept so that councils have a chance to improve as some councils need more time and effort than other.
Active Travels England had made the statement that they would be withholding further funding till the council in question pulled up their socks and came about to meet the minimum standard of the funding regulation.
The damning letter to the council said: “Our funding is limited and we need to invest it in areas where we are likely to achieve our long-term outcomes. Unfortunately, we have assessed that the evidence you have provided does not demonstrate the minimum levels of local leadership and/or delivery track record that we require.”
