The UK standard for assessing cycling and walking route quality across safety, comfort, and placemaking criteria.

Unlike single-score assessment tools, the ATE Route Check does not collapse all findings into one number. Instead, it produces separate outputs for each module, giving scheme designers and funding reviewers a detailed picture of where a route succeeds and where it falls short. The assessment begins with a Policy Check that acts as a gateway: six high-level principles must all pass before the detailed scoring has practical value.

The Policy Check evaluates six fundamental principles drawn from LTN 1/20. These include cyclist separation from motor traffic, barrier-free access, directness of routing, surface suitability for all users, adequate lighting, and network connectivity. Each principle is assessed as either compliant (Yes) or non-compliant (No). A failure on any policy principle does not prevent the rest of the assessment from being completed, but it flags a fundamental design conflict that must be resolved.

After the Policy Check, the Safety, Path, and Placemaking modules each use tiered scoring. Safety metrics use a four-level scale from 2 (Green, high service) through 1 (Amber, basic service) and 0 (Red, poor service) down to C (Critical Issue, an unsafe condition that constitutes a showstopper). Path and Placemaking metrics use a three-level scale: 2 (Green, high quality), 1 (Amber, medium quality), and 0 (Red, low quality). Every metric also allows an N/A designation when a feature is not present or not relevant to the route section being assessed.

The official ATE Route Check user manual is published by Active Travel England and defines the complete assessment methodology for cycling and walking infrastructure in England.

The ATE Route Check defines 16 safety metrics (SA01 through SA16) that target specific hazard categories along the route. These are the most consequential part of the assessment because a Critical score on any single safety metric constitutes a showstopper that must be resolved before the scheme can be considered acceptable. The assessment applies the "Rule of Worst" principle: if 90% of a route section has adequate lane widths but one pinch point narrows to a dangerous dimension, the entire section receives the score for the worst condition found.

Key safety metrics include SA01 (Side Roads and Priority Junctions), which is scored Critical if more than 2,500 vehicles per day cut across the cycling flow without proper priority treatment. SA03 (Lane Widths) triggers a Critical score when cyclists are mixed in general traffic lanes between 3.25 metres and 3.9 metres wide, a dimension that encourages dangerous overtaking within the lane. SA08 (Motor Traffic Speed) receives a Critical rating when 85th-percentile speeds exceed 30 mph in mixed-traffic conditions without physical separation. SA11 (Footway Widths) is marked Critical when usable pedestrian width falls below 1.5 metres.

Additional safety metrics cover roundabouts and signal junctions (SA02), trip hazards with vertical upstands exceeding 13 millimetres (SA04), kerbside loading and parking conflicts (SA05), provision and standard of crossings (SA06, SA07), motor traffic volume exceeding 1,000 vehicles per hour in mixed traffic (SA09), pedestrian crossing speeds (SA10), tram line proximity (SA12), rail and tram crossing angles below 45 degrees (SA13), cycling surface defects such as potholes and ironwork (SA14), walking surface defects (SA15), and guard railing that reduces effective widths below minimums (SA16).

The ATE Route Check builds on the LTN 1/20 CLoS assessment tool, expanding it with dedicated Path quality and Placemaking modules.

The Path Check comprises 30 metrics (PA17 through PA46) organized across five design principle categories: Accessibility, Comfort, Directness, Attractiveness, and Cohesion. Each metric is scored on a three-level scale: 2 (Green, high quality meeting or exceeding desirable minimum standards), 1 (Amber, meeting absolute minimum standards but falling short of desirable), and 0 (Red, failing to meet minimum standards or non-existent). This module provides the granular detail that separates a merely safe route from one that people actually want to use.

Accessibility metrics (PA17 to PA21) assess barriers, steps, gradients, tactile information, and the ability to turn around, ensuring the route works for wheelchair users, mobility scooters, and adapted cycles. Comfort metrics (PA22 to PA32) evaluate shared-use widths, surface conditions for walking, cycling, and horse riding, crossing suitability, access point quality, and drainage. In the form, inspectors select scores for metrics like PA22 (Width for Shared Use) and PA26 (Surface Condition) from standardized dropdown options, ensuring consistent data capture across different assessors and route sections.

The Placemaking Check (PP01 through PP19) evaluates the social and environmental value of the route surroundings. These 19 metrics are grouped into Social Activity (engagement for children, social spaces, points of interest), Personal Security (surveillance, forward visibility, visibility of others), Character (maintenance, material consistency, visual interest, support features), and Environment (trees, planting, fauna features, sustainable materials, pollution exposure, and quality of connections). PP19 (Quality of Connections) specifically assesses how well the route integrates with surrounding destinations and transport nodes.

The combination of Path and Placemaking scores gives scheme designers a complete picture: a route that scores well on safety and path quality but poorly on placemaking may be technically functional but fail to attract users. Conversely, a beautifully landscaped route with poor surface drainage or inadequate widths will receive low Path scores regardless of its environmental merits.

The accessibility metrics (PA17-PA21) relate directly to requirements in the DIN 18040 accessibility standards and the UK Inclusive Mobility guidance for dimensional thresholds. For more inspection standards, see our standards directory.

The Critical Issues Log is a repeatable sub-form that captures detailed evidence for every safety hazard identified during the route assessment. When an inspector scores any SA metric as "C" (Critical), they must record the exact location of the hazard, either by chainage marker, GPS coordinate, or reference to a nearby landmark. Each critical issue entry requires the source metric (which SA metric triggered it), a detailed description of the observed hazard, and photographic evidence. This documentation serves multiple purposes: it provides scheme designers with actionable data for remediation, it creates an evidence trail for funding decisions, and it enables follow-up inspections to verify that hazards have been resolved.

The log accepts multiple entries per route section because a single section may contain several distinct critical hazards. For example, a 500-metre route section might have both a lane width pinch point (SA03 Critical) at one location and an uncontrolled crossing over a busy road (SA06 Critical) at another. Each hazard gets its own log entry with independent location, description, and photo evidence. Inspectors can also log hazards from the "Other Hazard" category for safety concerns that do not map neatly to one of the standard SA metrics but still warrant documentation.

For an example of a completed ATE Route Check with identified critical issues, see this published route assessment by Harrogate Cycle Action.