Decision due on part of the Nuneaton-Bedworth-Coventry cycle scheme

Reading Time: 5 minutes

The long-awaited Nuneaton to Coventry “super cycleway” may take a small step forward later this week with a tiny part of the route being put to the Portfolio Holder for Transport for approval. This features as part of a broader programme of road improvements and covers the south-most section through Exhall – only about 0.55km (0.35mi) and with serious compromises in quality.

Warwickshire County Council continue to refer to the development as a “high quality cycle route”, however the plan as presented cannot be described in that fashion with a number of problems including:

• It provides a sub-standard 3m wide shared-use path, designing in conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. The opposite side of the carriageway remains as just a footway, so this shared-use path will accommodate bidirectional cycling as well as foot traffic.
• There is no provision for parallel or priority crossings on any of the side-roads, two of which will feature regular toucan crossings, and connections to side roads on the opposite side look very poor if non-existent.
• There is also conflict with public transport users designed in, with the shared-use path running through two bus-stops.

In short, it’s a design from 10+ years ago that would have been poor quality then, but is clearly more so today with better standards having long been released, and improved designs slowly being developed elsewhere.

The route is noted for being heavily trafficked and busy with significant constraints, despite a major bypass existing a short distance away which should carry non-local traffic, and the road being widened to accommodate new general traffic lanes. While it is fair to acknowledge that the broader route was first being developed before the current design guidance for cycle infrastructure was published, and designing to better standards costs more money, LTN 1/20 is now five years old and well-established while new funding sources may be available. By carrying on with this design which squeezes all active travel modes to the side in limited and compromised space, Warwickshire Highways is pushing walking, wheeling and cycling down the transport hierarchy in favour of motor vehicles, embedding a scheme that is outdated before construction even gets started and which we’ll be lumbered with for many years to come.

But beyond the shared-use space – which objectively is at least better than nothing on this busy road – perhaps the real kick in the teeth comes from two fronts, which are clear when looking at the broader plans and maps.

Firstly, this section does not meet the junction with Trelawney Road to its north which would form part of a proposed quietway through Bedworth. While that quietway is not yet formally established, since it uses back roads it is quite useable now as an alternative to the direct but busy main road. Therefore, not connecting with this junction means we instantly have a network gap – not a long one; only about 210m, but a gap on a busy road nonetheless.

Secondly, the route now stops as the road passes under the M6, meters away from a busy, large roundabout which needs to be crossed to connect with Coventry. Given the plan specifically says “roundabout section of this scheme is now omitted“, it clearly was originally in scope. So, Warwickshire Highways have taken the decision not to bother supporting cycling across a busy, intimidating, and potentially quite dangerous roundabout.

While Coventry City Council does not currently provide cycle infrastructure to continue the route into the city along Longford Road and Foleshill Road, the plan was to connect with the Coventry Canal on less direct route. But still the roundabout would present as an obstacle. In its current form, it is perhaps one of the more daunting aspects of road cycling in the area, particularly travelling northbound. So, to omit this from the scheme is particularly damaging to the attractiveness of the broader route.

To take a slightly more positive angle, shared-use space is better than nothing. This location is clearly industrial and can be busy; it’s not an attractive place to cycle on the road and there is currently no infrastructure for off-road riding. Having said that though, the scheme’s appeal is surely going to be limited. It’s not going to be attractive to or appropriate for confident road riders, and while connectivity problems exist then take-up by less confident riders will surely be hampered. It might be fair to say that physical constraints here limit options (although I’d question that if the general road can still be expanded) but does that really mean that side road crossings and links into opposite side junctions can’t be done better?

Finally, the broader Nuneaton to Coventry route has been in planning for a very long time. If this short part does get approved and developed in 2026, then that would be around eight years after the Coventry Telegraph reported on the “super cycleway”. But the full route, from Nuneaton down to the M6 bridge, including the quietway, is around 5.4km. At this rate, how long will we need to wait before the full concept is realised? Would that be around 72 years?

Maybe the great-great-grandkids will be lucky enough to have a complete safe route – though they might still be stuck with shared-use space if this initial section is the example to be followed.

Okay, that’s being a tad facetious – but it illustrates the point. This development is glacially slow and pace needs to be accelerated. I would not be surprised if Warwickshire praises the arrival of this new scheme, maybe even with an imminent press release if it is approved this week. Yet I don’t think the local authority can be too proud of a poorly connected, outdated scheme covering just 10% of the broader route being delivered in the best part of a decade.

The Portfolio Holder’s decision is due on Friday 14 March 2025.

---

Archived Documents (PDF)

Referenced documents are archived here in case they become unavailable from the original source page.

• Portfolio Holder Decision Report (WCC direct)
• Appendix 1 for B4113 Longford Road Corridor Improvements (WCC direct)
• Appendix 2 for B4113 Longford Road Corridor Improvements (WCC direct)