This consultation closes on 14 February we urge you to respond to the consultation here

Summary of Cycleways’ response

  1. No climate change objective is included in the consultation document, despite all 3 signatory councils recognising that there is a climate change emergency, and that climate change mitigation is one of their strategic objectives.
  2. Options 2 and 3 in the consultation document are principally based on road building and road vehicles. The sustainable options have not been considered as viable alternatives to the road schemes, despite these options having greater potential to meet the stated objectives and meet climate change targets;
  3. The Vectos Detailed Modelling Assessment only considers road-based solutions. It ignores the sustainable options mentioned in the consultation document;
  4. There is evidence that several key objectives stated in the consultation document will not be met, despite claims to the contrary;
  5. All of the aims set out in the consultation document could be achieved by adopting the sustainable options

Our full response to the consultation is here

traffic jams in the city, road, rush hour

We encourage you to respond to the consultation here.

Our response to the consultation is here


  1. Stephen Traynor on 9 February 2021 at 4:34 pm


    Assuming that it goes ahead, are there any specific aspects of the proposal that you suggest we should be objecting to e.g. shared pedestrian and cycling facilities which I believe is not recommended in the DoT’s Gear Change document?

    Apart form the general objection to new roads, are there any specific reasons why the proposed roads should not be built? Is there a better active travel/public transport alternative?

    Thank and regards,


    • Andy on 11 February 2021 at 6:10 pm

      There is more information at
      I think the main reason the road should not be built is that it doesn’t actually solve the problems. There is a localised & short-term reductiion in queuing on Gibbet HIll, but more traffic into other loca roads (which have to be widened without any space for cycle users). But this benefit is at the expense of increased problems elsewhere and in the future.

  2. George Riches on 13 February 2021 at 11:00 am

    The consultation closes on 14 Feb!

    My additional comment:

    This is the old “Predict and Provide” method of responding to transport demand. With the usual answer of more roads.

    it’s about time more emphasis was put on using the road network more efficiently by using vehicles, such as buses, trams, trains and pedal cycles which are far
    more space efficient than single occupancy SUVs.

    Also more emphasis is needed on relocating office space from ill-sited business parks like Westwood to places easier to serve by space efficient modes of

    My ideas about an alternative:

    Traffic demand reduction for Stoneleigh Road and Gibbet Hill Road:

    1) Change of use of Westwood Business Park to residential. Student accommodation would be ideal.

    2) Re-location of the University of Warwick car parking to much closer to the A46 Stoneleigh junction. That would greatly reduce the number of vehicles using Stoneleigh Road and Gibbet Hill Road, as buses are much more efficient people movers than single occupancy cars. Cycling and micro mobility solutions for use between the new car parking and the campus would add flexibility.

    If the new parking were close to a new railway station, it would also reduce demand on roads into Coventry and Leamington, as motorists could park there and continue by public transport rather than entering those towns.