Bold claim: Reading’s roads are under pressure, and the council says a controversial nudge is the key to easing congestion by reshaping how space on Sidmouth Street is used. But here’s where it gets controversial: does scaling back a currently underutilized cycle lane truly improve traffic flow, or does it sacrifice cyclist safety for quicker car travel?
Here’s the gist in plain language. Reading Borough Council is proposing to shrink a two-way cycle lane on the southbound side of Sidmouth Street, east of the town centre, and convert more of the street into car lanes. The motive, according to officials, is to better reflect actual demand on the local transport network and to make the best use of the road space available. The lane in question was first set up during the Covid-19 era as a temporary measure, replacing one lane of what used to be a two-way street after two cyclists were killed on a single day. It became permanent in September 2022 as part of an effort to create a connected network of cycle routes around Reading, although it drew criticism from some press outlets as an impractical “white elephant.”
The council argues the cycle lane has been underutilized due to insufficient funding to connect it with other nearby routes. A 2023 bid for Active Travel England funding to link Sidmouth Street with the National Cycle Network 422 at Kennetside was rejected, but officials maintained they would pursue the improvements as funding opportunities arose. Now, amid a broader review intended to improve overall road performance, the council says it will shorten the Sidmouth Street cycle lane, keeping it only south of the South Street junction to London Road. The plan would reconfigure Sidmouth Street to two car lanes from London Road, expanding to three lanes between South Street and Queens Road.
The stated aim is to widen vehicle capacity toward the town centre and to support a planned bus lane on London Road, which the council says will boost public transport reliability and shorten journey times. The authority maintains that this reallocation would also accommodate vehicles displaced by the new bus lane and create a safer shared space for cyclists westbound toward the town. A public consultation would follow if the proposal is approved by the council’s Traffic Management Sub-Committee (due March 5th).
Supporters argue that reducing the cycle lane and increasing motor traffic capacity addresses the town’s acute congestion and improves bus performance. Critics, including some councillors from different parties, question whether expanding a bus lane in London Road should come at the expense of cycling infrastructure, and whether the move would merely duplicate an already-existing route instead of stitching together Reading’s fragmented cycling network. A Green party councillor pointed out the danger of duplicating routes rather than integrating them, suggesting the plan may fail to deliver a truly cohesive cycling network.
This isn’t Reading’s first clash over cycling infrastructure. Past debates have centered on other lanes, such as Shinfield Road, where a council video promoting a segregated bike lane was interrupted by a driver, and where riders reported a bumpy surface and abrupt exits that dumped cyclists back into traffic. Puddles, abrupt surface changes, and long-standing “accident hotspots” around roundabouts have fed ongoing criticism. In December, a councillor acknowledged an accident hotspot roundabout had not been flagged for priority attention until a cyclist’s death drew attention to multiple crash locations around the elongated roundabout.
Bottom line: Reading’s transport overhaul reflects a persistent tension between expanding motor vehicle capacity and maintaining safe, connected cycling infrastructure. The question for residents and commuters is whether reallocating space to move more cars and support a future bus lane truly advances mobility, or if it undermines the very goals many residents favor—safer, more practical cycling options and a more reliable public transport system. Do you think this plan strikes the right balance, or should the city prioritize cycling connectivity and safety even if it means keeping or expanding cycle lanes where cars currently dominate?
