Swansea Council has admitted that a new shared-use cycle and pedestrian path may not officially open for another two months – despite describing it as “largely complete” – as locked gates blocking access to the route have forced frustrated local cyclists to use a “very busy” stretch of road with a narrow tunnel instead.
After receiving complaints from residents that the path, which provides an off-road link to a railway station, remains inaccessible and unusable from the station’s entrance, the local authority admitted that the route will possibly remain unopen to the public until August, thanks to difficulties securing specialist Network Rail-approved contractors to install CCTV and lighting.
The three metre-wide shared-use path, linking Fairwood Terrace in Gowerton, four miles northwest of Swansea city centre, to the village’s railway station forms the first phase of a larger active travel scheme designed to link Gowerton to nearby Loughor for cyclists and pedestrians, while “boosting accessibility for rail users travelling via sustainable transport”.
Unlike some active travel projects we’ve reported on the over the years, the shared-use path has generally been welcomed by locals, who have taken to social media to announce that they “can’t wait” for the cycle-friendly “faster route to shops and schools for local people”.
However, its execution has left quite a lot to be desired, with cyclists and residents growing increasingly impatient with the ongoing delays, caused – despite the scheme’s ambition to boost accessibility for rail users – by issues related to its proximity to the railway.
According to Swansea Council, the installation of CCTV cameras and lighting along the path, deemed essential by the local authority, has been held up because the works require the co-operation of Network Rail, which owns and manages the station and its surrounding rail infrastructure.
Therefore, specialist Network Rail-approved contractors are needed to carry out these final installations, a process Swansea Council admits may not be completed until the end of the summer, Nation-Cymru reports.
This delay – which means the path remains closed from the station end thanks to a locked gate – has led one cyclist to formally complain to the council, pointing out that the current alternative route for people on bikes is “unsafe” and “inconvenient” for many.

At the moment, cyclists hoping to access the station must do so by riding along the “very busy” Victoria Road, including under a narrow railway tunnel, before eventually turning left to enter the station at its western entrance a few hundred metres away – a longer route the cyclist says can feel intimidating for those less confident cycling among traffic.
“The tarmac is finished and set. People keep asking why the extension hasn’t opened yet and what’s the point of the locked gate. It’s a link that could really change things for a lot of people here – we’re just waiting for it now,” the cyclist, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the council by email.
Responding to the cyclist, the council said it is currently working closely with Network Rail to ensure the path will open to the public as quickly as possible.
“While the completion of walking and cycle routes on council land are usually straightforward, the development of similar infrastructure within a live railway environment requires additional permissions from Network Rail, as well as sourcing specialist railway contractors to complete specific works,” council spokesperson.
“These factors have contributed to delays in the completion of the scheme. We are aiming to complete the remaining works before the end of summer, which includes the installation of path lighting and CCTV. Once completed, we are confident that residents will see a huge benefit in terms of public access to and from the station.”

In another email sent to Independent councillor Susan Jones, who also complained about the delays, the local authority admitted it has proved “difficult” to secure the specialist contractors required for the job.
“The construction of the Gowerton Rail active travel link is now largely complete,” the council told Jones. “However, before it can open to the public, CCTV equipment and path lighting must be installed, by specialist Network Rail-approved contractors.
“It has been difficult to secure the availability of such specialist contractors, and we are now expecting the remaining works to be finished in August, however we continue to chase getting this path open sooner.
“For your information, whilst there are gates on the path at the northern side of the station, these will remain open unless there are specific reasons to restrict access to the train station, such as for planned maintenance works. During this period advisory signs will placed to warn users of any closures. The presence of these gates is a requirement of Network Rail.
“We apologise for the delays in completing this scheme, however we are pushing to get this link open to the public as soon as possible.”
Network Rail, meanwhile, declined to comment or offer any details about when the scheme might be completed.




















18 thoughts on “Cyclists furious as “completed” bike path blocked by locked gate after opening delayed by two months – forcing them onto busy “unsafe” road with narrow tunnel”
This perfect being the
This perfect being the enemy of good, shows lack of joined up thinking from the council.
As long as its basically safe, open the path having stated that its safer even unlit than the detour, then close temporarily again when the contractor is ready. This is not rocket science – just failure to consider things holistically.
(Now if there are additional safety issues with the new route then fair enough.)
Nope, it’s not safe. Also,
Nope, it’s not safe. Also, all roads lacking street lighting and CCTV should be closed immediately.
Brand new word?
Pretty rare word… about 1/400000 at its peak in the 19th century.
“Unopened” is a bit more
“Unopened” is a bit more common.
Although unusual, I see the logic for using “unopen”. “Closed” implies it was previously open, whereas “unopen” makes it clear that it has never been opened.
OnYerBike wrote:
“a bit” more common… just a factor of 5,000,000! Definitely a word most people unuse. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a valid word, and I appreciate its use.
OnYerBike wrote:
In fact unopen is an adjective that does simply mean the same as closed with no indication as to whether it was or was not previously open, whereas unopened is a passive past participle (functioning as an adjective) meaning that the action of opening has never been applied to the subject. So, for example, “an unopen bottle of whisky” could be one that hasn’t been opened at all or one that is half full but with the cap back on, but “an unopened bottle of whisky” is definitely one on which the seal has yet to be broken.
Excellent forward planning,
Excellent forward planning, lets lay new tarmac then rip it up to lay cables.
The rail estate has long been
The rail estate has long been [literally] a law unto itself. Rarely is it obliged to take meaninful part in collaboration with ‘other’ agencies such as utilities and local authorities for planning, highways or flooding, for examples. They don’t completely ignore others, but it is very much on their terms, and the law makes it clear that conflicts of jurisdiction or strategic/operational goals are usually resolved in favour of the railways.
While railways have a strategic, non-local significance, they are not only non-local. It is about time they were at least obliged to bring a meaningful contribution to the table, to work effectviely with local authorities on resolving issues reasonably and in reasonable time.
Network Rail in delayed
Network Rail in delayed project shock!
Cyclists are always furious
Cyclists are always furious
. So what’s new. 😂
Codfather123 wrote:
Yes, if only they could take a leaf out of the car drivers’ handbook, renowned for accepting road closures, cycle lanes, LTNs, sportifs, charity rides etc without a word of complaint. Do take your trolling elsewhere, there’s a good chap.
”The problem with cyclists:
”The problem with cyclists: -They go too fast -They go too slow -They won’t get on the sidewalk -They won’t get off the sidewalk -They are rich hobbyists -They are folks who can’t afford a car -They are entitled and demand bike lanes -They take the lane when there’s no bike lane” — Peter Flax
You’ve clearly never seen any
You’ve clearly never seen any of the YouTube clips of road rage drivers, or read the media reports 🙄
What is the reason that a
What is the reason that a path requires a lockable gate in the first place? Are they concerned that someone will pry up and steal the path? Anyone sufficiently motivated to commit crime can easily hop over that fence anyway, so literally they are only keeping out the law-abiding population.
That said, if it makes any locals feel better, in my area, a critical path has been closed for four years, and has two more still to go before reopening — because the area is being used to store materials for a highway repair project (that itself is taking over a decade).
This is another of the several reasons why redundant infrastructure construction is not, and is not scalable, and does not work.
Not sure why they went for a
Not sure why they went for a lockable gate here, but authorities or their contractors are not always terribly smart. Recently bollards have been added back to a junction on the local walking and cycling path network here. I can understand why they added bollards at the three entrances (Presumably concern that the odd motorist has got confused and tried to drive on). But they’ve also added redundant bollards internal to the junction. Just gets in the way of people waking and cycling…
And the bollards are black,
And the bollards are black, so blend in perfectly to the tarmac, and are in a position no-one would expect to find them, so are literally an accident waiting to happen. If I had installed these, I’d be putting a couple of hi-viz, reflective bands on them pronto, before I got sued.
eburtthebike wrote:
That right there is why you wouldn’t fit in in Edinburgh council.
See also the tram line / cycle route interaction fiasco where they had several sources telling them what they were building was a hazard. Dunno whether it was “sorry other considerations” or simply “too much criticism, we’re done listening and we will just build it and see what happens” … but so far it’s been one death and over a million in compensation for injuries (don’t know what the current total is).
They have finally managed some work-arounds of varying quality. Cyclists still need their wits about them eg. on Princes Street though.
(Now ranting…) And all this (and well over a billion the cost ) and we only have a *single* tram line through the town! (And the plan to improve that is now to break some of the limited mobility network there is by running another tram line on the route where my picture of the bollards is – in part because they have tired of criticism from the public for that fiasco much of their own making…)
All that shows is they care
All that shows is they care about the highways and motorised use and little or nothing about the path and active travel. Logically they could have done things the opposite way round if those planning considered the path critical!
Self- fulfilling prophesy – “Hardly anyone cycles or walks, or they do so just for recreation – so no point worrying over provision for them”.
(And in fact keeping active travel provision passable at the expense of some moror-vehicle space is indeed what is seen where the authorities do take it seriously. Elsewhere? “Footway closed” and “cyclists dismount”.)