Fianna Fáil Senator Paul Daly has questioned “whose common good” it is to have the Safe Routes to School project in his hometown of Kilbeggan and of greenways generally.

According to documents on Westmeath County Council’s website, before implementing the Safe Routes to School project for Scoil an Chlochai, Kilbeggan National School, it was documented how some parents were driving and parking on footpaths during the school run.

The project, which complemented the design of the road outside the newly built Mercy Secondary School on the same road, included widening footpaths to make them into shared paths to serve the two schools. Bollards, trees and greening were added to discourage parents from driving up onto footpaths.

Both schools have their own car pickup arrangements — the secondary school within the school grounds and the national school in the church car park behind it. Google Maps Street View imagery suggests that some parents continue to try to ignore these and park on the shared path at driveways, etc.

A scoument for the Safe Routes to School outlines that a survey was sent “to all families of Scoil an Chlochair” before the plans were drawn up. There was a 52.6% response rate to the survey with 71.4% of parents surveyed agreed that road safety is a problem around the school, 97.4% saying they would “support works at the front of school that improve student safety, putting pedestrians and cyclists first.”

Of the respondents, 75 students (60.9%) start their journey within a 1km radius of the school, and 95 students (77.2%) within a 2km radius.

But in a recent debate on greenways at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, Senator Paul Daly questioned the good of the project even after he admitted that it slowed down traffic outside the two schools.

In his comments, the Senator addressed Barry Kehoe, chief executive of Westmeath County Council and chairman of the County and City Management Association’s transport infrastructure networks committee, who was appearing at the committee as a witness mainly on the issue of greenways.

Senator Daly said: “We can split hairs on who considers what to be the common good and whose common good is it. While it is not a greenway, Mr Kehoe would be aware of a town and village renewal active travel project in my town of Kilbeggan. The footpath up to the school was widened, and junctions were changed. It slowed down the traffic, and its aim was to have kids walk to the school.”

“When I canvassed for both the local and general elections, at every second door, I was getting complaints about how much longer it was taking to do the school run in the town. Regarding the common good, the people were not looking for that active travel project because they were still going to the school in their cars,” he claimed.

Despite the survey of parents showing strong support for the project, from the majority who responded, Senator Daly said: “Who decides what the common good is? These people did not have an input into that. They did not see this as the common good because they were still driving.”

The issue of greenways and the common good will be covered in a separate article.

It would link the routes at the Firhouse Road West, Kiltipper Road, and Killinniny Road junctions along the Old Bawn Road.

It will upgrade what officials term “substandard pedestrian and cycle infrastructure” and will also be a substantial improvement over previous plans for the junctions, which included painted cycle lanes through the junctions. The three options are shown below.

The the project is called the “Old Bawn Road Active Travel Scheme — Southern Junctions” scheme, and it will better link the Dodder Valley Greenway, Firhouse Road Active Travel Improvement Scheme, and the D24 Neighbourhood Cycle Network phase 1, Firhouse Road West, and phase 2, Firhouse Road West.

The council officials said they assessed the three junctions at the southern end of the Old Bawn Road using multi-criteria analysis, which considered 19 junction options. The three chosen junction plans include segregated cycle paths and the removal of slip lanes as officials outlined how the slips “present a significant safety risk for vulnerable road users.”

While slip-turning lanes are recognised as being dangerous for people walking and cycling, the officials note that surveys identified extra safety issues, particularly for students from Firhouse Community College, as the capacity of the traffic islands at the Killinniny Road junctions is exceeded by students using it.

The council said that 6,400 pedestrians and cyclists were counted on footpaths and cycle lanes over 24 hours in May 2025.

On the Firhouse Road approach to Old Bawn Road, the council are also proposing a traffic-light-priority bus gate — this only stops general traffic when a bus is present.

The non-statutory public consultation on the project started on June 24th and runs until August 4th. Details of the preferred junction options, assessment of the options, and the form to make a submission can be found at consult.sdublincoco.ie.

The council added: “A Public Consultation for the full Old Bawn Road Active Travel Scheme will be held at a future date prior to the scheme delivery.”

A Freedom of Information request has found there are no records of Mayo County Council seeking funding for a footpath or cycle route to a new school at the edge of Ballina.

Culleens National School, based on the Killala Road in the town, made national news twice in recent years as schoolchildren have protested over the lack of a safe route to their new school after it was moved across the busy and high-speed main road.

Mayo County Council has still not progressed any plan to provide safe walking and cycling provision, even two years after the opening of the new Culleens National School building, which replaces an older building and prefabs on the other side of the road.

The school told RTE that the number of children travelling to school by car had increased since the move across the road, and those travelling by foot and by bike had decreased.

School run times can be chaotic on the Killala Road with a high volume of traffic at the junction into the school, including parents making drop-offs by car, school buses going to Culleens and other schools, as well as general traffic going elsewhere, a mix of commuters in cars, trucks, and other vehicles.

The commuter traffic mostly approaches the junction from the rural side, often at higher speeds, while the school run traffic is mainly from the urban area. In between all of this, a small number of parents and children can sometimes be seen trying to dash across the road on foot.

The school’s relocation has been long-planned, with formal plans submitted to the council 7 years ago, and the council approving the new school in 2018. It is also over 20 years since a housing estate beside the school, Oaklawn, was approved by Mayo County Council. A small business park, which was only partly built, was also approved by the council.

There is a footpath on the opposite side of the road, where the old school and an even larger housing estate were built, but even as traffic has increased over the years, no safe crossing of the high-speed road has been provided.

People used to walk in a rough area along the side of the road, but the council filled this in with bushes, trees, and grass in 2013 — a decade after Oaklawn was given planning approval and built. It is understood that the purpose of the greening of the side of the road was to obscure the half-built business park.

Local councillors and TDs have been reported to be in favour of measures to make the route to the school safer for children walking and cycling and for residents of Oaklawn. But they have complained about the lack of progress and the lack of information provided to them.

In February of this year, the Western People, a local newspaper, reported that Cllr Marie-Therese Duffy (Fine Gael) brought a notice of motion before that month’s Ballina Municipal District council meeting seeking a timeline for the installation of the safety measures on the Killala Road between Leigue Cemetery and the entrance road the school.

The newspaper reported: “In response, area engineer Orla Bourke said that the provision of these measures was subject to funding. She said the location was recently unsuccessful in an application made to the National Transport Authority for funding.”

To better understand why the funding was rejected, this website submitted a Freedom of Information request to the National Transport Authority (NTA) seeking a copy of the application for any proposed works on Kilala Road in Ballina.

No records

The NTA said it has no records of such an application made within the last five years. When this website asked for clarity on the request, the FOI decision maker at the NTA said: “The request took into account all funding applications submitted for projects on the Killala Road in Ballina. This includes works such as footpaths and cycle lanes, and covers projects at all stages — from concept through to completion.”

IrishCycle.com asked Mayo County Council if it could explain why councillors were told funding was sought from the NTA when the authority has no records of any application in the last five years.

A spokesperson for Mayo County Council said: “The provision of active travel infrastructure between Ballina and Scoil Naomh Brid at Culleen is proposal two in [the Ballina] Local Transport Plan. Over the last four years, the Active Section Travel [of the council] have sought funding for the delivery of active travel projects in Mayo. Specific Proposals were not listed in funding application. In addition, low-cost safety funding was applied for in this was not successful.”

“Mayo County Council will continue to seek funding from the NTA for the proposals in the Local Transport Plan as this is the most appropriate funding stream available at present,” the spokesperson said.

The council noted that the school is outside the urban speed limit zone but that following Public Consultation for the Local Transport Plan, the NTA agreed to include two rural schools in Ballina Local Transport Plan.

Asked what the council’s plan is to make the school, housing estate, and business premises accessible to people walking and cycling, a spokesperson added: “Mayo County Council will continue to seek funding from the NTA for the proposals in the Local Transport Plan to deliver meaningful active travel infrastructure.”

The route in the Local Transport Plan is a wider route from the town centre, via Convent Hill, to Killala Road as far as the Culleens National School. Following stakeholder consultation in 2022 and a full public consultation in 2024, the final version of the local transport plan was published in 2025.

Gardaí have warned parents that a child caught riding an electric scooter will be subject to a Juvenile Liaison Officer (JLO) caution and contact with the child protection agency, Tusla.

The details of the individual case are limited, but the message was posted by An Garda Síochána Kilkenny on their official Facebook page, and a general warning was made for all parents to keep children safe, know the law, and be responsible.

The warning follows wide reports in the media that six children are currently on life support at Temple Street Hospital due to injuries relating to the use of e-scooters. This has prompted some medics to call for a full ban on e-scooters, while Garda representative groups have called for dedicated pursuit training and a tactical framework for pursuits involving both e-scooters and scramblers.

The image posted by the offical Kilkenny Garda page outlines how “This e-scooter was seized in Kilkenny after it was used by a child under 16 under the ages of 16” and the text went on to outline how “The child will receive a JLO caution” and that “Tusla will be in contact with his parents”.

It adds: “Parents — please be aware: It is against the law for children under 16 to use an e-scooter on any public road, footpath or cycle lane” and goes on to call on parents to “Keep our children safe. Know the law. Be responsible.”

While the JLO caution system is voluntary, a very large percentage of electric scooters are overpowered and thus could be viewed as illegal motorised vehicles. The image posted includes a photo of the scooter model sold online that exceeds the national 25km/h limit for e-scooters. The limit for e-scooters a device limit.

Regardless of the device’s specs, the use of e-scooters is strictly banned for teenagers under 16.

For any e-scooter used by anyone aged 16 or over, the rider must not carry any passengers; the device cannot include a seat; it cannot have a rated continuous output of over 400W; and it must have a maximum weight of 25kg, including its batteries. A manufacturer’s plate is also required on the device.

For context, this is the full image posted by the Garda page on Facebook:

There are some exceptions (mainly during Covid and a few recent bus lanes linked to BusConnects changes), but few traffic changes this large are implemented without public consultation and debate. If you Google “two-way Jervis Street”, you’ll find details not on the city council’s website, but on the websites of car parks and on the business group DublinTown.

According to Dublin Town’s website, the car park enhancement plan on Jervis Street was apparently a trial.

At this stage or from the start, some people reading this might already be thinking: “Sure, cycling is allowed on Capel Street, so why bother with allowing it two-way on Jervis Street?”

There’s a few reasons:

• Dublin needs a cycle network, not just single routes.
• Jervis Street is a primary route in the GDA Cycle Network Plan
• Having parallel routes means that the volume of people cycling is more split between the two routes, with people who are in more of a rush maybe choosing Jervis Street instead.

In the old GDA Cycle Network Plan, Capel Street was the primary cycle route, and Jervis Street was a secondary route — it’s likely that should be switched around, but for the other reasons listed above, it’s still useful to have Jervis Street as a solid link in the cycle network.

This is an outline of the traffic layout currently on the street:

The changes allow people driving out of the car parks on the street to get back to the quays without going around and down Church Street, etc. The changes also allow for people using the DublinBikes station or the general bicycle parking on the street to also use this route towards the quays westbound — I’ve used it while stopping off on the street on the way to Heuston Station:

Jervis Street does not go the full way to the quays; the last bit between Great Strand Street and the Quays is Swifts Row:

Swifts Row is likely the most difficult section, as far as I can see, there are two options:;

• Remove/relocate the loads/parking on the east side (left of this photo) and insert a contra-flow cycle track.
• Remove it and put in a two-way cycle path (it only works well with a two-way path in the mid section, see below).
• Allow contra-flow without lanes — it might seem like a hard call to allow it here with how busy it is, but allowing contra-flow here would be better than having people cycle around a longer way with more risks. Width-wise, it should work, and an exit treatment could be put in place at the quays.

The latter option above can be implemented more quickly than the other two. If the council cannot give space to cycling, some action is better than none.

For the middle section, the two options are:

• Leave it as two-way for general access traffic and cycling.
• Install a two-way cycle path on one side of the road.

As shown below, there is not enough space for two-way car access and any kind of cycle path:

North of the entrance/exit to Jervis Shopping Centre car park, there’s space for a two-way cycle path, and there’s little reason not to install such:

There’s really no reason for action not to be taken. There might be some difficulty, including how to design the junction with Parnell Street, but there’s nothing that cannot be overcome if there is a will to get it done quickly.

Clare County Council said it is developing the West Clare Railway Greenway as an accessible route which “will support active travel and provide new opportunities for recreation, tourism and connectivity between places of work, education and leisure.”

“The proposed greenway will follow the route of the former West Clare Railway, where feasible,” Clare County Council said on its website.

West Clare Railway was a narrow-gauge railway that operated between 1887 and 1961. The railway, which stretched 85km, started in Ennis and went via Ennistymon, then down the coast via Milltown Malbay before splitting off towards two termini at Kilrush and Kilkee. The drawings for the greenway route include diversions away from the old railway alignments to avoid houses and farmyards on or near the old railway.

While the council has done prep work on other sections of the full route, the planning application today only relates to the section between Kilrush and Kilkee, amounting to just over 15km.

The council said it “Will continue to advance the ‘Voluntary Land Acquisition Process’, including farm accommodation works in parallel with the required statutory process agreed in the ‘Code of Best Practice for National and Regional Greenways’.”

That process includes applying for Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) for land that cannot be acquired through the voluntary process, and documents have been published to seek permission for CPOs from the national planning board.

The council said that the move to submit a planning application follows five years of preparatory work, including engagement with landowners, farming representatives and the local community. The council said that all affected landowners have been consulted in advance of the publication of notices.

Alan Farrell, deputy chief executive and director of service for housing with Clare County Council, said he wanted to thank all those involved, including landowners, representative bodies, stakeholders and members of the public, “for their ongoing support and cooperation in helping to progress the scheme to this important milestone.”

He said that the greenway delivery team had “worked closely with all parties throughout the process and that the work carried out to date demonstrated Clare County Council’s commitment to meaningful stakeholder engagement and to addressing any concerns as the project progresses.”

“The provision of a greenway in this location will enhance access to the wider West Clare region while highlighting the importance of sustainable tourism, active travel, built heritage and the natural environment. Experience elsewhere in Ireland has shown that greenways can also act as powerful economic drivers, supporting sustainable tourism, creating local employment and helping to revitalise rural economies,” said Farrell.

He added: “By attracting both domestic and international visitors, they generate ongoing revenue for local hospitality and recreation businesses while supporting long-term community health and development. This project also provides an opportunity to promote the historical and educational significance of the former West Clare Railway and to showcase the scenic character of the surrounding area.”

Details according to the plans

According to the plans, the greenway will typically be 3 metres wide with an asphalt surface and 1m green or other verges on each side. The width of the route will narrow down at constraints, including at former railway bridges or embankments.

According to a description of the plans: “Two trailheads are proposed along the route, one at Moyasta and the larger of the two at Kilrush. These trailheads will incorporate car parking, bike stands, picnic areas, bins, toilets and other ancillary facilities.”

The plan outlines that bridges, retaining walls, culverts, farm access paths, farm crossings, and public road crossings and access points will be needed for the route. Livestock-proof fencing with native hedgerows is proposed for sections of the development that border or run through what is currently private farmland, while existing fencing and hedging will be retained where possible.

The application documents also stated that, along the former rail corridor, mature vegetation will be preserved where possible, while “New and supplementary native planting will be installed along verges and other suitable screening and boundary treatments as required along the route.”

Full details of the project, including CPO maps, general maps and reports can be found at westclarerailwaygreenway.ie/section-1.

A pilot scrappage scheme aimed at replacing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with battery-electric vehicles (EVs) was closed just two hours after it opened, and just a month after it was announced.

The closure of the grant application means that 2,000 owners of older cars have each snapped up €5,000 grants. Demand was so strong that the scheme is closed to new applications. The Department of Transport said: “The ICE2EV Pilot Scheme is now closed for applications, after exceptionally strong interest in the new grant from car dealerships and their customers.”

“The initiative was backed by €10 million in funding from the Climate Action Fund under the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, meaning that 2,000 ICE vehicles will be removed from our roads and replaced by EVs,” a spokesperson at the Department of Transport said.

The scheme made a €5,000 grant available to replace petrol- or diesel-engine vehicles aged over 13 years with new battery-electric vehicles. This is in addition to the existing €3,500 SEAI grant, which is generally baked into the advertised price of electric cars in Ireland.

The spokesperson said: “The high level of interest reflects growing consumer engagement with the transition to EVs among both rural and urban motorists. This momentum supports Ireland’s Climate Action ambitions, including the target for 30% of the national vehicle fleet to be electric by 2030.”

“The scheme was administered by SEAI, and early figures indicate a spread of demand across all counties, with 65% of the allocated funding ringfenced for rural areas. Applications shows a predominance of older vehicles (with most scrapped cars aged 16 years or more), and good uptake among smaller EV and lower-cost models, suggesting the scheme is meeting its key objectives,” the spokesperson for the Department of Transport said.

The Department said that it will work closely with SEAI to review and evaluate the pilot. While a note on the scrpage grant’s webpage said: “A review of the scheme will be undertaken by the Department of Transport & SEAI following its conclusion, examining uptake, emissions impact, and overall value for money, to inform any future policy decisions in this area.”

The Department added: “The existing SEAI EV purchase grant of €3,500 remains available to all private customers and continues to see strong growth. An additional €37 million was allocated from the Climate Action Fund to support the high level of demand in 2026, including vehicles purchased through the scrappage scheme.”

“Show us your budget, and we’ll show you your priorities”

When the new scrapage grant was announced, Dublin Commuters, a group which advocates for sustainable transport, criticised the lack of grants for bicycles.

“€8,500 worth of grants & trade-ins available for electric cars… and still no sign of a bike scheme for people in non-typical employment or to trade a car in for a cargo-bike. Show us your budget, and we’ll show you your priorities,” the groups said at the time.

Île-de-France, a region in France which includes Paris, offers financial aid for the purchase of bicycles up to 50% of the cost, with a ceiling of €100 to €1200 of aid depending on the type of bike.

Campaigners in Ireland argue that a €10 million fund could provide support for 10,000 or more electric or cargo bicycles for people and businesses — that’s compared with the 2,000 cars that are to be grant-supported via the ICE2EV scheme.

The last Government’s Programme for Government promised wider incentives for bicycles — the move was widely supported by Ibec, Government and opposition politicians, Department of Transport officials, active transport and climate experts, and campaign groups. There is sustained criticism that the Cycle to Work only works for PAYE workers and a limited number of other people, leaving most self-employed people, students, retired and businesses with no support.

But besides widening the limits of the Cycle to Work scheme to better suit electric and cargo bicycles, there was no move to develop grants or government-backed low-cost loans for bicycles.

As reported in 2022, the Green Party pushed for bicycle incentives, but their coalition partners and other department officials opposed such moves. In 2023, then-transport minister Eamon Ryan responded to a party colleague by recommitting to having officials research bicycle incentives. Nothing was changed before the end of the government term, and the Department has not published any research on bicycle incentives.

Construction of elements of the Dart+ Coastal North is to be accelerated using the Shared Island funding, the Department of Transport has confirmed. The Shared Island funding is ring-fenced for investment that has North/South benefits.

A Department spokesperson told this website that “Construction is planned to commence next year and be completed by 2029.”

The Dart+ elements being fast-tracked are signalling upgrades, a turnback facility at Malahide station, and a track loop at Clongriffin station.

The funding amounts to €93 million linked to Dart+ Coastal North. The Department said that the Dart+ funding will help to avoid scheduling conflicts between the cross-border Enterprise and Dart services on the Northern Line. A press release said that the works would “enable Enterprise trains to seamlessly pass stationed Dart and Commuter trains, helping to improve the efficiency and reliability of the service.”

Minister for Transport Darragh O’Brien said: “The allocation by the Government of Shared Island funding to these projects will allow us to further strengthen cross-border rail. I am particularly pleased to see the acceleration of works on Dart+ Coastal North ahead of the entry into service of the new Dart fleet next year, and the new Enterprise Rail fleet ahead of its entry into service in 2030.”

The delayed battery-electric Dart trains are to enter service on the line from Dublin to Drogheda next year, while new overhead electric trains will also start to replace ageing Dart trains. Until the line is electrified beyond Malahide, the latter trains will continue to terminate there, while the battery-electric trains will serve stations from Malahide to Drogheda.

The Department of Transport said that another €35 million from the Shared Island funding will be provided for “the continuation of the hourly Enterprise service to 2030.” This expansion of the services was also first introduced with Shared Island Fund funding in October 2024. The Department said the funding will be matched its own funding

It highlighted that since the introduction of the hourly service, Enterprise passenger numbers have increased by approximately 40%.

The plan also includes a commitment for the North and South departments responsible for transport to “work with relevant agencies so that there is a 15-20 minute transfer time” between the Dublin-Belfast and Belfast-Derry lines, allowing for shorter wait times and improving connectivity between the three cities.

“Get-out-of-jail free card” for NI Railways

Another €100 million of Shared Island funding is also being earmarked for which was described by the Department of Transport as ” a series of planned track renewal projects in Northern Ireland along the Derry-Belfast and Belfast-Dublin lines, helping to boost line speeds, improve reliability and enhance connectivity with the North West and the Dublin-Belfast corridor.”

A large chunk of that funding — €86m — is for planned essen­tial main­ten­ance of a 14-mile section of the Derry to Belfast railway

Steve Bradley, chairperson of Into The West, which campaigns for rail improvements and new lines in the north west, told the Belfast Telegraph newspaper that this approach is “very strange” for a basic maintenance project when the Shared Island funding was supposed to be for strategic projects adding to connectivity between North and South.

Bradley said: “Now at the elev­enth hour Dub­lin has been per­suaded to pick up the bill for main­ten­ance work that Storm­ont itself is already com­mit­ted to doing and pay­ing for, on a sec­tion of rail line that is entirely within Northern Ireland. So for Dub­lin to be pay­ing for this is very strange, and rein­forces Stor­mont’s long-stand­ing tra­di­tion of refus­ing to do major cap­ital projects in Derry and the north-west unless someone else picks up the bill.”

The Into The West group issued its own press release outlining that the work was already contracted to begin in January 2027, just 6 months from now.

They also “expressed disappointment that Donegal has been forgotten yet again in this latest Shared Island rail announcement,” in what they expect to be the last of such funding.

The Northern Ireland Department of Infrastructure spokesperson told the newspaper that “We don’t agree with their assess­ment of the fund­ing”.

And while the spokesperson said that the Department had also ring-fenced fund­ing, and that the Shared Island funding will also enable it to “repri­or­it­ise its spend­ing once an Exec­ut­ive budget is agreed, to make mean­ing­ful pro­gress on the All-island Stra­tegic Rail Review,” there was no clarity provided on the exact nature of this.

In a press release issued by the Department of Transport in the Republic, the Northern Ireland Executive Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, said: “The announcement of Shared Island funding to support Derry-Belfast-Dublin connectivity is very welcome. The investment the Shared Island fund is making in rail will accelerate improvements on the Belfast-Dublin and Belfast–Derry lines, strengthening regional balance and connectivity.”

She added: “This investment will pave the way for faster journeys and greater reliability for services between Dublin, Belfast and the North-West – delivering a more cohesive rail network, connecting communities and boosting the thriving all-island economy.”

Sadly, as with anything that is discussed regarding cycling safety, I first have to add a disclaimer:

• Nobody is saying that cyclists should not be cautious.

A second disclaimer: This website covers details. If you don’t like guidelines, research, or anything like that, it’s likely best to tune out now.

For everybody else, let’s look at a number of facts…

There was confusion. When I asked on Bluesky what the signs were designed to warn about, people were giving contradictory answers. Giving contradictory answers to something that should have just one answer means there’s confusion.

Guessing something is not the same as knowing it. But even if you are guessing correctly, other people are guessing something else. That still means there’s confusion. I know I could guess what some of the markings are about, and I might or might not be wrong. This is not how road signs are supposed to work; there is supposed to be clarity about what signs and markings mean.

So, I really don’t understand how anybody could claim there was no confusion. Yet, the article was getting replies claiming otherwise.

The marking used was incorrect — it does not comply with the guidance on signs or cycle routes. And the marking used is a copy of a sign with clear guidelines for its use, but those guidelines were not followed.

Signs and use are governed by laws, guidelines, and even international agreements. This is not just for the fun of it; it’s in the interest of safety that there is clarity.

Research titled ‘Inclusive design at bus stops with cycle tracks’, published by UK charity Living Streets, outlines that they found the issue was overuse and confusing use of markings on cycle tracks. This includes adding to the complexity of an environment, and the overuse of markings reduces their impact where they might be useful.

Some of these issues should be familiar to readers. This website has previously covered how there’s an overuse of dismount signs at locations along greenways where dismounting is not needed, and by the time you get to a location where dismounting is needed, you’ve seen so many warnings which were overkill that you might be likely to ignore the warning which should not be.

The same goes for the more recent overuse of stop signs and restrictive gates on greenways in cases where a yield sign or even nothing should be in place. We generally overuse stop signs compared to other countries in Europe — where you see a stop sign in the Netherlands, you know there’s a real issue there, and it needs your attention. But we have a situation now where we have four stop signs at points where a greenway crosses driveways or really minor cul-de-sacs, or two where the route meets a footpath on the edge of a village

On cycle tracks and bus stops, the Living Streets report outlines:

“Generally, we saw that in simpler environments cyclists were more free to pay attention to the wider environment, and thus more able to predict pedestrian behaviours. While it may be difficult to prove the specific role of paint markings in increasing complexity the addition of more markings seems likely to be an indication
of a suboptimal design. It also seems safe to assume this added complexity will mean markings distracting from one another.”

After readers had tagged me or contacted me about the photos, my initial outlook on the story was to wonder what the marking was warning about and why the council did not use the correct marking (a question they still have not answered).

After spotting the marking on the Clontaf route, the issue of overuse becomes very clear. If anybody thinks warning markings — especially vague or unclear ones — every few or tens of metres is going to be helpful, you’re going against much of what is known about signs and markings and how people generally take and filter information. Basically, Overuse means the markings will be filtered out.

The Living Streets report indicates that it “seems likely to be an indication of a suboptimal design”. Is the city council really making that admission about its premier cycle route? Another question left unanswered is why are so many signs aimed at cyclists but not at motorists?

Overall, this issue will likely not go far beyond the pages of this website. But one thing I see being an issue of liability for councils is the overuse of general slow markings and school warning markings on cycle tracks, but not on carriageways.

But one thing that sparked the interest of many councillors was the quiet streets approach, but what is it? At the very basic level, it’s the type of cycling infrastructure that does not generally include cycle paths or even lanes (although some sections may be needed along longer routes).

When these kinds of routes are mentioned, some readers get even more sceptical than the councillors recently did, but it’s worth remembering that these kinds of routes make up the majority of the cycling networks in most Dutch cities. At the same time, mixed results in places like London are a clear warning that care is needed in designing the route. The key is that the routes must be traffic calming and genuinely low traffic, or make that way with interventions.

Without any mention of quiet streets, Dublin City Council’s Mobility and Public Realm committee meeting in May 2026 would have been even frostier for Active Travel officials. You can watch all that was discussed in this video:

In a briefing document to councillors, officials said:

“From a preliminary study, AcTPrO [Active Travel office] has identified a number of routes suitable for delivery in part or in their entirety, using a ‘Quiet Streets’ approach. As noted in Section 2, Quiet Streets are a method of adapting side streets through traffic calming and wayfinding to provide a suitable environment for cyclists to share space with vehicles due to their low speed and volume.”

The ‘case study’ route provided is what is termed the St Stephen’s Green to Thomas St Active Travel Route, it is described as follows:

“Preliminary analysis undertaken of one of the Active Travel routes which could be delivered using a ‘Quiet Streets’ approach is the St Stephen’s Green to Thomas St Active Travel route. This route is 1.6km in length and runs in an east-west direction, intersecting with three BusConnects Core Bus Corridors. It also immediately abuts the future DCC headquarters at Camden Yard along Camden Row to the south and Liberty Lane to the east. Further information is provided in Figure 3 below:

It’s routed via Liberty Lane, Camden Row, Montague Street, Long Lane, Malpas Street, Blackpits, Mill Street, Newmarket, Ardee Street, and Pimlico, where it would link to the unfinished Kilmainham to Thomas Street Active Travel Scheme.

This is the IrishCycle.com trace of the council’s map:

Getting from the route to the most popular corner of St Stephen’s Green is straightforward:

But the return is convoluted:

First up, we have Montague Street and Camden Row:

At the Harcourt Street entrance to Montague Street, all that’s needed is the ‘except cyclists’ sign and the associated signs and markings for allowing contra-flow cycling with no cycle track:

Besides some markings and signs, nothing else seems to be needed on Montague Street:

Given the constraints of the main street here at the crossing of Wexford Street / Camden Street, I’m not sure what could be done here except for full signalisation, which seems unlikely for this type of project in Dublin City to date:

Even the BusConnects plans for the project leave little or no scope for a non-signage solution:

On Camden Row, markings and signs to allow legal two-way cycling here is mostly what is needed for this section (looking back towards Wexford St):

Before going back to the other end of Camden Row (yellow, with the last section circled in green), it’s worth looking at Liberty Lane (circled in red):

Liberty Lane — unless it’s resurfaced at one level — is not suitable for contra-flow cycling:

The rest of Camden Row is the width of street, where if you suggest contra-flow cycling, people say it’d be unsafe.

But like many low-traffic streets of the same size, it’s already two-way for all traffic — this part of the route onwards should also be a cycle street:

At the Junction of Camden Street and Long Lane, the route crosses the north-south New Bride Street and Heytesbury Street.

The north-south route this route crosses here is part of the Grangegorman to Portobello Active Travel Route, which is also a candidate on the council’s list of routes for possible quicker action. The section of the route from the Grand Canal to near Christchurch and Dublin Castle used to be a primary cycle route and was mentioned to me as a priority to be built as far back as the Grand Canal Cycleway’s opening in 2010. Because of that, I’ve looked at the route a few times over the years.

Unlike some other candidate routes, the Werburgh St/Bride St/New Bride St/Heytesbury St corridor is relatively unrestrained — especially since bus routes will be removed from the northern section as part of BusConnects.

Both north-south and east-west routes should be considered together here, even if they are not being progressed together.

One solution here is a modal filter area to the south of the junction, shown here in a green box — this would benefit the (1) the north-south by reducing the through traffic on New Bride Street and Heytesbury and allowing them to become cycle streets, and (2) making the junction safer and more attractive for people cycling east-west.

The east-west route should continue as a two-way cycle street on Long Lane — although it is clearly narrower:

To allow for two-way cycling here, there needs to be an area to pull in around the centre of the parking area:

The next section of Long Lane is within the kind of width for the arrangement for contra-flow cycling without lanes that can be found throughout Europe, without any removal of parking, but care needs to be taken here to confirm the drainage channel and the buildouts at the trees are not issues:

Before the route crosses New Street (Clanbrassil Street Lower / Patrick Street) is the first place where a contra-flow cycle track would be justified:

It should be possible for the route to cross over into Malpas Street with the current traffic signals or with some small changes, such as advanced green lights for people cycling in both directions:

On Malpas Street, traffic calming should be looked at:

The same goes for Blackpits:

It’s the same for much of the area around Newmarket — with junction treatments also key to making the route safe, attractive, and legible as a route:

Unlike the first part of the route, the possibility of modal filters along the route could be looked at here. But this raises the question mentioned by some councillors of traffic management at the district level.

With that, below is the area here bound by main roads, which should be looked at. Putting in a network of modal filters may be out of the scope of the route project, but some filters around the route could be looked at in a way that does not make things worse for the rest of the area:

Ardee Street on both sides of Cork Street and Pimlico, where it would link to the unfinished Kilmainham to Thomas Street Active Travel Scheme, would also require additional traffic calming and route markings:

But traffic calming can only do so much if routes are left open to through traffic. Because of that, a more northern route between Pimlico and St Stephen’s Green seems more logical to me — longer sections of low-traffic streets.

There would be some issues in need of overcoming some som parts of these options, including reworking short sections of Francis St and Meath St public realm projects to allow for contra-flow routes across the two streets, but these are interventions of the type the city should be doing systematically, regardless.

I’m not saying don’t take the route the council is proposing, but if they are making it a quiet street route, it really needs to be quiet — otherwise, people will quickly sour on the whole concept.

That’s why I would like to see the New Bride St/Heytesbury St north-south, which the council also wants to do fast, rolled out first or at the same time. It would be a quiet street route as part of a wider route, with segregated cycle path/s on Bridge Street, etc.

Finishing some form of a route between Grangegorman and Portobello is probably one of the fastest and most high-impact cross-city-centre routes the council could roll out without interfering too much in BusConnects routes or other city centre projects, etc.

I know some people baulk at the idea of putting in routes that might be seen as a bit out of the way, like the Bride Street route is, but it would offer the first significant cross-city centre route (including using Capel Street, etc, shown in green), and the city council really needs to make progress on network building. At the moment, it seems to be running away from (delaying or abandoning) projects each time it hits some opposition or issues, such as another part of the city council or NTA saying no or not yet.

This is from the council’s own map, while the Grangegorman and Portobello options are highlighted in yellow: