Transport Infrastructure Ireland has rejected a request for submissions on the planned Cork Luas tram line and active travel paths to be routed via Bishopstown GAA or Highfield RFC sports grounds, and a cycle route diversion planned to be routed via the religious grounds run by the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart on Western Road.

Despite Bishopstown GAA, Highfield RFC, and the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart making their feeling against sections of the project as currently proposed public, the transport body claimed that the release of their submissions would be against the public interest.

In May, echolive.ie reported that Bishopstown GAA club “vows to fight Luas route ‘to the end'”, while the Irish Examiner reported in June that Highfield RFC claimed the tram line was an “existential threat” to its future, and that “doesn’t just graze our boundaries — it cuts through the very heart of our club”.

In both cases, it is understood that while the Luas and linked active travel route would run through what are now part of the grounds of the sports club and their car parks, their playing pitches would not be affected, although it is claimed by the clubs that it would be unsafe for children to cross the tracks.

Then in July, the Irish Examiner also reported that Fr John Fitzgerald, the director of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart in Ireland, said that the proposed cycle path route would be an “unfair intrusion on elderly residents of the monastery’s infirmary” and cause “huge health and safety problems” for children and older people using the parish centre.

Fr Fitzgerald added: “We also want to ensure the safety of people using the entrance to our car park, which we feel will be obscured by the cycle path, so that we will have free entry into our own property, plus that we will have access to our sacred space in the Heart Field.”

The draft project plans show the cycle route diversion skirting the edges of the religious grounds along the River Lee before running along the side of its car park on Western Road.

The exact issues the sports clubs and the religious institution have with the project were not detailed in the report, so IrishCycle.com used Freedom of Information Acts and the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations to seek the submissions from the groups as well as politicians and other groups who made submissions related to the sports and religious grounds.

These requests were rejected by the decision-maker, Andrew Moore, a senior regulatory and administration executive at Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII). The decision was made July 31st, and Moore noted that the submissions would be published in September. Because of this, this website did not seek an internal review — the start of an appeals process that can typically last over a year.

The decision maker in TII said that the “confidentiality of the proceedings of public authorities” would be affected “where such confidentiality is otherwise protected by law (including the Freedom of Information Acts 1997 and 2003 with respect to exempt records within the meaning of those Acts);”

Moore said: “As the requested submissions are currently under deliberation by the Luas Cork Team, these records are, therefore, being withheld, in accordance with section 29(1) of the Act, which provides as follows.’

Section 29(1) outlines: “A head may refuse to grant an FOI request— (a) if the record concerned contains matter relating to the deliberative processes of an FOI body (including opinions, advice, recommendations, and the results of consultations, considered by the body, the head of the body, or a member of the body or of the staff of the body for the purpose of those processes), and (b) the granting of the request would, in the opinion of the head, by contrary to the public interest,”

This provision typically protects unfinished documents from release, and even then rulings have shown that it does not include finalised drafts. No records produced or being produced by TII were sought; only final submissions were requested.

Moore wrote: “In circumstances where a public body considers that the provisions of section 29(1) of the Act apply to a record, the Act requires the public body to consider any public interest in releasing the information. While there is a general public interest in ensuring openness and transparency in the decision-making process and how a public body reaches a decision, the deliberative process of a public body requires that confidentiality should be preserved when this process is ongoing, to avoid contaminating, impairing and, therefore, prejudicing the integrity of the deliberative process involved.”

“It is in the interest of the broader community that such deliberations, while ongoing, are protected and permitted to function,” he said.

IrishCycle.com did not seek any deliberations by TII, only submissions by groups and politicians.

Moore said: “Of particular concern here is that the premature release of the information withheld, could interfere with the ability of the Luas Cork Team to deliberate on the submissions received, without undue public interference. It is, therefore, the Decision Maker’s opinion, that any premature release of this information, is, therefore, contrary to the public interest.”

“In reaching this Decision, the Decision Maker has also noted that a report on the submissions, in addition to the submission records requested, will be published online in September 2026,” said Moore.

Submissions not released

Any rejection of a request should include a ‘Schedule of Records’, which is a list of the names of documents which are not being released. In this case, the list includes the names of 22 submissions — their inclusion in the list does not mean they objected to or supported any part of the project; submissions can be purely informative.

Submissions which were deemed not fit to be released in July include those from Bishopstown GAA, Highfield Rugby Club, Highfield Squash Club, and Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, as well as from Jerry Buttimer TD, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire TD, Cllr Ciara O’Connor, Cllr Albert Deasy, Cllr Colm Kelleher, Cllr Jack White, Cllr Peter Horgan and Senator Laura Harmon.

Three schools made submissions — Bishopstown Community School, St Catherine’s National School, and from both the board of management of Coláiste an Spioraid Naoimh and the same school’s patron and trustees, the Presentation Brothers Schools Trust (PBST).

And six residents’ associations also made submissions — Ballineaspig, Firgrove and Westgate Residents Association; Bishopstown Avenue West Residents Group; Glencairn Park & Melbourn Mews Residents’ Association; Melbourn Residents Association (Bishopstown); Residents Association Bishopstown; and Wilton Avenue, and Upper Bishopscourt and Merlyn Lawn Residents’ Association.

You must now wear a high-vis vest and a bicycle helmet on an e-scooter (see details below). But in a very Irish way of doing things, it’s not yet a finable offence, so if you’re stopped, you should only get a warning at most for now. Be warned: This is expected to change within weeks.

The helmet requirement came after it was reported that e-scooter incidents were the leading cause of traumatic brain injury for children and that 43% of paediatric Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds in Ireland were taken up by people who crashed on e-scooters. Paediatric ICU beds in Ireland are for under-16s, who are already banned from using e-scooters of any type.

Mandatory high-vis and helmets, but no fines yet

Despite widespread misreporting, fines for not wearing high-vis and helmets, and increases in other fines to €100, are not yet in place as of September 4th, 2026. The fines, however, are planned to be in place “in the coming weeks” — which effectively means that the time between now and then is the bedding-in period.

In a press release on Wednesday, September 2nd, the Department of Transport said: “Charges for Fixed Charge Notices will be increased to €100 for e-scooter offences. Regulations for this change will be brought forward in the coming weeks. A Fixed Charge Notice offence for not wearing a helmet or high-visibility clothing while using an e-scooter will be introduced at [the] same time at the new rate of €100.” Other offences remain with a €50 fine until the increase.

Other changes, also not yet

A ban on people aged 16 to 18 using e-scooters is also not in place yet, but is expected soon after the Minister for Transport told RTE that the EU gave Ireland the green light for the move.

Separately, all e-scooters must also follow the device-related regulations set in 2024 (see link at end of article). For those that do not, the Department said fees for storing seized e-scooters will double, rising to €80 for the first day of storage and €30 for each additional day. This will take effect from 2nd October.

Helmet requirements details

In the new regulations, which came into force yesterday, a helmet is defined basically as a bicycle helmet which follows the European standard EN 1078:2012+A1:2012. It must have a CE mark to show it complies with EU health, safety, and environmental protection standards.

The law now states a person “shall not” (which means must not) use an electric scooter “unless he or she is wearing…” a helmet of the above standard and it must be “securely fastened to his or her head”.

High-vis requirements details

For high-vis, the requirement is “high visibility clothing which covers at least the front and back of the person’s torso” — this basically means a high-vis vest is a must, and anything of the same or equivalent, such as a high-vis T-shirt, jumper, or jacket, also meets the requirement.

For vests or other clothing to meet the standard, items must be fluorescent yellow, orange, or red and have retroreflective tape or strips.

High-vis arm coverings or trousers are not required, but harnesses such as hi-vis versions of Sam Browne belts do not meet the requirements.

Rushed with warnings

The above is not legal advice, but it is being provided as these regulations have been rushed, and very little information so far has been provided by the Department of Transport or other usual sources like the Citizens Information service. The RSA has the clearest information, but it’s buried on its e-scooter page and, even there, in bullet points and not noted as new rules.

When IrishCycle.com asked for a copy of the regulations on Wednesday ahead of the rule change being enacted on Friday, the Department basically said it would be published when it’s published.

As of Saturday, the regulations are still not on the homepage of the irishstatutebook.ie, the online version of the written law book. It took looking up the regulations on the State’s official legal journal to find the name and then a PDF copy of the regulations.

The new rules are in the Road Traffic (Electric Scooters) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I. No. 455 of 2026), which amends what are called the ‘principal regulations’ for e-scooters, Road Traffic (Electric Scooters) Regulations 2024 (S.I. No. 199/2024).

The regulations, or “statutory instruments”, are written laws signed by a Government Minister or junior minister rather than passed by parliament.

Other road users

Helmets — of a high standard type — are already required for moped and motorcycle users. Besides that, there is no helmet requirement for other road users.

The only other road users required to wear high-vis are learner and novice motorcyclists. Fully licensed motorcyclists, as well as pedestrians and cyclists, are not required to wear high-vis, and unlike in other countries, motorists are not required to store high-vis in their vehicles for situations like a breakdown on a motorway.

ALSO SEE: Explainer: Differences between e-scooters, bicycles, e-bicycles and speed e-bikes (updated)

A spokesperson at the Garda Press Office said: “Gardaí are seeking witnesses following a fatal road traffic collision that occurred in Cloonlara, on the Clare-Limerick border, on Friday, 4th September 2026.”

“Shortly after 11pm, emergency services alerted Gardaí after an e-bike rider, a male in his mid-teens, was found unresponsive by the roadside on the L3050 at Cottage Cross near Cloonlara. He was pronounced deceased at the scene,” the spokesperson said.

Gardaí said that “a second vehicle involved in the incident failed to remain at the scene” and did not mention the driver or any actions by the driver.

When contacted today (Saturday), the Garda Press Office was unable to clarify what it means by the term “e-bike”. Department of Transport, Citizens Information and others define e-bikes as pedal-assisted bicycles, but Gardaí in the past have referred to e-mopeds or e-motorcycles as “e-bikes”.

“The scene has been preserved for examination by Garda Forensic Collision Investigators and local traffic diversions are currently in place. The Coroner has been notified, and a post-mortem examination will be arranged,” the spokesperson said

They added: “Gardaí are appealing to anyone who witnessed the incident to come forward. Road users who were in the Cloonlara area at the time and may have camera footage (including dash-cam) are asked to make it available to investigating Gardaí.”

Anyone with information or footage is urged to contact Henry Garda Station on (061) 212400, the Garda Confidential Line on 1800 666 111, or any Garda Station.

The trial aims to test the concept of providing on- and off-street lockers which are operated via smartphone apps ahead of a possible wider rollout.

The lockers are intended for short visits such as going shopping, going out for dinner or meeting friends. After the free two hours, they are charged at €2 per hour with a max daily fee of €12.

Dublin City Council is running the trial with funding from the National Transport Authority and support from Bleeper, a company which is best known for its bicycle-share offering, and three types of lockers from different manufacturers.

There are now 6 lockers available for use on Capel Street, another 6 on Grafton St at the College Green end, 12 in the Jervis Street Car Park opposite side of the street to the shopping centre, and 12 in the above-ground Drury Street Car Park.

The Capel Street and Grafton Street lockers use the Bikely app, the Jervis units use the Cycle Parking Ireland app, and the Drury Street ones use the Bikeep app. While the first two hours are free, contact details and a payment method are needed to open the lockers.

The Capel Street and Grafton Street locations have some cargo bike-sized lockers while ground-level units in Drury Street may fit some long tail bicycles.

Asked why there is a need for a trial, Alec Dundon, a senior executive engineer at the council’s City Centre Projects office, said: “The first thing is we want to get an idea of the demand that’s out there for this type of service, and we felt that by locating a few of them around the city, we’ll get some idea of that. We also weren’t sure what the best model out there was and the best app out there to suit the Dublin market.”

He said there are three different types of lockers and three different apps, and they are looking to learn from visitors to the city using the different lockers and systems to see which is the best option for city centre visitors.

“I would imagine in a year’s time we’ll certainly have the information that we’re looking for. We’d have a good understanding of the demands that are out there and a good idea of which locker and app works the best,” Dundon said. “And from there we can decide where we’re going to go next. It’s possible that the demand is not out there.”

Asked if they were looking at other locations, he said that they were looking at expanding locations as part of the trial, but nothing is confirmed yet. He said space is at a premium in the city centre, so they are looking at locations like car parks where there is access suitable for cycling. A number of car parks have limited or no ground floor area.

For any possible extra on-street locations, Dundon also said that they would have to take care of the location. The on-street units have green roofs, but the units are already fairly minimised in size while still allowing bicycles to fit.

Standing beside the lockers in Jervis Street Car Park, Hugh Cooney, CEO of Bleeper, said: “These particular lockers are made by Larkin, which is a Galway-based company, and the smart locks and the app that goes with the lockers are made by Don Cicleto, a Spanish company.” 

“And these ones, on Jervis Street, are all for standard-size bikes, so each module can fit two bikes [with a triangular shape and doors on each end]. The option for longer bikes looks the same, but it’ll be just one door access,” he said.

Regarding the units at Drury Street Car Park, Cooney said: “One of the reasons we particularly went with UpandBike is they’re double-stacked. So they’re space efficient there, but there’s a debate out there as to whether people are really going to use the second level of a double-stacked.”

The units by UpandBike, another Spanish company, are run with software by a company called Bikeep, founded in Estonia.

The two-tier lockers use a similar pull-out rack system to two-tier racks commonly used in other countries in locations such as city centres and train stations, but they have yet to be widely used in public locations in Ireland to date. Here, they’ve mainly been used in relatively new apartment developments.

In countries where they are new, there is often scepticism that they will not be used or that they are not accessible to most people, but the argument for the concept is that they leave or free up space for people to use the lower racks. In the case of lockers, the space is there anyway.

“The location at Drury Street will give us a good chance over the course of the pilot to see whether the second layer gets used,” he said.

The first two hours have been free for a while now, but while ironing out the kinks, they haven’t promoted the lockers much until today.

Cooney says the Capel Street lockers, which have been in place the longest, are the most popular so far. The second most popular is Jervis Street, followed by Grafton Street and then Drury Street — they are at the lower level of the bicycle parking, so are less visible, but signage is to be added.

The units on Capel Street and Grafton Street are made by a Norwegian company called Bikely, including hardware and software. Bikely also operates lockers at Blanchardstown Shopping Centre, where they are free for the first hour and €1 per four hours after that, and at Swords Pavilions Shopping Centre, where they are €1 per hour.

Feedback on the pilot programme can be given at bleeper.ie/pages/dcc-lockers-pilot.

The National Transport Authority used a fare determination process today to announce that many of the public transport fare reductions introduced in the last government are being rolled back. The increases are generally around 15% and will kick in 2027.

The Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, defended the move, reportedly saying the “Government’s not in a position to fund everything forever” and that “sustainable funding” was needed.

Ciaran Ahern, Labour TD and party transport spokesperson, said raising public transport fares while the Government spends €400m to keep diesel under €2 per litre “beggars belief and highlights just how anti-climate and anti-worker this Government is.”

Deputy Ahern said: “Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are doubling down on fossil fuels when they should be encouraging people to use public transport. It’s anti-worker, and it proves this Government’s failure to take any leadership on climate.”

“These increases come in the wake of cost hikes for parents of children using the school transport scheme. Minister Chambers is robbing Peter to pay Paul while PAYE workers and their families are left squeezed,” he said.

Deputy Ahern said, “This change will disproportionately hit people on lower incomes at a time when government is going out of its way to spend money to protect hauliers and those who can afford to drive. Those on lower incomes will be hit once again. It’s an utterly regressive step.”

“Keeping public transport affordable is key for commuters who are already facing spiralling costs from energy bills to food to housing. This is happening at a time when we need to keep fares low, and Labour wants to see a move towards free public transport, particularly for students and young people. This is the level of ambition needed if we are serious about meeting our climate goals and protecting people’s pockets,” he said.

Ahern added: “If Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil could find €400m to make diesel cheaper, they can and must find the money to make public transport commuting affordable.”

Cllr Feljin Jose, Green Party spokesperson for transport, said: “With motorways full and congestion at record levels, we should be encouraging more people to use public transport, expanding services and reducing car usage. Instead, this Government has decided to make it more expensive to do the right thing in the midst of a cost of living crisis. This decision will cost us far more in congestion and emissions than it will raise in revenue”.

He added: “In 2022, we brought in the first fare reduction in Ireland since 1947 with half-price fares for students and young people and a 20% reduction for everyone. This drove historic growth that saw record levels of public transport usage across all operators. This is now being jeopardised by the government’s decision to make it more expensive.”

Meanwhile, the Galway, Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Drogheda Commuter Coalitions issued a joint statement calling the increases “absolutely unacceptable”.

“In recent days the government has extended cuts to excise duty on petrol and diesel. A measure which amounts to a cost of over two million euro a day. In effect, what is being asked is for those who use public transport to cover this astounding cost,” the groups said.

The groups said: “Additionally, the government has lied about the correlation between growth in public transport usage vs population growth. Since 2019, our population has grown by about 11%, far outstripped by the about 21% increase in usage of public transport.

“Our message to the public across Ireland is clear. As you cram onto a crowded train or get passed by a full bus in the rain this winter, remember that the government is glad to raise your fares and to use the money they promised you for service improvements on the petrol that you don’t burn,” they said.

The group added: “The war in Iran has made it clearer than ever that Ireland must wean itself off its utter dependence on oil to help insulate its economy and standard of living. This announcement shows that the government intends to do the exact opposite, ensuring that we are more exposed than ever to the turbulence of the oil market.”

Rail passenger group, Rail Users Ireland, said: “Disappointing news from NTA that fares will rise in January. The NTA is trying to claim its ok as we are cheaper than other cities. Other cities with world-class infrastructure and service are not exactly a fair comparison.”

The group also called the planned removal of open return intercity rail tickets a “sneaky move”.

In its fare determination document, the National Transport Authority said: “For this Fares Determination, Open Return fares will be discontinued as part of ongoing rail fare reforms to support the implementation of Next Generation Ticketing and contactless payment due to limitations in the reading of outdated magnetic stripe tickets.”

It added: “Passengers are encouraged to avail of web fares, which continue to offer excellent value for single and return journeys, particularly when booked in advance. This also helps support the prediction of train loadings and best use of available rail capacity on the intercity network.”

Anne Shaw, CEO of the National Transport Authority, said: “Our priority is to deliver the best possible public transport system for passengers. Demand is at record levels, and people rightly expect more frequent, reliable and better-connected services.”

“This is the first general increase in PSO fares in eight years and is an important step in supporting continued investment in expanded services, increased capacity and enhanced connectivity across the country,” she said.

Shaw added: “At the same time, almost 1.5 million people will continue to benefit from free travel or fare concessions, including children under nine, people aged 66 and over, and those eligible under the Free Travel Scheme, while the 50% Young Adult and Student Discount is being maintained. These changes strike a careful balance between keeping public transport affordable and ensuring we can continue building a larger, more accessible and better-connected network for communities across Ireland.”

On the fare determination page, the NTA said: “Since 2022, the cost of operating public transport services has increased, the fare levels have decreased, and public policy has extended free travel to new cohorts of passengers, narrowing the fare revenue base.”

“The shift in economic landscape following the COVID pandemic led to a sharp increase in price inflation of 20.8% between January 2022 and May 2026 in Ireland1. This price inflation also extends to the cost of operating subsidised public transport services, such as the cost for purchase/maintenance of vehicles, fuel and staff costs. The post-pandemic increase in patronage requires additional vehicles, which incurs additional staff costs to drive and maintain the fleet, which puts further pressure on the PSO public transport budget,” the authority said.

It added: “In the same time period as the 20.8% price inflation, public transport fares decreased through various measures, including the 20% cost of living discount which was applied to all subsidised public transport fares and the Young Adult / Student discount of 50% on equivalent adult leap fares applied in 2022. In 2025, free travel was extended to include children under 9 and for companions of those over 70 as part of the Free Travel Scheme.”

NTA overview of fares determination

This is a summary of the fares determination by the NTA:

• Dublin City Zone: Bus Services operated by Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead Ireland, Luas light rail services and DART heavy rail services operated by Iarnród Éireann Irish Rail.
  • Cash / Leap fares and products to increase by an average of 15%
  • Short fare to increase by 33% to €2
• Dublin Commuter Zone: Bus services operated by Bus Éireann, Go-Ahead Ireland, J.J. Kavanagh & Sons, and commuter rail services operated by Iarnród Éireann.
  • Most fares and current products to increase by an average of 15%
  • A new reduced child rate priced at 33% of the equivalent adult fare for all ticket types
  • Retention of interim fare measures introduced as part of the Dublin Commuter Zone rollout
• Regional City: Bus services in Cork, Galway, Limerick, and Waterford.
  • No change to the Cork City Bus Leap, Cash and Daily / Weekly cap rates
  • A new flat fare replacing the standard and higher zone fares in Galway, Limerick and Waterford
    Adult Leap fare to increase by 10% to €1.70, with a 15% increase in period products
  • Standardisation of the 50% Young Adult discount across all ticket types in the regional cities
  • A new reduced child rate priced at 33% of the equivalent adult fare
• Town: Athlone, Balbriggan, Carlow, Clonmel, Drogheda, Dundalk, Kilkenny (city) , Mullingar, Navan, Portlaoise and Sligo
  • Town fares to increase by 10% for Leap Adult to €1.65 and 15% for Cash to €2.30
  • Student / Young Adult fares and products to be priced at 50% of the equivalent adult fare
  • A new reduced child rate priced at 33% of the equivalent adult fare of €0.50 cent Leap / €0.80 cent cash
• National: Bus Éireann stage carriage and Intercity rail services operated by Iarnród Éireann Irish Rail.
  • Bus stage carriage fares and products to increase by an average of 15%
  • Intercity rail Open Return tickets to be discontinued (see Section 4.3 for further details)
  • Intercity rail Express fares to increase by 10% and Economy fares by up to 20%
  • Review of rail promotional fares
• TFI Local Link: Regular Rural Services
  • An average 15% increase in single fares
  • Retention of the 50% Student / Young Adult discount and child fares priced at 33% of the equivalent adult fare
  • Standardisation of period product rates in line with fare policy

The Louth Disability Cycling Club said: “We here at Louth Disability Cycling Club are delighted to announce our Bike Disco in conjunction with iBike Dublin on Saturday September 12th at Dundalk Market Square”

It’s to kick off at 6.30pm, and the group says that all are welcome for what they describe as an “evening of disco music, bikes and an abundance of fun.”

I Bike Dublin, a Dublin-based  campaign group which is supporting the event, said: ” Counting down the days! Can’t wait – we had so much fun the last time. This will be epic!”

The project stretches along the Belgard Road between Old Belgard Road Junction and Cookstown Road Junction, and on Airton Road between Belgard Road Junction and Greenhills Road.

It mainly includes quick-build cycle paths and improved or new pedestrian or shared crossings, while one junction, at Airton Road, is to be more substantially redesigned with protected Dutch-style protected corners installed. A nearby roundabout is also to undergo a redesign with an unusual combination of quick-build protected cycle lanes and toucan crossings.

Cllr Jess Spear said: “You might have seen the construction works on the Belgard Road? This is the long-awaited and much-needed installation of protected cycle lanes on the Belgard Road. The first phase will be between the Old Blessington Road junction and the Cookstown Road junction.”

“The works are expected to be completed by the end of May 2027. Construction will be undertaken in sections to minimise impacts on road users,” said the People Before Profit – Solidarity councillor.

Cllr Spear added: “Junctions along the route will also be upgraded to improve safety and accessibility for cyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users.”

When it ran a public consultation in 2024, the council said: “The proposed scheme is a key element of Cycle South Dublin (see Active Travel – SDCC) and forms part of Route No. 4 which links Tallaght to Clondalkin.”

According to the council, the project will provide wider and safer cycle lanes on Belgard Road from the junction with Old Bessington Road to the junction with Cookstown Road, with the cycle route segregated from motorists by a new raised concrete kerb.

The council explained: “The existing narrow cycle lanes will be widened into the grass verge to a width of 2m and in some locations the traffic lanes will be narrowed to 3m each. New 2m wide segregated cycle lanes are also proposed on Airton Road; these will be built on the existing wide road pavement with no requirement for widening, two 3m wide lanes would be retained for general traffic.”

The council published this video, which includes a flyover of the draft plans, during the consultation:

The Government’s reluctance to annoy Dublin 4 motorists plays a large part in slowing progress on speeding up trains and adding capacity, according to Rail Users Ireland, a passenger advocacy group.

The group said there appears to be resistance at national level to proceed to public consultation “despite the support of 679 pages of engineering analysis” supporting the level crossing closures along the Dart line in south Dublin.

The report, written by consultants Arup, was published today by the passenger group after the Information Commissioner intervened when Irish Rail / Iarnród Éireann stopped responding to a Freedom of Information request for the four-year-old report. The report, which examines options for closing level crossings, is still partly redacted, including — unusually — redactions of possible environmental impacts.

Mark Gleeson, a spokesperson for Rail Users Ireland, said: “This is yet another example of the unwillingness at a Government level to make decisions; projects are delayed and paused. Difficult decisions need to be made, and we need leadership willing to make them; otherwise we are left in a never-ending game of playing catch up.”

“Dart passengers have suffered for 42 years by a compromise to prioritise private cars over the train. The proposals from Irish Rail/Arup offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to replace Merrion Gates with a bridge and to dramatically improve rail performance and capacity,” he said.

Gleeson said: “While some of the recommendations will clearly raise concerns around local access and impact to existing bus routes, Iarnród Éireann sitting on the report for over 4 years without starting public consultation is ridiculous; why has it not been moved to consultation?”

The group said the Dart+ West project — which includes planning approval to close all level crossings between Ashtown and Maynooth — has set a precedent and made the benefits clear. But the key difference is that Sandymount has less space for under or overpasses that can accommodate cars without significant property take.

Of the five level crossings in the area at Lansdowne Road, Serpentine Avenue, Sandymount Avenue, Sydney Parade Avenue, and Merrion Gates, consultations have recommended only that the latter gets an underpass. The recommended area for an underpass is north of the existing Merrion Gates level crossing, in a similar location where an overpass was previously suggested but was dropped after strong local opposition.

Within the documents released under FOI request, there are “emerging preferred options” which include a motor vehicular underpass under the railway at Serpentine Avenue, but this is omitted from the recommendations, which calls for pedestrian and cycling access via steps and lifts.

The scrapped idea of allowing motorists through Serpentine Avenue includes a circular ramp on one side, which would require CPOs and demolition of a commercial building.

Rail Users Ireland said that removing the level crossings would shorten journey times for Dart and Rosslare/Wexford intercity services, remove the risk of damage from high winds and motorists damaging the gates, allow for higher frequency of service, reduce maintenance costs, and allow for the railway to be raised at points to protect from flooding.

It said that Sandymount Ave and Serpentine Ave are two of the most struck level crossings in the country, and that the system struggles with the current peak of 15 trains per hour and that future plans are for 24-30 trains per hour, which “cannot be delivered without closing all the level crossings.”

Arup recommended to Irish Rail to keep access open at the level crossings for walking and cycling using underpasses, but these will contain steps, so will not be cyclable and would push people on bicycles and wheelchairs into lifts.

The group said that the Arup report is written in a way that “clearly expects a public consultation”, but no progress has been made.

Rail Users Ireland said that the Dart line is unique in Ireland in that level crossing closures are “scheduled by computer to maximise time open to vehicles.” The group said that this leads to extended journey times for trains and adds “several extra minutes to millions of individual passenger journeys annually for 42+ years.”

Barry Kenny, a spokesperson for Irish Rail, said: “To facilitate the frequency of Darts envisaged under the Dart+ Programme, the removal of the rail/road interfaces at level crossings on the southside has always been proposed.  The staging of the Dart+ Programme is seeing a range of projects progress first, including the Bray / Greystones capacity enhancement element of Dart+ Coastal South.”

“Under current phasing of the programme and predicted funding, the remainder of Dart+ Coastal South, including addressing level crossings, is likely to resume from 2030 at the earliest,” he said.

Kenny added: “Given the complexity of the proposals and the need to ensure we deliver train capacity, ensure alternatives for road users, be they drivers, pedestrians or cyclists, and the impacts arising from works and new points of access in the wider community, this would involve extensive public consultation and a Railway Order application process.”

MORE: FOI pack with Dart+ Coastal South Constraints Report

The council said that the closure is “required to ensure public safety while major works are being carried out” on the under-construction bridge (an artist’s impression of the finished bridge is shown above).

It said that diversions will be in place, but the diversion includes at least 1km on a busy regional road with no segregation. The greenway is planned to be fully closed between Lower Shore Road (L7051) and Victoria Lock from this Tuesday, September 1st to February 28th, 2027.

The council said: “Alternative routes will be clearly signposted, with Greenway users diverted via the Fathom Line, Newry Road (R179) and the L70541 (corrected). Local and emergency access will be maintained throughout the works.”

“The temporary closure will facilitate a significant phase of construction on the Narrow Water Bridge project, a landmark cross-border infrastructure scheme linking County Louth and County Down,” said Louth County Council.

The council said contractors have completed the temporary marine piling works required for what is called the ‘skid beam system’, which will allow parts of the bridge to be put in place. While, off-site work is continuing to fabricate the bridge components that will be put in place using the skid beam system.

“The project is now moving from the foundations and enabling works phase into the highly visible bridge erection phase, which will see the structure begin to take shape over Carlingford Lough,” the council said.

The council added: “Once completed, Narrow Water Bridge will provide a new connection between Omeath and Warrenpoint, enhancing sustainable travel, supporting tourism and strengthening links between communities on both sides of Carlingford Lough.”

Comment & Analysis: “I don’t agree with any of this!” said one submission, and if somebody I trusted made all the claims about a project, as two local political representatives have in this case, I’d be of the same view. The problem is that their claims just don’t stack up. The reps and others have willfully or otherwise misled people.

The build-up of opposition is sadly a well-trodden formula for politicians who see some level of opposition and push that to exploit it by pushing people’s fears and getting people worked up. In this case, it’s a project with very limited effects on motorists, balanced with wide road safety and accessibility improvements.

And while there’s clear and strong opposition, the claim that nobody wants the Church Street Pedestrian & Cycle Scheme is just not true — a number of people who use the street have bothered to make submissions in favour of the project.

People talk of meaningful engagement (see more below), but that does not mean having a veto on road safety and accessibility funding.

The project which is planned to run along part of Portlaoise Road and mainly on Church Street before heading towards the town park. Like the Graiguecullen area where the project is planned, the route crosses council boundaries, so here are two public consultation pages: one for Carlow County Council and the other for Laois County Council.

Most of the opposition seems to have come after local Sinn Féin rep Aaron Kelly teamed up with Independent Ireland councillor Cllr John Cassin to actively push against the active travel and road safety project. The two of them — and others — have put a lot of focus on the cycling side of active travel, but little to none on the pedestrian and accessibility side of the project.

The reps also distributed a templated letter and submitted signed versions en masse. This deals with most of the more mainstream claims made against the project.

Below I’ll quote the template objection and deal with the problems with the claims made within it:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to formally object to the proposed Church Street Pedestrian and Cycle Scheme in Graiguecullen.

At the outset, I wish to make it clear that I support investment in road safety, walking and cycling infrastructure and active travel where such projects are proportionate, evidence-based and enjoy broad community support. However, I do not believe the current proposal meets these criteria and I have significant concerns regarding its necessity, impact on the local community and overall value for money.

This is strangely much the same as what is said by most objections to safe walking and cycling routes, not just in Ireland but around the world.

But let’s see how much their claim of being supportive fits with their arguments…

1. Lack of Demonstrated Need

A fundamental question remains unanswered: what specific problem is this scheme seeking to solve?

Church Street currently serves as a key route through Graiguecullen for residents, businesses, school traffic, public transport, delivery vehicles and emergency services. Before major alterations are made to an established transport corridor, the Council should clearly demonstrate:

• Existing cyclist numbers using the route.
• Projected cyclist numbers following completion.
• Collision and road safety data specific to the area.
• Evidence that the proposed intervention represents the most effective solution.

Residents are entitled to understand the evidence base underpinning the project. Public funding should be directed towards projects where the benefits can be clearly demonstrated and measured. I have carried out my own research on collision data via the RSA website and found there to be only one record of an incident which involved a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle, with no bicycle involved. Just one incident in the past ten years! From living just off the proposed route myself and as someone who drives this section of road several times per day, I am aware that there is currently a maximum of ten cyclists using the road.

This image was invented for arguments just like the above one:

Under the header of “Lack of Demonstrated Need”, even the claim that “A fundamental question remains unanswered: what specific problem is this scheme seeking to solve?” is highly misleading. The public consultation report outlines the project’s justification, including how it fits within Carlow’s planned cycle network and aligns with local and national policy.

If the template writers wanted to blur the lines, they could have claimed that Carlow does not need a cycle network. But the project is part of that planned network. And a route that gets people from residential areas to a school alone is a good starting point; add in access to the town park and access into the town centre, it’s a huge bonus (see below re the town park).

It’s stunning to state that “Church Street currently serves as a key route through Graiguecullen for residents, businesses, school traffic, public transport, delivery vehicles and emergency services,” yet then suggest that such a key route should exclude a safe cycle route and safer crossings.

It’s also stunning that people claim to care about value for money and then expect council officials to jump through even more hoops to deliver basic active travel infrastructure.

There’s detailed national guidance on this, but to simplify it a bit, in towns, there are two main types of provisions on streets and roads suitable for cycling for all ages:

1. Segregated cycle paths for main roads and streets with higher volumes of traffic and high speeds
2. Mixed with traffic on low-traffic, low-speed streets, or streets that can be made into such.

Church Street is clearly not a low-traffic, low-speed route, and trying to make it such would cause even greater backlash. So, we’re left with segregated cycle paths. This approach aligns with best international practice.

1. Impact on Traffic Congestion

Church Street forms an important connection between residential areas, schools, businesses and the wider Carlow urban area. Many residents already experience delays during school drop-off and collection times. The proposed reallocation of road space risks reducing traffic capacity and creating bottlenecks at peak periods. Where road capacity is reduced, traffic does not disappear. Instead, it is frequently diverted onto neighbouring streets and residential estates. This may create new problems in areas that currently function well. The Council should publish detailed traffic modelling demonstrating:

• Existing traffic volumes.
• Predicted traffic volumes following implementation.
• Estimated journey time increases.
• Likely displacement routes.
• The impact on surrounding residential roads.

Without this information, it is difficult for residents to assess the true consequences of the proposal.

Imagine people who claim they are all for active travel saying that a road and street in their area which “forms an important connection between residential areas, schools, businesses and the wider” area should not have active travel upgrades.

Does that really sound supportive of active travel?

The claims above about possible extra traffic congestion are basic fearmongering, but they’re also cleverly phrased in a “just asking questions” way.

However, these questions are asked in bad faith. How do I back that up? If the project was likely to have a significant impact on traffic, the objectors would be able to clearly point to what elements of the project would cause this.

With the argument that “Where road capacity is reduced, traffic does not disappear….” etc, I could normally point to established and repeated evidence that the claim is not true, but in this case there’s nothing in the project which would likely divert any traffic, and there’s also no logical route such as a minor parallel residential street where that traffic would be diverted to.

It’s based on nothing. It’s just stirring the pot.

3. Impact on Local Businesses

Church Street and the wider Graiguecullen area contain a range of local businesses that depend on convenient customer access. Many customers travel from surrounding rural areas where public transport options are limited. These customers rely on private vehicles and require convenient access and parking. Any reduction in parking availability or ease of access has the potential to negatively affect local businesses, particularly at a time when many small businesses continue to face significant economic challenges. One example that comes to mind for me is O’Rourkes Coal Yard. The Council should publish a detailed economic impact assessment outlining:

• Expected effects on customer accessibility.
• Effects on parking provision.
• Impact on delivery and servicing arrangements.
• Measures proposed to support affected businesses.

Local businesses should not be expected to bear economic risks arising from a scheme whose benefits have not yet been clearly demonstrated.

Who expects anyone from rural areas to use public transport to visit a coal merchant or any of the other businesses along the road? Nobody does. This is disingenuous, to say the least.

Besides O’Rourkes, the other businesses, including the two filling stations, takeaway, driving test centre, Aldi, the farming co-op, etc, have their own car parks and do not have or rely on on-street parking. And with O’Rourkes, parking is being provided within a reasonable distance outside their premises.

If, as a business, O’Rourkes cannot — as has been claimed — cross the planned two-way cycle path for deliveries or customer pickups, then serious questions need to be asked about how they manage to get across the footpath to do the same things.

If the reps or anyone else were genuinely supportive of active travel, they’d look at concerns and issues, then examine how a project can be adjusted to provide an active travel route while also avoiding issues with businesses. For example, by asking the council to look at having the active travel route cross to the opposite side of the road to keep away from the side entrances to the businesses. Something like this:

4. Impact on Schools and Families

Graiguecullen is home to a large number of families and school-age children with a further approximate 400 houses being built or planned at the moment. The area experiences significant traffic activity associated with school transport already. Parents, school buses, carers and support services all depend on safe and efficient road access. We cannot create further bottlenecks and reductions in road sizes. Any scheme that changes traffic patterns should be assessed in terms of:

• School access.
• Student safety.
• Bus movements.
• Traffic queues at peak times.
• The potential for increased congestion on alternative routes used by families.

It is nothing short of outrageous to claim you’re all for safety, argue against a project which includes a school entrance traffic calming scheme and then claim that project will make things worse for safety. But hey, it’s done in a “just asking questions” way, so there’s another disclaimer.

There’s a long wait for schools across Ireland to get Safe Routes to School treatments, while the planned project will deliver such measures as part of the project. It will significantly improve safety at the Church Street entrance to the school.

The number of assessments and evaluations being sought for a basic project and a relatively small one with relatively small impacts on motorists is just amazing when the objectors claim to care about costs, not wasting money and proportionality.

This was also under the “Impact on Schools and Families” header:

Parents should have confidence that the proposal will improve, rather than complicate, daily school journeys. From talking to parents in the area who live on the route, they have told me that they would not allow their children to cycle on the proposed cycle lane due to the number of side roads and driveways leading on to the route. At peak times, this would be far too dangerous. If we take the entrance to Aldi, for example. Cars exiting Aldi already have to edge out on to the road to have visibility of the main road. This means that cars will be edging out on to the cycle lane, creating even further safety hazards as a result. If anything the proposed cycle lane will create accidents instead of reducing them.

The driveway issue is a bit of a red herring as far as children cycling to school because currently, where there are no cycle paths on busy roads, children cycle to school using footpaths which are closer to driveways and have poorer lines of sight.

I would somewhat share the concern for the cycle path at the Aldi entrance, but it’s not an insurmountable issue. Between the already planned school traffic calming measures and possible extra measures at the detailed design stage, there should not be a significant issue for school children using the cycle path compared to the default of them using footpaths.

The Aldi entrance and the road now, before traffic calming is put in place, cannot be compared to what it’ll be like after the traffic calming is in place. Added to this, the planned speed limit guidelines suggest a limit of 30km/h at all times or at least around school run times, in locations like this outside urban schools.

This is a bit detailedm but possible extra measures could include (1) moving some of the planned green space from the opposite side of the road to the Aldi side to create a buffer between existing motorists and the cycle paths, (2) including a raised junction table at the entrance (with school zone bollards to protect the footpaths and cycle path), and (3) if there are visibility issues for motorists exiting Aldi, the council should work with them to fix those.

5. Impact on Elderly Residents and People with Disabilities

Public infrastructure must serve all members of the community. Many elderly residents, individuals with mobility difficulties and people living with disabilities depend on private vehicles for everyday activities including shopping, attending appointments and accessing community services. There is concern that the proposal places a disproportionate emphasis on one mode of transport while potentially making access more difficult for those who are least able to adapt. The Council should demonstrate how the needs of these groups have been considered and addressed within the scheme design.

There are two things here — the general claim of impacting elderly residents and people with disabilities and the details of one small part of the project.

First, speaking on the general point: According to the CSO, nearly 300 households in the Graigue area have no car and a large chunk of the total households have only one car, so not everybody is the same. Adding an extra option for households with no or only one car improves mobility.

The project will improve safety and accessibility with safer junctions and new crossings, including for footpaths, and it will increase options for people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices for non-cycling users of the cycle path. If the objectors cannot see even the footpath and crossing improvements from the drawings and project description, they have been misled.

The authors of the template and rhetoric that preceded it, claiming the project was all about cycling, share much of the blame (the council may too, but I have not seen that clearly).

On the more focused issue of parking a relatively small number of homes:

For example, there are several elderly residents who park outside their homes on Church Street as they do not have driveways. With the proposed route in its current form, these residents will lose their parking and may not have the financial means to install driveways. They will then have to park elsewhere which causes a huge inconvenience for them, particularly those who are elderly or suffering with poor mobility. This will also have a knock on effect in terms of creating tension with other households in the area if this people have to park outside their houses going forward.

If the issue is that a small number of residents can’t pay for a driveway, one possible solution would be for the council to pay for it. And very few residents at the location do not have driveways.

Politicians should be leaders, and this issue should not form the basis of a general objection. Leaders should seek solutions. Even if they dislike or generally object to a project, they should still look for solutions in case the project moves ahead. Looking for compromises and working on solutions used to be the way with town councils — maybe it’s also a more fractured system of politics, but the larger area of municipal districts does not seem to help with sorting the details that actually affect people.

6. Community Facilities and Local Access

Graiguecullen contains a range of important community facilities, sporting organisations and churches that attract significant numbers of people throughout the week. Any alteration to traffic arrangements should be carefully assessed to ensure that access remains convenient and safe for users of these facilities. Residents should not experience reduced accessibility to amenities that form an essential part of community life.

The project will deliver extra mobility options and enhanced accessibility.

7. Value for Money

At a time when public resources are under considerable pressure, residents are entitled to ask whether this project represents the best use of available funding with an estimated cost of €3m. Many local people would argue that there are other infrastructure priorities within Graiguecullen that warrant urgent attention, including:

• Road maintenance and resurfacing.
• Footpath repairs.
• Traffic management measures.
• Public realm improvements.
• Community and recreational facilities.

The Council should provide a transparent cost-benefit analysis demonstrating why this project has been prioritised and what measurable outcomes are expected. I understand that the funding is ring-fenced under the Active Travel Scheme but the community feel that this money could be better spent elsewhere. What other route options were considered? It is worth mentioning that the proposed Southern Relief Road is really what Graiguecullen needs as they would relieve a lot of traffic congestion in the area and a potential cycle lane could be implemented on this, particularly considering it is expected to cross the river next to SETU. I would much prefer the Council to hold the Active Travel funding to add it to the cost of a cycle lane on the proposed Southern Relief Road.

Yet again, this is not something people who generally support road safety and active travel projects say.

The cost/benfit of active travel projects is well proven and repeated time and time again around the world. That’s not a conspiracy; it’s because getting people active has huge benefits to the State and to people. Last week the National Transport Authority published a report which found that for every €1 invested in Active Travel infrastructure, it generates almost €4 in benefits for society. There’s a lot of independent research which comes to similar conclusions.

The local reps are acting like populists rather than leaders. Leaders show leadership and lead (even when they object to a project that they think is wrong). Good leaders work through issues and bring people along, rather than adding to the notion that it’s the people against the system.

Not everybody will agree with all State spending. People who dislike sports/public education/public health services/public transport, etc, may think funding for those things could be better spent elsewhere. That does not change the fact that all of those areas have funding allocated in the national yearly budgets.

Say if I say military project spending would be better spent on hospitals — that would be me objecting outright to spending on new defence projects. If you’re going to do the same for active travel, at least be honest about what you are doing.

8. Community Opposition

A significant number of residents have expressed concerns regarding the proposal. While consultation is an important part of the planning process, consultation must be meaningful. Community concerns should not simply be noted but should genuinely influence decision making. Residents who live, work and raise families in Graiguecullen possess valuable local knowledge regarding traffic patterns, access requirements and community needs. Their views should carry substantial weight in determining the future of the area. Following recent work on the Kilkenny Road area of Carlow town, residents fear that this project will create safety concerns, traffic congestion, negatively impact local business and significantly effect peoples way of life in terms of parking, travelling, etc.

Based on the submissions, residents of the area and users of the roads and streets involved do not have a single view. Some support it, others oppose it, and those feelings vary in intensity. I don’t want to dwell on this, but every time I’ve read about it online, there were conspiracy theories (including the EU forcing us to build cycle lanes when local councillors have supported the plans for cycle networks).

Meaningful consultation requires good-faith submissions and a willingness to engage — this is clearly not the case when the template writers have not read even the first content pages of the consultation report, are making scattergun arguments, and are misinforming people about the project and its likely impacts, including engaging in fearmongering.

And even if all complaints were in good-faith, that does not mean that meaningful consultation leads to a veto.

9. Start and End Points

The proposal in its current form starts at the entrance to Barrowvale housing estate despite Graigue na hAbhainn housing estate, which contains 77 houses, being situated just a few metres up the road but yet has not been factored in when deciding on the starting point of the works. When we look at the end point of the proposed route, it ends at the entrance to Carlow town park, which is a non-cycle zone. This means that cyclists can cycle as far as the park before they must dismount from their bike, and then return to cycling once they exit the park on the far side. This makes no sense and I would imagine cyclists would prefer to stay on their bikes and just cycle over Graigue bridge where they do not have to disembark. Again, this shows a lack of consultation and planning with local residents and a clear lack of understanding of the routes that cyclists take when cycling in Graiguecullen.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and only so much of a network can be built at once. But let’s look some more at the claims made…

In reality, rather than showing “a lack of consultation and planning with local residents and a clear lack of understanding” — the consultation which is happening — this response shows that the objectors have not read the consultation report.

This is on the first contents page of the report: “The project would greatly improve access for pedestrians and cyclists to nearby retail premises, educational facilities and recreational amenities and would link into the current pedestrian & cycling facilities at Carlow Town Park which further links to the centre of Carlow Town.”

Even if the council has made an error in its report, and cycling is not yet allowed in the Town Park, it is the council’s clear intention to allow cycling there as part of its active travel network. Why are political reps who are objecting to cycle routes not aware of this?

The suggestion from the objectors to route the active travel route via the Graiguecullen Bridge is nonsensical because implementing an active travel route to and over the bridge would be much more disruptive to motorists and/or costly if a new bridge were to be included (there’s no space on the current bridge). Given that the template is also objecting outright to the proposed Church Road cycle path, this shows that a scattergun approach is being taken to objecting.

The route using the town park to create a safer and more attractive active travel link to the town centre is pragmatic.

10. Croppy Graves

The proposed cycle route passes in close proximity to the historic Croppy Graves, a site of immense local and national significance associated with the 1798 Rebellion. There is a reasonable possibility that burials connected with the mass burial site may extend beyond the existing boundary walls, particularly given the age of the site and the burial practices of the period. Any excavation, ground disturbance or construction works in the vicinity should therefore be approached with the utmost caution. Until comprehensive archaeological investigations have been carried out to establish the full extent of any potential burials or associated archaeological remains, it would be inappropriate to proceed with works that could inadvertently disturb this important heritage site. The Council has a duty to protect and preserve our archaeological and cultural heritage, and the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the burial ground is, in itself, a compelling reason to reconsider the current alignment of the proposed cycle route. We must respect our patriot dead.

There’s no evidence presented for these concerns about the Croppies Grave site, and it raises the question of why they’re only being raised now. Is there no concern about this as a general issue? That with the current path, people may be walking over graves? Or even driving over the Croppies Grave? Is there any concern that the modern roadway was also built on top of the Croppy site?

Below is what’s currently in place at the rear of the site — this is the path to be widened.

There are a number of solutions and options to avoid any issues:

• Widen the path on the side of the Croppies site.
• Use non-dig or low-dig methods near the site.
• Divert the path on a wider arc away from the site.

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that Carlow County Council reconsider the proposed Church Street Pedestrian and Cycle Scheme. The Council should undertake further engagement with residents, businesses, schools and community organisations and provide clear evidence demonstrating the necessity, demand, effectiveness and value for money of the proposal.

Until such evidence is provided, I do not believe the scheme has justified the significant changes proposed to one of Graiguecullen’s most important local routes.

I therefore request that the proposal be withdrawn to better reflect the needs and priorities of the local community.

This could be better accepted if the objectors were suggesting any alternatives or any vision for a more accessible area. But we don’t get any vision of what would “better reflect the needs and priorities of the local community.” Nothing, just negativity against a road safety project.