Limerick City and County Council’s planned changes are understood to focus mainly on limiting the number of people who need access to the section of the street controlled by automated bollards, while also allowing two-way access for a short section of the street for some residents.

Limiting traffic movements on this stretch of the street is key to making two-way cycling work alongside motorists travelling one way and retaining parking, as councillors set as a condition under the Part 8 planning process.

To limit motoring access to the bollard-controlled section, two-way access will be allowed on the South Circular Road for around 130 metres from Quin Street to Laurel Hill Ave. This will mean more residents and all school staff can access parking without handing out a large number of key fobs.

Another change is the addition of more parking spaces just north of Quin Street, which will require changes to the carriageway and cycle path around this location.

The council has published a Section 38 notice on its website, signed by Patricia Liddy, director of services for the council’s Transportation, Mobility and Public Realm Directorate.

The changes also include a new raised parallel crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, south of the Quinn Street/South Circular Road junction, and modifications to build-outs, landscaping, road markings, signs and drainage to accommodate the two-way section of street and the parking changes.

Submissions can be made in writing and via mypoint.limerick.ie by 5pm on Friday November 20th.

Cllr Elisa O’Donovan (Social Democrats) said she is “increasingly frustrated” with what she claims is a “lack of communication and answers from the Active Travel team regarding the ongoing works on the South Circular Road.”

“I am being contacted almost daily by residents and businesses with legitimate concerns, yet despite repeatedly raising these issues and requesting clarification, I am not getting the answers I need to pass on to people,” Cllr O’Donovan said in a post on Facebook on October 26th.

Councillors were briefed on the planned changes, but it is understood that Cllr O’Donovan did not attend the briefing.

“Now we have a Section 38 consultation proposing significant changes to traffic arrangements between Laurel Hill Avenue and St Gerard Street. These changes were not approved by councillors as part of the original Part 8 process. Yet Active Travel is now seeking to introduce them through a Section 38 process,” she said.

She said: “I’ve walked around the area and could only find two public notices, both dated simply ‘October 2026’, with no actual date of publication. I have no idea when these notices were erected.”

Section 38 is the process the national guidelines deem suitable for such limited changes, and the process does not require site notices.

Cllr O’Donovan claimed that the proposals will have “an enormous impact on traffic movements, particularly for the many schools in the area, as well as surrounding residential streets and local businesses.”

“I have repeatedly asked for affected schools, businesses and residents to be contacted directly, but I have seen no evidence that this has happened. The whole approach feels underhand, and I am deeply disappointed with how this is being handled,” she said.

Under her Facebook post, a member of the public asked: “Who does this? If you’re part of the council why aren’t you given the information or do you need to have a penis to belong to the hierarchy and get information? Sure seems like it.”

Cllr O’Donovan responded: “They are a law onto their own and would rather work against the councillors that live locally than work with them. They don’t live here so they don’t care.”

Another member of the public replied and asked: “Who are ‘they’?” and Cllr O’Donovan confirmed that she was referring to the council’s “active travel team”.

Another member of the public, a resident involved with a residents group, said that if Cllr O’Donovan consulted with the residents group she “might learn how this new plan emerged; it’s called negotiating. It’s not a perfect solution but a reasonable compromise,” and suggested that “it might be best if u don’t get involved at this late stage, particularly pertaining to the section between Quin Street and Gerard’s Street.”

Cllr O’Donovan responded: “That’s not what your neighbours think,” and then the resident replied, stating that they had never said what her neighbours think.

The resident told Cllr O’Donovan that other councillors had engaged with their group and attended meetings with them. The resident added: “What matters is we as a group have worked long and hard to get some resolution to our fears and this new plan, while not perfect, is a help.”

A separate member of the public said: “The ‘Active Travel’ team seem hell bent on making travelling around Limerick as dangerous and as frustrating as possible” — Cllr O’Donovan liked this comment.

Cllr O’Donovan has repeatedly claimed her support for active travel projects, but she has also told local media that she was “completely opposed” to the South Circular Road project even after it was approved by a majority of councillors.

Last year, she also spread misinformation on the South Circular Road project, claiming detailed designs had not been shared even after she had previously posted a photo of the detailed designs at an event she attended, and she implied design decisions had been made by others when the changes in the design were to comply with the project’s Part 8 planning permission set by councillors.

More recently, as reported by this website in August, when officials proposed a small project to address cycling safety and accessibility concerns on a 60-metre-long, two-lane, one-way street that is out of place in a residential estate, Cllr O’Donovan sided with residents who said they had “real trepidation,” “safety concerns” and “concerns around anti-social behaviour” because of the project.

Cllr O’Donovan complained about a lack of consultation on that project, even after councillors paused its progress, including public consultation.

A spokesperson for the Richmond Road & Grace Park Avenue Residents Association told IrishCycle.com that the group plans to continue what has become monthly protests. On Friday, this includes closing the road for an hour and a half, from 17:00-18:30, ahead of the regular road closure for Shelbourne FC men’s team home matches.

“Despite Dublin City Council’s claims of engagement and collaboration, we continue to experience delays and changing goalposts,” the group’s spokesperson said.

They said local councillors have supported an area-wide traffic assessment since the end of 2025, but delays have followed.

Back in August, Dublin City Council confirmed that it has “committed to preparing an area-wide traffic study to assess the impact of any changes to existing traffic arrangements.”

A spokesperson for the council said that a tender brief for an area-wide study would be ready for comment from the councillors and the residents association, “by the end of August 2026.”

What I’m talking about is where the layout includes a footpath, a cycle path, a bus stop platform area, and then the carriageway. These are sometimes named “bus stop bypasses” or “island bus stop”, traffic engineering terms that make the designs sound like a big deal when they are a basic part of segregated cycling infrastructure.

Some older versions (see first image below) included a level surface with paint or markings, while newer versions generally include kerbs and the cycle path at a different level to the footpath or bus stop platform:

As part of my job looking at cycling infrastructure and how it works, I’ve stood around and watched how bus stops and cycle paths work together in Dublin, the Netherlands, and London.

Recently, controversy has focused on cycle paths at bus stops in London, with social media posts from a small UK-based vision impairment advocacy group and articles about them. So when I was travelling through the city in September, I took some time out to look at bus stops, as well as cycle routes more generally.

One bus stop that featured heavily in highly edited videos is at Blackfriars. In this YouTube clip, I give an overview of what’s happening at the location:

From watching the videos posted on social media, I thought the “bus passengers” crossing the cycle path were, in fact, not bus passengers, and visiting the area quickly proved that.

Before going on, a lot of the issues shown in the advocacy group’s videos, and a very high percentage of the few issues I witnessed, were also not cyclists on bicycles but riders on illegal mopeds/motorcycles (aka bicycle-shaped objects).

The point isn’t to say there’s no misbehaviour from cyclists or that there are no other issues (there are). The point is that not everything is as simple as it seems in videos presented with limited context or understanding of what’s going on, and clips merged together for it to seem like more is going on than meets the eye.

But what do I mean by saying the people crossing weren’t bus passengers? During the hours I observed the bus stop platform, most people were crossing to the platform and then crossing the road, mostly away from any road crossing. This is perfectly legal in the UK even near a crossing; that’s not the issue here.

The below are just some examples; I spotted many more:

While some people were getting off buses and then crossing the road directly from the bus stop platform, most I observed were not getting on or off a bus at all.

In the photo below, the blue arrow superimposed on this image shows the formal crossing point — but a good chunk of the people pictured here are crossing largely unaided by the street layout, but helped by the traffic lights (they are on a green man crossing sequence of the main road):

People were crossing the road using the bus stop platform at different points along it, including at the northern end away from the crossing:

Disabled bus passengers whose destination is across the road but who cannot cross away from the formal crossing currently have to cross the cycle path twice (light blue line shown below).

If designers followed international best practice for bus stops and cycle paths, they would better integrate the bus stops with road crossings when both are close to each other. This would mean disabled people would not have to cross the cycle path at all (for example, following the green line in the image below).

Note: The signalised crossing of the side road (marked with a red traffic light in the image above) is signalised for people exiting into the main carriageway, but there are no traffic lights for visually impaired pedestrians to let them know, for example, that a truck is exiting:

In Dublin, pedestrians can also be seen following an unplanned desire line on sections of the Clontarf to City Centre route. The photo below, of Amiens Street at the Five Lamps junction, shows bus passengers walking down the cycle path and parking buffer rather than crossing the cycle path twice.

There’s a hyperfocus on bus stops when broader design choices force the most vulnerable road users onto longer routes with more potential conflict points.

Meanwhile, back at Blackfriars, there’s quite a lot going on for people cycling too — south of the bus stop zebra crossing (marked in the below image with a red circle with a pedestrian in it) is quickly followed by three signlised crossings, with the first stop line 20 metres from the zebra.

If this layout were for motorists, there would be shouts of blue murder. Of course, the designers were trying to fit everything into an imperfect world with many competing interests, but a zebra crossing this close to traffic lights seems problematic to me.

I’m not the only one who’s been looking at bus stops in the City of London recently. Mark Philpotts, a sustainable mobility design specialist, has a LinkedIn post about cycle paths and bus stops titled “It’s more complicated than that” — it’s worth reading that in full over on LinkedIn.

He makes a number of points in his article, including that in the UK pedestrians are expected to put a foot out onto a cycle path or carriageway before getting priority at a zebra (after a law change in recent years, that’s not the case in Ireland, where waiting at a zebra gives you priority). Taking this fact alone into account casts the dramatic videos in a new light.

Philpotts also points out that there are layers of social and political issues at play, including:

“Despite floating bus stops actually being present in the UK for decades, the newer slew of cycling infrastructure projects that started to be delivered over a decade ago (many in London) brought them closer to people’s attention and I would say in part, that was driven by some of the media and certainly some politicians railing against the shift in street space towards what was often seen as an out-group – The Cyclists – and it’s an easy bandwagon to join”

The above is the same in Ireland, where not only were many ‘island’ bus stops built in areas, often cycle routes went through bus stops in what effectively were shared areas (see example below).

But very few issues were raised about cycle paths and bus stops in Ireland until it became a cultural issue in the UK and was imported here (though at a lower level).

Philpotts also questions the use and placement of zebra crossings at bus stops:

“The zebra crossing regulates the interactions between the users as I explain above, but the position in the photo and in currently guidance is that the crossing is aligned where the loading doors of the bus will be (rear doors in London) so wheelchair users and others can use the ramp deployed from the bus, rather than any objective thought about the best place (although at some stops there is more than one crossing point identified).”

Elsewhere online last week, Edward Tissiman, an active travel campaigner, posted a photo of a bus stop in Edinburgh, a design I wouldn’t be comfortable advocating. But in a Bluesky post he said:

“Between 2021 and 2025, around 2 million cyclists passed the floating bus stops on Leith Street, Edinburgh, and around 5 million bus passengers boarded or alighted here. No injuries have been recorded. Over the same period, drivers injured around 600 Edinburgh pedestrians, killing 16.”

An understandable response might be that some people are not getting injured here as they are avoiding the bus stop because of its cycle path or design.

But while I think we should look at the issue of avoidance, I also have to ask: is it possible that active travel infrastructure has the opposite effect, that more vulnerable users start to get around on foot/bike/’wheeling’/bus rather than driving or being driven?

Do active travel projects help enable the most vulnerable road users to move around more safely? In Ireland, active travel projects or crossing funding from the active travel budget have funded many pedestrian crossings where they were desperately needed.

Tissiman also pointed to another Bluesky thread he posted earlier this year. He admitted, “Too many cyclists show discourtesy to pedestrians at Leith Walk bus stops,” but added, “Let’s not pretend they pose an extraordinary danger – drivers injured 240 Edinburgh pedestrians and cyclists in 2024 alone.”

Tissiman added: “There is a lot of chat about the danger posed by the introduction of cycle lanes and floating bus stops on Leith Walk from 2021 onward” and posted this list of pedestrian casualties on Leith Walk, by year:

• 2015: 15
• 2016: 13
• 2017: 9
• 2018: 10
• 2019: 12 (including two fatalities)
• 2020: 3
• 2021: 0
• 2022: 2
• 2023: 0
• 2024: 2

Since 2015, I’ve visited the Netherlands for study tours at least twice a year (more some years, and none in 2020 due to Covid).

One of the most surprising things I keep observing (and it’s not just me) is that there seem to be more white cane users in the Netherlands walking around independently. I mean, I’d see 3-4+ in a day in Utrecht, while I might at most only see one in Dublin in the same time.

Now, that might be an error in observation, or a case of needing white canes more, or that it’s just more culturally ingrained to use them; for example, it’s in traffic law that white canes with red strips are effectively stop signs for all other road users regardless of who normally has priority.

If you Google the name of the guy who posted the Bluesky message, you’ll find where he was run over while walking to work at a spot where motorists kept making an illegal left turn after the turn was banned. So, he’s not coming at this with data just from an abstract position.

There are issues with looking at the data he provided or anecdotes like mine or his in isolation, but what’s probably just as bad or worse are highly edited videos from a group that has a weird focus on bus stops and cycle paths.

I also think a core issue — even if we say, yes, there are both user and design issues (and there are) — is that we need to be careful about looking at some of the busiest locations for cycling in London and then saying we will have the same problems in Dublin or even in suburban Limerick or Castlebar or wherever.

But to appease some disability advocacy group, the national design approach in Ireland seems to be to treat all contexts the same, overcomplicate the design, and include elements of pedestrian-hostile infrastructure to try to break pedestrian desire lines.

There’s some welcome change in the recently updated Cycle Design Manual, including the guidance on tactile strips from the boundary line to the crossing and from the crossing to the boarding point. But overall, the approach seems counterproductive.

As mentioned many times on this website, the narrowing (which is, according to UK experts, associated with more conflicts) and exaggerated bends approaching and following the bus stops will likely create more problems than they solve, especially for the most vulnerable users of cycle paths. The lads speeding along on fat bikes won’t mind.

The example designs — of which there are a few (see the manual) — do not show common layouts including bus stop platforms in line with parking and loading.

There seem to be all sorts of weird consequences to trying to suit just some disabilities with little or no concern for cycle path users, who can include disabled cyclists, disabled users of cycle paths on a range of mobility devices, elderly cyclists, children on their own or being carried by their parents, etc.

Some examples of weird designs include road designers trying to fit bends where they don’t make sense (see photo below).

Sadly, disabled cycle path users likely need to get together and have their say about designs that will likely end up hurting cycle path users with little or no gain for bus users. They are not currently having their voice heard

The Dublin City Centre Transport Plan included proposals for a two-way cycle path with a green buffer in 2024. The overall plan did not require councillors to sign off on it with a vote, but those against it pushed it to a vote more than once. Those votes showed clear support for the transport plan from councillors.

Like other measures in the city centre plan, the project needs a more refined plan before it proceeds. But the Gardiner Street project was planned for delivery between 2024 and 2026, so with consultation happening this late in the year, delivery will be delayed.

Councillors received the update as part of their information packs for the council’s monthly meeting. It was contained in the Traffic Department – Quarter Two Report 2026, and said: “Gardiner Street Cycle route: As part of the measures contained in the Transport Plan 2023, design work is ongoing at present. It is anticipated a non-statutory consultation on the proposals will be launched in September/October.”

Progress is also being made on a linked part of the transport plan. As reported by this news website in June and again at the end of August when the lanes were being closed, a two-way cycle path is being placed in the middle of the carriageway on Amiens Street to link the Clontarf to City Centre route to the quays.

The route from Amiens Street to the south quays includes a two-way path on the street outside the back of Customs House, which suggests it may link to the Gardiner Street project at that point.

Dublin City Centre Transport Plan vision for Garnder Street

In the Dublin City Centre Transport Plan, the council said: “As a 1.2km-long corridor, Gardiner Street is a primary north-south link for North Dublin with high flows of traffic. As traffic interventions take effect, the street can be reconfigured to better facilitate public transport, pedestrian and cycle movements, while providing a much-improved public realm. Safeguarded by a verge lined with trees, a 2-way cycle lane across the whole length of the corridor can afford fast cycling journeys.”

“Additionally, a dedicated bus lane can be created for the southern half of the scheme, between Beresford Place and Parnell Street/Summerhill,” the 2024 plan said.

The plan said: “The intersection between Beresford Pl and Gardiner St could become an attractive Gateway into the area through the use of signage, colour and lighting along the Loopline bridge and its arches. The interface of the street with Diamond Park can be developed as a landscape buffer to protect the space and the playground from vehicles and noise.”

It added: “This also affords the opportunity to create a landmark mid-street, with a light sign that announces Diamond Park. Lighting along the entire corridor can be used to reinforce the proposed intervention. Using the green verge as a the key unifying feature of the proposal, lighting will be provided at two levels, both shedding a light across the street at higher level and over the near-side pedestrian and cycling below canopy level.”

Comment & Analysis: Up to now, when Irish authorities have talked about people walking wearing high-vis clothing, people have brushed it off and dismissed that they mean in urban areas too. But their advice has generalised for a long time. Thanks to The Journal, it’s as clear as day that some senior people involved in road safety in Ireland really believe this amounts to good road safety advice.

At the October Bank Holiday road safety appeal at Garda headquarters, both Minister for State Seán Canney, who’s responsible for road safety, and Denis Ferry, an assistant Garda commissioner. made the call for people walking to wear high-vis.

Now, the phrase “walking” can be ambiguous; it could just mean going for a walk for exercise. But The Journal asked if it would include pedestrians in suburban areas, and Ferry unambiguously responded: “All pedestrians.”

The reporter probed further, asking whether the advice included the nearby North Circular Road. According to The Journal, Ferry said:

“I think you should do everything you can to ensure you’re visible… Even though you’re in an urban setting, quite often what we find is that when you go to cross the road, you assume that the traffic coming towards you can see you. Quite often in an urban setting, with lighting, it’s actually more difficult. We’d recommend, where possible, some sort of high-visibility, an armband if not even a jacket.”

Minister Canney told reporters that he agreed. Although known for regularly putting his foot in it, Canney tempered his remarks with a line about “shadow in the public lighting” and said the advice was even more important for rural areas.

The problem is that lines like doing “everything you can to ensure you’re visible” sound great in theory, but what does it mean in practice when it includes “all pedestrians”, including in urban areas?

All pedestrians means people walking to work, to the shop, going to the cinema, for a meal, or for a night out, or going to a friend’s house. And, of course, all bus passengers are all pedestrians at some point.

The same goes for most car users across the country. In fact, some of the people I observe most erratically crossing the road are people going to and from cars (crossing without looking, crossing away from a crossing even when there’s a zebra crossing within a few metres, etc).

At what point do we all have to wear high-vis everywhere because motorists won’t slow down and streets are designed around cars?

Should politicians lead by example and wear high-vis clothing everywhere? Should business suits include high-vis elements? I’m not being serious, but that’s where the logic goes.

Well, no, it’s not really. Because nobody is really thinking about the consequences of trying to maintain that high-vis should be worn everywhere by pedestrians.

And this is before we even get to the effectiveness of high-vis. There’s little in the way of solid evidence to suggest that high-vis lowers the number of people getting run over. As covered here before, a lot claimed visibility issues are actually “failure to observe” incidents where motorists don’t look, look but don’t see, or are looking at their phones or are otherwise distracted.

The other problem is that the State is not doing “everything” it can to make roads safer; the State collectively is so far away from doing everything it can that a bit of victim blaming is a nice distraction.

Play streets are residential streets that are temporarily closed to through traffic so children can play safely outdoors in cities, often where children once played before cars dominated streets.

The modus operandi of DCC Beta is to basically take concepts such as Bike Bunkers, art on utility boxes, and cargo bike share and test them within their local physical, legal and administrative context. As always, they are looking for public input during every stage of the trial process.

Today, DCC Beta said: “The #PlayStreetsBETA trial began today. To help us learn more widely, there will be various phases to the project. We won’t begin to use the gates until a few weeks’ time (shown below from the ‘inside’ of the space).”

“We would very much appreciate your questions, feedback and suggestions throughout,” DCC Beta said.

In a recent update, on the same Bluesky thread, DCC Beta said: “This morning, we began the onsite work for a #PlayStreetBETA trial in Stoneybatter, aiming to go live over the next few weeks.”

The photos show barriers for the play street trial, which were made by the council’s joinery workshop, and fold into planters.

“During pedestrianised hours, people can walk through as usual on the footpaths or can cycle/scoot through using the gap between gates (with the gates providing some visibility through),” DCC Beta explained. “During non-pedestrianised times – with the gates folded back – they look and act like regular planter boxes.”

The play street trial also includes testing the use of “gas keys”, a common triangular key, to hold the gates in position. DCC Beta said one of the council’s metal fabricator staff members created the prototype.

MORE: Dccbeta.ie/project/article/play-streets

After repeated delays on projects to upgrade the Royal Canal to modern greenway standards between Phibsborough and Ashtown, Waterways Ireland is stepping in with an €850,000 upgrade to the shared canal path between Broombridge and Ashtown.

The works include resurfacing of the towpath, localised widening, and replacing kissing gates with bollards, while chicane barriers will also be added.

A spokesperson for the all-island waterways body said: “Waterways Ireland is carrying out works to upgrade the Royal Canal Towpath between Broombridge (Lock 7) and Ashtown (Lock 10), funded by the National Transport Authority (NTA). Work began on Monday, 5th October 2026 and is due to be completed in early 2027. Waterways Ireland regrets that towpath users will face intermittent closures during the upgrade works and apologises for any inconvenience caused.”

Dublin City Council has for years planned to upgrade the route between Phibsborough and Ashtown, but a number of attempts have hit different roadblocks.

Waterways Ireland said that a rolling towpath closure system, designed to minimise disruption to towpath users, is in place for the duration of the works.

“Individual sections of the towpath will close while upgrade works are being undertaken and will reopen immediately upon completion of the works. The majority of the path will now be between 2.5m and 3m in width, however, a narrower section (approx. 1.75m) exists between Broombridge and Ratoath Road,” the spokesperson said.

Waterways Ireland said it is also removing kissing gates and replacing them with bollards, while also adding staggered or chicane barriers as a speed management method.

The Waterways Ireland spokesperson said: “To enhance overall accessibility along the corridor, we are removing kissing gates at the entry points and replacing them with bollards. To mitigate the risk associated with high-speed motorised vehicles, chicane gates (Detail H, see below) will be installed at various locations. The layout has been widened significantly to ensure improved access and better connections with surrounding neighbourhoods.”

“The layout provides a 5-metre distance between the gate leaves, with 1.5m clearance widths. This design will facilitate comfortable access for standard bicycles, cargo bikes, trailers, and standard mobility aids. The drop-bolt design also allows the gates to be locked open or potentially removed in the future, if safe to do so,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson added: “In a related development, progress on active travel in the area has taken another significant step forward with the recent submission of a Planning Application by Fingal County Council for an 8.1km section of the Royal Canal Greenway between the 12th lock and the Dublin/Kildare County boundary at Leixlip. This represents one of the final stages in completing the Royal Canal Greenway between the Liffey and the Shannon.

Cllr Colm O’Rourke (Fine Gael) said: “This is a significant programme of works which brings together a number of improvements residents have been asking for over many years.”

He added: “There will inevitably be some short-term disruption for people who use the canal for walking, cycling, exercise and commuting. However, this is a significant €850,000 investment bringing together a number of improvements residents have sought for many years.”

Cllr Feljin Jose (Green Party) said: “This is a welcome and long overdue improvement, especially for people using mobility aids and cargo bikes.”

He added: “However, Royal Canal Phase 4 is still needed to deliver segregation between cyclists and pedestrians and lighting to improve safety in the winter months.”

The last known progress on Phase 4, the city council’s last section of the greenway to be updated, was surveying of the railway line to Maynooth which crosses the towpath where there is a very narrow underpass on the towpath route. That surveying work took place at the start of 2026.

The council granted Scoil Mhuire Community School, a secondary school in Clane, planning permission to construct a new two-storey extension. Planners, however, said the school must open a pedestrian access point at the start and end of the school day.

The use of the gate would mean that children don’t have to walk, cycle or be driven a longer distance to the front gate, and the developer of the housing estate behind the school complied with the condition by building a ramp from the boundary of the school into the estate (pictured above), but the gate remains locked at all times.

The Presentation Sisters, a religious congregation, were the named applicant for planning permission for the housing estate, which included the access gate. The Principal’s Statement on the school’s website states that “The seed of Scoil Mhuire was born out of the Presentation Convent”, and the site lists the Presentation Sisters as part of the school’s trustee structure, which also includes the Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board.

The Board of Management of Scoil Mhuire Community School went so far as to tell An Coimisiún Pleanála that it was not simply objecting to a pedestrian gate to the school, but that its appeal relates to “the conditions requiring the opening and operation of a public pedestrian connection through the school campus”.

There is no evidence that the council planners were attempting to open up a through route for the public, but this claim is made repeatedly in the planning appeal.

The planning conditions make it clear that the access point would be a “connection which links the subject site [the school] and the Abbot Field housing estate” for student and staff access, and Kildare County Council’s planning report makes this even clearer.

The council’s report said planners met with the school via Teams at the start of this year, with the access point as the main point of discussion. Planners said that they expressed that the extra access was imperative, in “the interest of students and staff”, but they said that the school “was not supportive of this plan and raised concerns from the outset”. While planners noted the concerns, they maintained it is “considered vitally important that this permeable pedestrian link is opened for students and staff.”

The council’s planners said: “It is considered that the opening of this pedestrian link would alleviate the significant pressures that the town centre is under regarding traffic at peak school times, as well as supporting active travel for students and staff who reside to the north of the town. It is also important to note that this link was identified in the Clane Town Centre First Plan as being a key priority and the number 1 potential permeable link in the town.”

The council said that the school also maintained that the access point is incomplete, but the council said that “given that the pedestrian link has already been constructed up to the boundary, it is considered reasonable that a condition will be attached which ensures that this link is opened within 3 months of a grant of this permission.”

In a submission on behalf of the school’s board of management, Principal Kevin Martin repeatedly refers to the planning condition requirements for the access point to be operational as a requirement for a through route. This is despite the planning conditions and planning report not seeking a through route, but rather just an access point for use by the school’s students and staff only.

Similar arrangements for secondary active travel access points at schools exist across Ireland. Examples include St Farnan’s Post Primary School in Prosperous, Co Kildare, where a path originally provided through overgrown land which was eventually turned into a park.

But the school lodged a 34-page appeal arguing against the condition as if it were for a through route.

Principal Martin said: “The proposed access arrangement would: Introduce members of the public directly into the operational core of the campus; Create avoidable safeguarding concerns; Increase health and safety risks; Generate conflict between pedestrian and vehicular movements; Impact the operation of a campus serving approximately 1,200 students and over 120 staff; Affect areas used extensively for teaching, recreation and sport; Interact directly with the proposed extension and associated twelve-space car park; [and] Place an unreasonable supervisory and operational burden on school management.”

“While it has been suggested that restrictions on opening hours could address these concerns, I do not believe that such measures adequately mitigate the risks arising from the location of the gate itself. The fundamental issue is that members of the public would be introduced directly into an active educational environment containing teaching accommodation, student recreation areas, sports facilities, Special Classes and school parking facilities,” he said.

Martin said that the school “fully supports” the approved development, but said: “In my considered professional opinion, the condition requiring public pedestrian access through this location is incompatible with the school’s responsibility to provide a safe, secure and appropriately supervised environment for students and staff.”

Kildare County Council’s planning report noted that the school had put forward an alternative proposal for a new lane which would provide a route along the side of the school to the front of it, but they said that this proposed 2 metre wide path would be outside the red line boundary covered by the planning application, a significant proportion of this route is outside the landholding of the school, and the school did not provide detailed drawings for such a route.

A map of the outline suggested by the school shows an “alternative” pedestrian route running from the Abbott housing estate via Clane RFC to the nearby Ottomy housing estate. This route would still require students to reach the school via Main Street in town and would amount to a less direct route than just using the current roads and streets.

The school argues that the gate access would use third-party lands and that it is not clear if it owns the gate or if it could legally operate it. Photos provided in the appeal file show the gate blocked on what appears to be the school’s side of the boundary.

The council’s report said: “It does not appear that the applicant has liaised and obtained the written consent of the developer of the Abbot Field residential development; Westin Homes Limited in respect of this request.”

When people in the comments mention the link to MetroLink, they are repeatedly faced with denial; this article explains why that denial is wrong.

This is a companion article to the longer read on the same topic published on Sunday.

1. The R132 Connectivity Project is required to be built before MetroLink starts

The Railway Order, basically the planning permission, for MetroLink includes a condition clearly stating that the R132 Connectivity Project and the crossings in it need to be completed before works start on the railway — the removal of the footbridges is part of the MetroLink enabling works planned for next year:

2. Even if the planning condition didn’t exist, the enabling works require the footbridges to be removed

Along the R132 in Swords, MetroLink is basically going into a hole in the ground, which in some cases will get a concrete roof (cut and cover) and in other cases will be left open with fences around it. The trench for MetroLink is planned to be dug out from the surface.

If you use the interactive map for MetroLink and zoom in, it shows how the trench for MetroLink goes through parts of the roundabouts and right through the footbridge structures. There is no way around getting rid of the footbridges.

3. MetroLink passengers are not going to be driving to stations

The park-and-ride north of Swords is designed for people coming from further afield. Parking close to the stations along the R132 will be extremely limited. Walking, cycling, and using local buses will be the main ways passengers get to these stations.

Massive roundabouts or adding slip lanes to the current design isn’t compatible with that. Slip lanes are a danger to people walking and cycling and have been advised against in guidance in urban settings for well over a decade.

4. The R132 is no longer a bypass of Swords; MetroLink will cement it in stone

The M1 has been the bypass of Swords for years now. The town has grown well beyond the days when the R132 was the Dublin-to-Belfast road.

There is planned to be a lot of new housing and other development around not just the R132, but Swords overall. The map below shows the “Metro and Rail Economic Corridor” zoning in grey. This development cannot be car-dominated. There’s no room for a large fraction of this development to be people in cars making local trips into Swords, around the M50, or into the city centre.

Some people claim this is a grand conspiracy that is against people and their freedom, but the grand conspiracy is all around us today — people forced into cars with no options, and many with ever-longer commutes, long before cycle lanes or bus lanes got in their way.

Others will advocate for ever-wider roads, but we can look to places such as the US, where this just adds to misery and in the process, often destroys the town and city centres which were loved.

5. MetroLink’s project team have been clear: It won’t be built without pain

Giving the impression that large projects can be built without disruption or teething issues, or giving the impression that construction impacts will last forever, are sure-fire ways of putting fuel on the fire of anger and enraging people more.

Yet, this keeps on happening with many roads projects in Ireland and beyond. When roads are being dug up for anything, including not just junction redesigns or cycle paths, but also water main replacements, or even just major road resurfacing. In any case, the R132 project is not finished, and people should stop pretending it is, just because a small part of it is.

Pretending there was never any traffic along the R132 — as may have in comments online — just does not match reality. Those claiming the roundabouts always enabled free-flowing traffic have very short memories.

But what does this point have to do with MetroLink? Sorry, but if you’re asking that, you have not listened to the other points, including that the R132 works are effectively advanced enabling works for MetroLink.

Teething and traffic issues are expected, but most local area councillors today agreed that the benefits will be strong and sided with officials who said the Clontarf Village scheme isn’t suitable for a trial. Most who voted against a trial indicated they wanted to proceed with the full project without one; most who voted for the trial also expressed support for the project.

What a number of councillors are calling the Clontarf Village project is planned to include traffic calming on Vernon Avenue between Seafield Road and the Clontarf Road, and a filtered permeability measure will also make an area of about 60 metres between Clontarf Park and the Clontarf Road car-free.

This car-free area will improve public space around the shops in the urban centre, and also make the area north of it a lower-traffic route, enabling it to form part of the cycle network without having cycle paths. At the same time, all driveways, and premises, including Nolan’s of Clontarf and the shops around it, will remain accessible by car, just not directly to/from the Clontarf Road.

Cllr Kevin Breen (independent) put forward a motion seeking for the council’s Clontarf village project to be trialled for a period of no less than four weeks to “fully assess the proposed changes and ensure that any potential issues or snags are identified and addressed before the changes are made permanent.”

At today’s North Central Area Committee meeting, Cllr Breen called the project a “huge piece of infrastructure”. He said he supported the project, but compared not running a trial to “buying a car before taking it for a test drive.”

He said the project is a “good news story” for the council and its active travel section, but because this type of project would be a first of its kind for Dublin City, they needed to run a trial to “weed out” any issues.

In a written response to the motion, Rhona White, a senior engineer at the council’s active travel section, said: “A temporary trial would be unable to replicate the final scheme design, including junction signal operation, pedestrian and cycle crossing arrangements, parking and loading changes, and the permanent public realm improvements. As a result, any findings from a trial would be of limited value in predicting the operation and outcomes of the completed scheme.”

She added: “It is also recognised that traffic impacts are often most pronounced immediately following implementation, as road users adjust their travel patterns and behaviours. A short-term trial would be likely to capture this transition period rather than the longer-term operational conditions that emerge once travel demand has stabilised. Consequently, a trial may not provide a representative assessment of either the scheme’s long-term traffic performance or its wider placemaking and accessibility benefits.

Cllr Donna Cooney (Green Party) said she’d normally be in favour of trials, but in this case there’s funding for the full project secured from the National Transport Authority, plans have been drawn up, and consultation goes back for years.

She said that, in this case, a trial would not reflect the full project.

Cllr Karl Stanley (Social Democrats) said: “I cannot support this motion. There’s been plenty of work done by experts who were pretty clear on what the implications on the bottom of Vernon Ave were going to be.”

He said he expects teething and traffic issues at the start, and it will likely require some snag work, but the councillor and officials can figure those issues out.

Cllr Stanley added that a trial would “kick the can down the road” in terms of action and may risk losing funding.

Cllr Deirdre Heney (Fianna Fáil) said she supports a trial as she had had a lot of emails from people opposed to the project, and she doesn’t know what’s going to happen if the project is implemented.

She said she was confused by the previous two councillors’ opposition to the trial, given that they support trials on Richmond Road, even after the two councillors had already outlined that situations can be different. She: “I’m not slagging you off or anything, I just don’t understand.”

Cllr Stanley interjected that he actually wants a permanent traffic scheme on Richmond Road.

Cllr Clodagh Ní Mhuirí (Fine Gael) said she supported a trial, but said that it would have to be made clear that a trial might not fully represent the full project. She said that the council should reach out to Fingal County Council to get their experience and data on the Malahide New Street pedestrianisation project, which is more like this scheme than anything in the city centre.

Cllr Paddy Monahan (Social Democrats) said that the active travel network was already being implemented too slowly, referring to a prediction that Dublin City’s planned active travel network rollout would take 30 years to roll out.

Cllr John Lyons (independent) also said he does not always go along with the official’s positions, and he expects teething problems, but said the project has undergone public consultation and is ready for the next stage of full implementation without a trial.

During the meeting, Rhona White of the council’s active travel section said that the public consultation report for the project, which is officially called the Vernon Avenue to Clontarf Road Active Travel Scheme, should be ready this month.

White said that officials are seeing “generally strong support” for the scheme in the 410 submissions which were received after 3,700 leaflets were distributed to residents and businesses, and a consultation event was attended by 250 people.

She added that the feedback from the consultation would be addressed in the report, and that the submissions would also influence the detailed design of the project.

Cllr Breen said everyone wants the Clontarf Village scheme to succeed, but he did not see the rush and said the trial was the practical, common-sense thing to do. He said it was “not a competition about who supports the project the most” and he “does not buy” the official response, which said the trial was not workable. He called for a roll-call vote on his motion, the result of which is below.

Six voted to delay the full project for trial to take place first, but seven voted against the trial.

For: Cllr Daryl Barron (Fianna Fáil), Cllr Kevin Breen (independent), Cllr Declan Flanagan (Fine Gael), Cllr Clodagh Ní Mhuirí (Fine Gael), Cllr Deirdre Heney (Fianna Fáil), Cllr Supriya Singh (Fine Gael).

Against: Cllr Donna Cooney (Green Party), Cllr Jesslyn Henry (Social Democrats), Cllr John Lyons (independent), Cllr Paddy Monahan (Social Democrats), Cllr Micheál MacDonncha (Sinn Féin), Cllr Aishling Silke (independent), Cllr Karl Stanley (Social Democrats).

Cllr Edel Moran (Sinn Féin) abstained, while Cllr Racheal Bourke (Fianna Fáil), Cllr Alison Field (Labour), and Cllr Aoibheann Mahon (Fianna Fáil) were absent or were online and did not respond.