is reader-funded journalism. To keep it going and free-to-view, it takes people like you to act now and subscribe today for €5, €10, or €20 per month.

Push to secure contra-flow cycling on key Dublin streets fails by one vote

A move to force Dublin City Council officials to implement contra-flow cycling provisions on some key city centre streets failed by just one vote, with the city’s lord mayor using her deciding voting against the proposed policy.

Contra-flow, or simply providing a way people can cycle their bicycles two-ways on otherwise one-way streets, is a used extensively across the Netherlands, and in cities such as Paris, Berlin, and Brussels. It is seen as a key way of making cycling more attractive. On smaller streets it is often done without lanes, however on many of the streets in question, new contra-flow cycle paths or lanes would be needed.

The motion was promoted at a recent draft development plan meeting by Cllr Clare Byrne (Green Party). It named Parnell Square South, Nassau Street, Merrion Row, Pearse Street, Granby Row, Pembroke Road (Dublin 2), and St Stephen’s Green where contra-flow would be introduced.

A number of the same streets were part of a 2010 city council plan to introduce contra-flow which was never implemented.

City council officials stated that such specifics should not be included in the Development Plan. But Cllr Byrne questioned this, stating: “When is the time to state specifics? You have specific roads such as the Eastern Bypass listed in various city development plans over the last number of years. So, I’m just wondering why we can’t list specifics, there’s similar motions on the S2S, Grand Canal, and Liffey the cycle routes.”

She said one-way streets were identified as a key challenge to the city’s cycling network but that she “Has a concern that it’s not a priority.”

Jim Keogan, an assistant chief executive with the responsibility over planning and development at Dublin City Council, said such detail as too specific for the development plan.

Keogan said: “The development plan is for setting down policies and objectives of a strategic nature… it would be premature at this stage to start naming different routes in the absence of the roads and traffic department’s involvement.”

When the councillors voted, there was 20 members for and 20 members against, so it came down to the vote of the current lord mayor, Cllr Críona Ní Dhálaigh (Sinn Fein).

Keogan then added: “In the context of the debate and discussion, the comment was that ‘ you can include roads [but not cycling measures]’, but we have to include roads as roads constitute development and the development plan gives guidance in relation to future development… if it’s not a specifically in the plan it would need a variation of the plan, while the provision of contra-flow is a regulation issues with does not require a specific policy in the develop plan — it does not qualify as development.”

You're read this much of the article... So, if you value our journalism, please subscribe today for €5, €10, or €20 per month.

Cllr Ní Dhálaigh then quickly used her deciding vote to vote against the motion.

Speaking directly afterwards on the introduction of another motion relating pedestrianisation, Cllr Cuffe Cuffe (Green Party) said: “It tends to be the road objections which get delivered because they are included in the plan. But when it comes to contra-flow cycling issues, they tend to be put on the back burner. I sat down with the then city manager 24 years ago, along with Alderman [Carmencita] Hederman, to try and introduce contra-flow cycle lanes and was told ‘we’ll look at that and we’ll come back to you’.”

He continued: “24 years later there’s a couple of hundred yards of contra-flow lanes in this city. If they are not in the plan, they tend not to happen.” is reader-funded journalism. That means it's funded by readers like you.

Subscription drive update: reached its target of 270 subscribers by the end of August -- thank you to all who have helped! Our new target is to have 300 subscribers by the end of 2022 -- originally this was hoped to be exceeded by the first year of running the site full time (end of October).

If you can help push above 300 subscribers, please subscribe today for €5 or more. If you have already done so -- thank you!

Please remember, every month there's a natural drop-off in subscriptions due to people getting new cards, cards stolen, Revolut not topped up etc.

*** is a reader-funded journalism publication. Effectively it's an online newspaper covering news and analyses of cycling and related issues, including cycle route designs, legal changes, and pollical and cultural issues.

There are examples, big and small, which show that the reader-funded or listener-funding model can work to support journalism -- from the Dublin Inquirer and The Guardian to many podcasts. To make it work for, it just needs enough people like you to believe!

Monthly subscriptions will give's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year had an average of 15,800 readers per month and we know our readers include people who cycle and those who don't, politicians, officials and campaigners.

I know only a small percentage of readers will see the value of keeping this open enough to subscribe, that's the reality of the reader-funded model. But more support is needed to keep this show on the road.

The funding drive was started in November 2021 and, as of the start of June 2022, 250 readers have kindly become monthly subscribers -- thank you very much to all that have!

But currently, it's only around 1.6% of readers who subscribe. So, if you can, please join them and subscribe today via

Cian Ginty


  1. It would be good to know who the objectors are because they are not serving the Citizens of Dublin. They are serving somebody else and we need to vote them out whenever they come up for reelection.

  2. As a cyclist (my main form of transport) and a motorist I would like to say that I am glad this was turned down. I am sure the fanatical cyclists wont agree with me but the idea of having people cycling the wrong way up a one way street is just dangerous and stupid.

    • @ Jim: What are you talking about? Contra-flow cycling provisions are standard in the Netherlands and in cities such as Paris etc.

      Are the Dutch governments at all levels and many cities around Europe overrun by “fanatical cyclist” with no care for safety?

  3. @ Jim to add to Cian’s points regarding your frankly spurious objection to this proposal – if you have contra-flow, then those people cycling are NOT going the wrong way up a one-way street.

  4. @Jim Dangerous? What exactly is dangerous? The people on bikes aren’t dangerous. It’s cars that are dangerous and kill people, therefore as pointed out above if you have contra-flow, then it’s legal and it’s up to the people in cars to be more careful.

  5. Contra-flow is also used in Beijing, by custom I think rather than by design. The Chinese, however, are sometimes – not always – rather better at separating their cycle lines from the other traffic users with bollards or a form of fencing.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.