Is a two-way cycle path still the best solution for the Clontarf to City Centre Cycle Route?

COMMENT & ANALYSIS: The Clontarf to City Centre Cycle Route was approved by councillors at the start of this month, but approval was subject to some pro-cycling and walking amendments.

The pro-walking and cycling amendment was approved by 42 to 10 votes. The amendment tabled by Cllr Ciarán Cuffe (Green Party) and Cllr Andrew Montague (Labour) puts the following conditions on the route:'s reader-funded journalism won't survive without your help. With over 762,000 views so-far this year, it's not just "avid cyclists" who read this website, but, if you want it to keep going, more support is needed from readers like you. Now, back to the article...

  • The locations of bus stops shall be examined and all bus stops along the route shall be redesigned to segregate buses and bicycles as re​commended by the National Cycle Manual.
  • The junctions and traffic signalling on the route shall be designed
    a) to provide for pedestrians in line with the Design Manual For Urban Roads and Streets and
    b) to provide for full segregation of bicycles and motor vehicles.
  • The widths of cycle facilities and buffers are to be in line with the specifications in the National Cycle Manual. If there are pinch points where this is not possible, such locations are to be subject to special design consideration and a safety audit.

It is the view of that reverting to a two-way cycle path is the only way to fulfill those conditions without having major impacts on other modes, including motorists, footpath space and buses.

The following are DRAFT edits of the council drawings which Photoshop their one-way cycle path design into a two-way design — it should be viewed not only as a draft but also a sketch from a journalist, not drawings. It shows two-way can fit with the same number of bus stops, loading bays, and parking as the council’s design:

This section is unfinished to stress that all of these are draft images:

These are unfinished drafts — for example, it is intended to add London/Dutch-style continuous footpaths across minor side streets, better clarity of kerb- segregation, and left out of the above is the Royal Canal intersection as the work on that is too unfinished.

This article focus on the narrow section of the route (mainly North Strand Road), not the wider section in Fairview. This is to show that two-way is possable and the council have provided misinformation about two-way requiring further parking / loading removal or it being impossible with the number of bus stops.

Please tell us what you think — supporting and descending voices welcomed!


  1. @Colin — right back at you! ;)

    As per the article, two-way is the only viable and likely also the only safe way to meet the conditions.

  2. @Eric — mainly because it’s the only viable way I can see that you can have both protected space (at bus stops and junctions) for cycling and also have bus priority. Bus priority is key here because of the current volume of buses and the planned kerb-side, lite-BRT route.

    You could fit bus and cycling priority in by doing something really radical like making the route one-way for cars, but I don’t think that’s realistic at all.

  3. Two Way on one side of the road only works where there an no or a low amount of side streets. Irish drivers simply do not expect traffic coming from the left when they want to enter another road. You will create conflict and potential dangerous situations.

    Cyclist will also not want to wait to cross a wide and very busy road to continue their journey and will remain on their side.

    For these reasons, I can see the two way working up to the junction with East Wall Road. From then into town a single direction high quality bicycle lane is needed on each side.

  4. Those side streets always have very little Traffic practically none in fact along the Nth Strand Road. I think two way Segregated Cycle Track would work very well. There are two sets of Lights, one at Ossory Road and the other at Nottingham Street and Waterloo avenue where Staffords the Undertakers is. So there is two spots where Traffic can enter Nth Strand Road with the Lights,all other side Streets are very minor.

    There is a need for a Single Segregated Track on the far side for Cyclists who want to go to Marino and the Malahide Road or Howth Road.

    Failing that at least what Sam Lowery is saying, a two way as far as East Wall Road and from then on into Town one on each side.

  5. @Sam normally I’d agree with you but…

    Two-way can offer a continuous segregated route from the S2S to the quays in a way which Would be very hard to do so with one-way paths.

    The council’s consultants originally suggested two-way — this is to allow for bus stop bypasses, and protected junctions at the large turns (the type where cyclists get crushed by left-turning motorists).

    There’s two main points that makes this different in practice terms: the turning existing restrictions already in place at major junctions (which favors using the eastern side); and the minor, low-volume, short, and mostly dead-end nature of most of the other side streets.

    The high-quality two-way routes in London proves the idea of cyclists not willing to cross — the same thing was said in London before the routes went in. People will cross for quality and it won’t affect others.

    Many people won’t have to cross any more than they would with a one-way system (ie Docklands to Malahide Road, Liffey Cycle Route to Malahide Road) and others will have to cross less (ie Connelly Station to S2S).

  6. Pedestrians must stand up to this – it’s unacceptable – for people using wheelchairs and those with visual impairment etc, it’s a disgrace. The most right-wing transport plan I’ve ever seen! On the positive side, cyclists are only going to be more and more hated by everyone else – I can see tax and insurance coming down the line!


Leave a Reply

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