Campaigners “extremely disappointed” with Dodder Greenway plan

— ‘Community engagement’ consultation ends today, Sunday October 14.
— Councils opt for shared path design with “unnecessary conflict”.

Plans for the Dodder Greenway “puts pedestrians and cyclists into unnecessary conflict” according to the Dublin Cycling Campaign who said that they are “extremely disappointed”.'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 urban greenway is part of planned primary cycle routes in the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network.

Dublin City Council, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the National Transport Authority are currently holding community engagement on the emerging preferred option for greenway, which ends today — the cycling campaign is urging members of the public to fill out the council’s survey at

“We encourage our members to review the documents published by the council and then complete the council’s survey on this topic. The survey only takes two minutes. If the council doesn’t hear negative feedback now they will proceed with their poor-quality options. The deadline for feedback is this Sunday 14th October,” said the Dublin Cycling Campaign.

As recently reported, while most of the route has space for separation between walking and cycling, the council has opted for putting common grass land and car space ahead of safety, comfort and capacity for active travel.

On its website, the cycling campaign said: “Dublin Cycling Campaign is extremely disappointed with the Dodder Greenway emerging proposed routes. Both proposed routes are of extremely low quality. The proposal ignore policies of the Dublin City Development Plan, the National Cycle Manual and DMURS.”

“The council is proposing a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists. This might work for rural greenways with low numbers of users but in a city it only puts pedestrians and cyclists into unnecessary conflict,” the group said. “The shared path for bikes and pedestrians is as narrow as 3 metres in many places. This is very narrow and would give this path a C grade using the NTA’s quality-of-service measures.”

They added: “The council’s proposals include pile driven boardwalks along the river bank. There are alternatives that reallocate existing road space and cause no environmental damage. The council is proposing to use two narrow and isolated underpasses as part of the route. The (perceived) safety of greenway users is important or users will not use the greenway.”

Artist’s impressions of the before and after situations:


  1. Very poor separation on what will be a very busty route. It should have different colour asphalt to make clearer and much wider. I would cycle, run, walk the dog and stroll this route. It’s not good to leave this vague as if there will be a handful people an hour on it. The proposed bridge makes no sense as to why it is so narrow. People with buggies would find it challenging to deal with bicycles. I’m struggling to understand the lack of width considering the volumes that will exist. The sections along side the road have no protection from rouge parking. This sections should be separated better from the road to prevent unwanted parking. Also clearer separation from the footpath is clearly needed. These routes offer safe routes to school as well as commuting and family jaunts at the weekend. I’m really disappointed with this scheme.


Leave a Reply

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