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.

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”.

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:

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