COMMENT & ANALYSIS: LONG READ: A lot of people wonder who’s to blame for a lack of progress on making Dublin City more cycling-friendly, less motor traffic and generally more liveable.
Disclosure: This is my experience of writing about these issues for a decade. It is condensing a lot into one article and trying keep it readable to a general audience. I might also be only seeing part of the picture and welcome other views.
Also: When it is said below one group or another is to blame, it doesn’t mean everyone in that group had the same view. And it doesn’t mean others weren’t also possibly at fault too.
Removing cars from Eden Quay
Who’s to blame?: Councillors, business groups, the media.
This traffic reduction measure was proposed as a bus and tram priority measures linked to Luas Cross City, and it would have also unlocked space for walking and cycling. But never went ahead after it was rejected by councillors, pushed on by a load of business interests who were also objecting to it. It would have also resulted in motor traffic on Bachelor’s Walk reduced to a trickle (mainly that accessing the Arnotts car park).
You have read this far, now please think of supporting this reader-funded journalism. The current target is to reach 20 more subscribers by the end of August: Thanks to readers like you, as of August 2, there's now 265 readers subscribed to IrishCycle.com -- that's just five short of the target. Help us surpass the target by subscribing today.
The Eden Quay plan was in fact a watered down plan which originally included removing cars from Bachelor’s Walk too, but it was still rejected by councillors.
While Dublin City Council rowed back first on a full car ban on Bachelor’s Walk and later on a full car ban on Eden Quay because of lobbying mainly from businesses, one business group still claimed that there was a lack of consultation.
The media are also partly to blame — especially misleading articles which implied motors would all divert on the closest route around the restricted area, implying they’d all fit (they wouldn’t) and that there would be no wider traffic dispersal or modal change (which is proven to happen over and over).
College Green Plaza
Who’s to blame?: An Bord Pleanála
You could blame the crazy amount of objectors to this, including car park owners and Dublin Bus. But ultimately An Bord Pleanála are responsible for relying on a car-centric report it commissioned.
Dublin City Council has its flaws but the problem issues the plaza hit were mostly not their fault. Read more about that in my article titled: College Green Plaza planners were wrong and their thinking would stop liveable cities.
…and segregated cycle paths on Dame Street
Who’s to blame?: Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanála
This might be a surprise to most but the layout of Dame Street between College Green and George’s Street was part of the College Green Plaza plan. Dublin City Council were looking at a balance between buses, bicycles, taxis, cars accessing car parks, deliveries etc… the result was non-segregated cycle lanes which were broken up by bus stops etc.
In fairness to them the National Transport Authority told the council to make the cycle tracks segregated but the city council said no and even argued against them to An Bord Pleanála. An Bord Pleanála sided with the council on this. This was delayed anyway because the plaza was rejected, but it’s an example of the council opposing segregation where it’s needed around buses.
Liffey Cycle Route
Who’s to blame?: Councillors, the National Transport Authority, and the media.
Why? There’s two parts to this: There might have been other forces to block this cycle route and positive traffic-reduction measure, but councillors were the ones to baulk at making the decision to approve the option most favoured at public consultation, which should already be in place. Among other things, there was also a lot of fear mongering and misinformation which lead residents to believe they’d be overrun with traffic.
The second part is the long-delayed NTA review of the project which resulted in a keep everyone happy plan — which is not just poor for both walking and cycling in places, it’s also depends on complicated boardwalks a huge expense. I know some people won’t like me saying this but the project has morphed into the Liffey BusConnects.
The worse aspects of BusConnects which puts buses just slightly above car access and puts cycling, walking and trees below buses and walking. Any cycling campaigner looking for change within years will not be supporting this project which will likely top €60 million.
And the two ways the media are blame run along similar lines — first, The Irish Times echoed itself on this and the issue with Eden Quay mentioned above. Secondly the story nearly always focused on impacts to motorists and others, but rarely, if ever, on the options proposed which would have been rubbish or potentially dangerous to people walking and cycling.
Also radio silence that the keep-everyone-happy option will likely cost three or four times more the original cost. That’s strange especially for publications which like to bundle flood defences and water main as cycle route costs in headlines.
You can read much more of this route in an archive search on the route.
Link between S2S Dublin Bay route and Grand Canal Route
Who’s to blame?: Councillors backed by residents fear mongering.
Dating back to 2011, this is an oldie, but this story is important and all down to councillors giving into fear mongering among residents.
As I reported back in 2011: “had the project had gone ahead uninterrupted, it would have created the largest completed section to date – 8.6km from Portobello at the Lower Rathmines Road to Bull Island at Dollymount.” With the Bull Island missing link now filled in, it would have went further.
This was a significant blow to building a network in Dublin — if it had went ahead a good chunk of the northside would now have a segregated link into the Docklands and beyond to Rathmines.
Kilmainham Gaol public realm scheme
Who’s to blame?: Dublin City Council, councillors
This public realm scheme is just an example one where cycling was an afterthought. The council were warned (not just by us but also by the NCBI). This led to predictable results with residents and others who use the street telling us how the design just does not work.
The City Architect’s Division has a lot to answer for on this scheme and on other planned and already built schemes.
South Dublin Quietway
Who’s to blame?: Councillors.
At first council officials didn’t want to follow up on this idea by former councillor Paddy Smyth, but, when Smyth got officials on side, councillors ultimately blocked progress on this not once but twice. The excuses given by some councillors are hallmarks for anti-cycling or just as obstructive halfhearted cycling support which can be seen around the world.
Good media coverage in The Sunday Times, Dublininquirer.com, and Newsfour.ie, but radio silence on this one from some of the usual outlets to cover the impacts on motorists (ie The Irish Times) — maybe the prominent image of rat running motorists vs children cycling to school wasn’t newsworthy?
This is Fitzwilliam Place / Square / Street — some residents claim narrowing this street by adding protected cycle lanes will make it less attractive to live on and less safe: pic.twitter.com/333HkNtwGH
— IrishCycle.com (@IrishCycle) January 5, 2019
Fitzwilliam Cycle Route
Who’s to blame?: Councillors mainly and, now, possibly others
Dublin City Council ended up conducting 20 different public and stakeholder engagements on the Fitzwilliam cycle route, which is just 1km long. More fear mongering among residents. Despite 97% of public consultation submissions being supportive, some councillors kept going on about car parking. This prompted a council engineer to remind councillors: “We’re planning for ‘cycling for all ages and abilities’“.
The project is going ahead but there was clearly way too much consultation for such a short route which changes relatively little on the streets — car lanes are maintained in all directions and studies were done to show that the retained car parking on all of the side streets is enough for demand.
Objections not based on reason fueled the delay and councillors echoed the concerns way beyond reason after officials had answered the issues again and again.
All of this has distracted from real issue of how junctions are going to work — still unresolved issues.
Separate to the above, there are now possable construction delays — the council has yet to answer questions on this.
Clontarf Cycle Route
Who’s to blame?: System delay at first and, now, possibly others
The Clontarf Route is also going ahead and it was a bigger beast of a project and that’s why I have marked this one as “system delay”. You could partly blame the officials for looking to widening the already massive road and cutting down trees rather than effect cars, but it was a process to get to the stage where trees were more importance than retaining two car lanes.
Or you could the NTA rejecting the council’s original idea of a two-way cycle path on one side of the road or combined officials not understanding quickly enough that the route had to be segregated to a higher degree than was being proposed. This again could be put down to being part of the process of the first major cycle route on an arterial road.
However, the council started looking at this project around 2011, and this length of time is an unsustainable time frame to a project to be built.
Separate to the above, there are now possable construction delays — the council has yet to answer questions on this.
As with other routes, most of the media paid no attention when the safety of cyclists was part of the story.
Contra-flow cycle routes
Who’s to blame?: Councillors, NTA / TII, Dublin City Council
Back in 2010 Dublin City Council said it was looking at contra-flow route on about 15 or so streets. At first councillors objected to this including claiming it was a waste of resources. Since then other sets of councillors have tried to get contra-flow on the agenda. In one case the councillors were split and one vote stopped progress.
But the city’s development plan states that officials should look at implementing contra-flow and this seems to be readily dismissed by officials of the council on public realm schemes and other projects. The same goes for other agencies such as the National Transport Authority and TII who had oversight over Luas Cross City.
Royal Canal Greenway
Who’s to blame?: Unclear
The Royal Canal Greenway has approval but there has been delay after delay in going to construction. For a while there was a lot of bureaucracy linked to approval around the building along the canal. But it’s unclear what the current issue is.
S2S Dublin Bay South, Dodder Greenway, and Grand Canal Route (from Rathmines to Inchicore / Bluebell)
Who’s to blame?: National Government for lack of funding and resources
On these and other routes the main delays to date have been a lack of funding and resources — these routes were slowed and mostly altogether stalled when Luas Cross City was been built. Councils have not been only left under resourced for years since the economic bust, but a project like Luas also diverted council resources away from cycling.
But as shown above funding alone is far from the only issue. Loads of delays such as funding also happen to roads projects but councils around the country will have roads projects lined up for when the funding is ready. There’s few shovel-ready cycling projects.
Conclusion: Councillors mainly to blame
There is a lot of collective blame, but councillors over the years are mainly to blame for the lack of progress. That’s not to say that there would not also be other issues such as funding if there were more projects ready to be built.
The current crop of Dublin City councillors has a lot of fresh blood and there’s indications even many older councillors have shifted to be more pro-active on cycling. Time will tell. Maybe there will be progress or maybe another group or thing will become the main block to progress.
If you think I’m wrong about any of the above it would be good to hear from you below or in private if you don’t feel you can comment publicly.
Hello Reader... IrishCycle.com 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 IrishCycle.com, it just needs enough people like you to believe!
Monthly subscriptions will give IrishCycle.com's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year IrishCycle.com 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 ko-fi.com/irishcycle/tiers