No paywall and let's keep it that way. Support reader-funded journalism, subscribe today.

Liffey Cycle Route: Council’s proposals include conflicts with buses, turning traffic and missing sections

— “Trial” proposals constrained by terms of reference including maintaining existing access to car parks.

— Terms of reference effectively blocks trialing of any continuous segregated route.

COMMENT & ANALYSIS: Proposals for a trial of the Liffey Cycle Route by Dublin City Council and the NTA are no more a trial of the route than a tin can is a spaceship.

The proposals reminds me of the ‘doing something’ is better than nothing attitude in London which got people killed on slightly more attractive cycle routes. London eventually realised they made a mistake and implemented Dutch-like designs. Dublin doesn’t have to make that mistake.

The council has publicised a report today on the proposed measures ahead of its next monthly council meeting and quick look of the report shows the proposals will include:

— conflicts with buses at bus stops
— conflict with left turning traffic
— large missing sections

— mixing with buses and taxis
— very narrow lanes where demand is already high

It is miles away from the continuous segregated cycle path promised for the Liffey Cycle Route since 2010. So, it does not fit with the call for a trial which 4,400 people have signed.

We’ve previously published how a continuously segregated two-way cycle path can be trialled in an article — this was based on proposals for the Liffey Cycle Route which were developed by the council. The city council and NTA seem like they will not do this because they are too afraid to upset car park owners by having a diverted route to car parks.

Here’s a visual outline of the proposal published today:

The council’s report can be found by following this: is reader-funded journalism. That means it's funded by readers like you.

September subscription drive update: has 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), but this is unlikely and so the new target is the end of the year.

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. I didn’t expect anything amazing to come of this. There are some improvements. As someone who spent the last few years commuting on the quays, or avoiding them where possible, certain sections feel much safer than others.

    The problem locations for me are the areas where traffic can suddenly accelerate due to very wide sections of quay (Victoria Quay, Georges Quay, Wolfe Tone Quay, Eden Quay), the carriageway is extremely narrow (Wellington Quay), areas with too much parking (Ormond Quay upper), and occasionally the areas with exceptional amounts of bus stops (Aston Quay most of all).

    This plan seems to address the very wide carriageways, which are currently very intimidating to cycle, and the excessive parking on Ormond Quay (which also really holds up buses). It doesn’t address the narrow sections or the bus-stop sections. One of the absolute worst points on the quays is the Eden Quay/Beresford Place Junction. Traffic turning left into Beresford Place ignores the existence of the straight-forward cycle lane, thus you have to be confident enough to take the lane (not everyone is!) or risk getting side-swiped. How that is dealt with will be telling as to the commitment to make a real change in safety standards.

    Personally, I’ve avoided the South Quays for years, as I regret every journey made on them. I travel west using Thomas Street instead. I don’t think this plan will get me to change back. I may be tempted back to more regularly using the north quays.

  2. @Bigx the proposals are far short from what was been asked for. I don’t support them — the council needs to trial a continuous route.

  3. I fully agree with Cian. A badly designed route is worse than no route. Deaths caused by poor design will be very difficult to explain afterwards. It also would mean the already 10 year wait for this route would become a 20 year wait for a well designed route. The proposal doesnt even work as a useful test case scenario for a day or two. Its extremely important that people stand their ground and dont fall for this dangerous effort at distraction. Keep focus and keep the pressure on. Safe cycling on the quays is achievable and it will be done properly.

  4. A dangerous proposal. Better to wait for a properly designed continuous route. Even as a test case for a couple of days, such a design wouldnt provide useful information. If this is built i will be cycling in the road instead.


Leave a Reply

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