Misinformation mixed with wanting your cake and eating it: Dublin’s Suir Road junction project can be improved, but not all can be kept happy

Comments & Analysis: / long read A recent council meeting where the Suir Road and Davitt Road junction project was discussed indicated that significant misinformation about the project was reaching councillors. A lot of it can be explained by the points in a petition that includes a load of contradictory claims and aspirations.

Let’s also be honest: As with many areas in Dublin, which are seeing more housing built around them, some people in Drimnagh don’t want change and will try to stop any changes, including the much-needed safety changes at this junction.

This junction upgrade is an important project not just for the safety and accessibility of Drimnagh but also for the surrounding areas and those passing through the area, including accessing the Luas.

The project is hardly flawless — IrishCycle.com has already covered how it could be much better for pedestrians and cyclists. However, opposition based on misinformation around the consultation (which ends this Friday) does not help achieve better outcomes for the community.

As covered in more detail in a previous article, the proposed solution (image below, left) would include needless shared space between people walking and cycling, narrow and strange twists and turns in the cycle tracks, and designs that would require ineffective traffic light sequences. These issues can be addressed (see image below, right).

So, what are the claims being made in the petition posted by Dynamic Drimnagh, a community group, and what’s wrong with the claims? Let’s have a look:

Claim “This proposed design is a health and safety issue for our community and needs amendment.”

While I strongly agree that the project needs improvements, it is an outrageous stretch of the English language to phrase disapproval of the project like this without any hint that the status quo of the junction is a far greater threat to the community’s health and safety than what’s proposed.

Claim: Focus on cycle paths with no information on pedestrian improvements

The petition claims: “The information booklet mainly focuses on cycleway improvements and there is little or no information on the proposed improvements for pedestrians” and that “There is no clarity on improved safety for pedestrians crossing the road.”

Reality: The claim does not hold water. Pedestrians were mentioned as much or more in the Information Leaflet No. 3 – June 2024 sent out by Dublin City Council and on the consultation page.

It might still be of benefit to mention that pedestrian improvements include:

• A signalised crossing over Dolphin Rd where there currently is none.
• A new raised crossing over Grand Canal View, which is safer.
• The unbundling of Slievenamon Rd from the main junction reduces its size.
• The reduction in the distance which pedestrians need to cross reduces the area where pedestrians are vulnerable to being hit.
• The reduction is wide sweeping corners which increases risk to pedestrians.
• Cycle paths and the planned greenery offer a buffer for pedestrians from the traffic on the roadway.

But councillors were given this kind of information in a presentation and, directly afterwards, some still tried to claim cyclists were mentioned more. The video and transcript of such proves this is not the case.

The only way in which the cycling improvements are more apparent is if people are looking at the cycle lanes in red on the artist’s impressions and not thinking about how bad the junction is now for pedestrians compared to what’s planned.

Claim: “Slievenamon Road as it has been the Gateway to Drimnagh since 1938”.

The below image is an extract from the final edition of the ‘historic’ Tailte Éireann (formerly Ordnance Survey Ireland) maps, which date from the 1910s to the 1950s. The map shows a disused clay pit and apparently active refuse tip (a dump) at the end of Slievenamon Road:

If we say it was like that in 1938 and it should stay that way, should everything about the area revert to the 1930s? Is Drimnagh today and in the 30s really comparable? There wasn’t the same number of cars or people in the city or the area.

Claim: “The current 123 route along Slievenamon Road should have a bus-priority traffic light” and “A Busgate on a small stretch of road will not work and used illegally.”

There will be a bus-priority traffic light as part of a bus gate (bus only) on the north end of Slievenamon Road.

The idea of something like a bus priority light beside a northbound general traffic lane on the new T-junctions at the northern end of Slievenamon Road would make it a three-lane arrangement (bus lane northbound and general traffic lanes in both directions), and it would require the new T-junction to be fully signalised. That would make the issues around traffic congestion worse when it’s said to be one of the main complaints about the project.

Of course, enforcement is always an issue — in the long run, there will be camera enforcement available. This isn’t an answer many council officials will give, but in the short term, these kinds of measures are far more self-enforcing than you might think. The arrangement doesn’t have to be perfect, just good enough to allow for the other changes and keep buses moving.

Claim: “This will increase vehicles into Drimnagh and not remove 1,000 cars off Slievenamon Road.“

There’s nothing to support this claim. These types of projects make alternatives to driving, including walking, cycling, and public transport (Luas at the junction and access to it), safer and more attractive.

The big “winners” here will be residents — lower traffic for the local area, safer and better access to the Luas, safer walking and cycling access towards Kilmainham, Phoenix Park and the city centre/St James hospital campus etc, and priority for buses.

Claim: “Slievenamon Road is not a Rat-Run, however, it is one of the main entrances into Drimnagh.”

If people on the other side of Drimnagh or beyond are using Slievenamon Road to get there rather than using the main roads around Drimnagh, then it falls under the dictionary definition of what a rat run is: “a small road that is used by a lot of drivers who are trying to avoid traffic on larger roads”

Estates like Drimnagh were never built for the level of traffic and car parking which is currently on-going. The project makes sense to give public transport priority at one of the many entrances to Drimnagh. For balance, the restrictions on cars will only be in one direction.

Claim: “There will be increased congestion on Davitt Road and Dolphin Road.”

In the very same vein, it can be said that in a growing city, if Dublin City Council does nothing, there will be increased congestion on Davitt Road and Dolphin Road. What price do we put on the safety and accessibility of people outside cars? Does the number of cars in a growing city keep growing without making the alternatives safer and more attractive?

Claim: “I support a boardwalk for cyclists on the outside of Suir Bridge to Suir Road”

This is outside the scope of the project which only includes the roadway and grass verges around it.

Claim: “No consideration has been given to the residents of Drimnagh inhaling exhaust fumes.“

This is a classic response, claiming that measures to improve sustainable transport will increase emissions when the body of evidence suggests the opposite.

Claim: “The cycle-lane does not extend onto Davitt Road creating risks for cyclists.“

Davitt Road — which is a regional road, the R812 — does not have enough space for a cycle lane even in one direction. It is mostly around 6-7 metres wide, and the traffic lanes on this type of road need to be kept to around 3 metres each.

The solution for cycling on Davitt Road will be to upgrade one or both of the towpaths north of the Luas tracks. Not every project can include every bit of road, and junctions are key to safety for both walking and cycling.

Suggestion: “Upgrade Slievenamon Green but do not extend this green across Slievenamon Road.”

Put alongside the other claims and suggestions, it’s also an idea that the safety and access improvements can be provided without affecting anything, including the junction or traffic, in any way.

The reality is that this would greatly lengthen the traffic light sequences and mess up the function of the redesigned junction in terms of capacity for all road user types and the ability to provide space for both active travel and greenery.

Question: What improvements are there for those with mobility, visual or audible challenges? What consideration has been given to people with additional needs?

The list of proposed improvements listed above- including a signalised crossing over Dolphin Rd where there currently is none and a newly raised crossing over Grand Canal View- are clear general improvements that will also help people with disabilities.

The general opposition drowns out the opportunity to improve things, including removing the spaces in the proposals that mix people walking and cycling.

Claim: “This design does not go far enough to improve road safety for cyclists, particularly along Davitt Road where the road will be narrowed further and cyclists will share this narrow space with HGVs, Ambulances, Fire Brigades, Coaches, Commercial Vans, Cars, and Motorcyclists.”

See above for the issue of Davitt Road. But it’s worth also looking at the inclusion of this line on the petition page—in one breath, the petition says none of the changes that affect motorists can happen, then it implies cycle lanes are being looked at but nothing for pedestrians (which is untrue), and finally, the petition page says the project is not good enough for cycling.

In all of my time covering these types of projects, I’ve never seen a more confused petition page.

Claim: “Commercial drivers living in Drimnagh and Inchicore have a right to work. Whilst, we all agree there should be improved public transport, not everyone is facilitated and require to drive to work. Public transport is not always safe and further commitment is needed to improve the safety of all public transportation.“

Commercial drivers living in Drimnagh will still be able to drive to work. There will be nothing stopping them from doing so. The Drimnagh estate has a large number of alternative exits, and safety improvements are needed.

You can say that you (1) agree with improved public transport while also (2) objecting to public transport improvements. But both of these things cannot be true. Especially not when viable alternatives are not being put forward.

Claim: As Ireland reduces its carbon emissions to improve climate change, there must be a transition period to achieve such a plan. Slowing cars at junctions not only causes congestion and driver aggression, it also increases fuel emissions.

Ireland is behind in its climate targets. This is the transition period, and the changes to streets to be more climate-friendly or be in line with climate action in Dublin are moving at a much slower pace than in other international cities.

The design balances junction capacity and improving the safety and attractiveness of sustainable transport modes. Some of the suggestions within the petition would increase congestion and emissions compared to what’s planned.

The main cause of congestion in Dublin is too many people driving because the alternatives are unsafe or unattractive. Often, when walking and cycling are planned to be improved, it is claimed that public transport will suffer; this project also includes public transport priority, and the voices against it are just as loud. There’s a lot of wanting your cake and eating it going on with this project.

The consultation ends this Friday, August 9th.