— Council’s own planning section, project team’s mobility review, NTA, and cycle campaigners warn of pedestrian safety concerns of using shared spaces on part of the city’s primary cycle network.
— Some people with disabilities are wary of shared spaces and avoid areas using them.
Dublin City Council’s chief executive, Richard Shakespeare, is asking councillors to vote for a redesign and extension of Portobello Harbour Plaza to turn part of the city’s few significant continuous cycle paths into a shared space.
It is within the power of councillors to amend the plan, now branded as Portobello Harbour Park, to follow advice from sections of the council, the NTA, cycle campaigners, and members of the public to carry out most of the works as planned, but to retain the existing segregated cycle path or retain the existing carriageway but for as a replacement cycle path.
The issue will be brought forward for councillors’ approval of the Part 8 plan for the plaza at the October Monthly meeting of Dublin City Council on October 7th 2024.
Dublin City Council’s Parks department, which is leading the project, has a history of objecting to cycle paths within its parks, preferring to use “share with care” surfaces instead.
However, the Parks department commissioned Fionnuala Rogerson Architects to write an accessibility review report, which pointed to issues with using shared space.
The report pointed to a number of case studies internationally, including Sharing the Space Living Streets, which “indicated that shared paths have a disproportionate impact on disabled people who may choose to avoid them. For many vulnerable and older users, it is the perception of cycle / pedestrian conflict that leads to them avoiding places where conflict may occur.”
The report added: “People with hearing and/or vision impairment are particularly concerned about safety in shared environments. Similarly, parents or guardians of young children tend to avoid areas with perceived risk of cycle conflict.”
A submission from the National Transport Authority outlined that it wants to work with the council to “ensure that the redevelopment of Portobello Harbour is carried out in a way which supports their objectives to maximise cycle convenience, safety and connectivity in the city centre without compromising pedestrian safety, including the perception of safety, in particular for persons with disabilities.”
It outlines concerns against the removal of the existing cycle path, which is part of the Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan. It said that the north bank of the canal is still actively being considered as one of the options for the Portobello to Blackhorse route.
The NTA said: “Removal of part of the City Centre Cycle Network of segregated high-quality cycle infrastructure, without an identified alternative high-quality segregated cycle route. Notwithstanding the upgrading of facilities on the south side of the canal and provision of the Rathfarnham Core Bus Corridor scheme, the provision of an extended greenway from the site to Blackhorse remains an option for east-west movement and the proposal to remove an area from the greenway in advance of a decision being made is premature.”
The NTA said the share use areas as what is planned is not advised: “Section 4.2.7.5 of the Cycle Design Manual states that shared facilities between cyclists and pedestrians should be avoided in busy urban areas as it reduces the quality of the experience, with perceived fears about safety due to people moving at different speeds.”
The submission noted how the council’s Part 8 application “does not refer to the GDA Cycle Plan and makes little reference to the Cycle Design Manual.”
The NTA said: “The rationale for this proposal rather than an alternative, such as reinstatement of the original plaza with some design enhancements and closure of part of Richmond Row, is unclear given the observations and comments in the accessibility review.”
There was previous criticism from cycle campaigners of the council’s Park department’s claim that it would be mainly leisure cyclists using the space, and the NTA has added their voice to this.
The authority’s submission said: “The Share with Care approach leads to a lower quality experience for both pedestrians and cyclists. NTA does not concur with the assumption that the numbers using the park will be small and will be mainly local users and leisure cyclists. Fairview Park is not a comparable example as it is long established and recognised as a public park and there is an alternative high-quality segregated cycle facility alongside the park.”
The NTA added: “In summary, the proposal does not fully align with the GDA Transport Strategy or with the Cycle Design Manual. Any redevelopment of the urban space on the site should facilitate the current and predicted high demand for cycling by persons of all ages and abilities and be designed according to the principle of universal accessibility.”
It also asked the council to consider alternatives to the removal of the entire DublinBikes docking station.
A submission from the Dublin City Campaign said: “Share [With] Care proposal on this busy cycle route will only introduce elements of conflict between commuter cyclists and harbour area users, and is not to be recommended.”
The campaign said: “We recommend that a dedicated segregated cycle route be included within the scheme, which is very doable within the overall context, and will still give adequate increased space for recreational and landscaping use. The inclusion of a dedicated cycle track to the north and east of the harbour proposal will also discourage the use of the canal pathway by bikes, which is a common issue at present, resulting in conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.”
The group added: “There is ample space to provide a safe segregated bike track, critical to the long-term plans for the Grand Canal Greenway cycle route.”
While a minority of members of the public expressed acceptance of the “share with care” idea, most submissions were against removing the city path.
A member of the public said: “The cycleway here takes a huge amount of traffic daily and it is one of the few safe dedicated cycle routes in the city, with a lot of cyclists crossing this section to join the cycleway all the way down the canal. By changing this to a shared use area, you pit pedestrians against cyclists and put both at risk.”
They added: “Shared use paths do not work in commuter routes – this will force more cyclists onto the road and into danger and make it unpleasant for pedestrians (particularly those with children or mobility needs) to use the area. In the Grand Canal Square area pedestrians have to dodge the cyclists who cross it, while the rest go down the dangerous roads parallel to avoid the issue.”
Another wrote: “The removal of the segregated cycling lane is a retrograde step as the mixing of cyclists and people on the plaza will lead to accidents. In reality the share with care model will not be adhered to. There should be a segregated bike path as the proposed shared space is a danger to vulnerable pedestrians.”
A number raised Grand Canal Square as an example. One said: “A similar situation can be seen in Grand Canal Square where there is no delineation between pedestrian cycle areas, so the entire square becomes a shared space causing chaos and discomfort for all users. This is exacerbated by planters, bollards, and decorative features which create bottlenecks that cause further conflict.”
Other issues raised included skating, and drop off and deliveries to the hotel.

MORE: Report No. 1842024 of the Chief Executive R. Shakespeare proposal to improve the public realm
It’s a safer route into the city centre I find to avoid all the glass that litters Aungier st and Camden st. Especially on Sat/Sun.
BTW by now they really should have decent cycle lane link ups for the routes that come off the Grand Canal Path route into the City Center- Leeson st, Harcourt tce, Baggot St, Cumberland Rd, Mount St etc., – no decent cycle lanes linking up with the city centre at all on any of them- very odd.
It’s almost as if DCC don’t care about or recognise bike commuting as a valid form of transport.
V-Good research as usual Cian. Well done.
On that side issue Mark raises, I really wish DCC would get the finger out and prosecute one of those businesses whose staff blatantly sweep that glass out onto Camden, Wexford & Aungier st every darned day of the week. The poor council street-cleaners are fed-up with it also.