Dublin City Council to change cycle path on primary cycle network into shared space

— Head of the council’s parks department said they consulted with disability groups.

Dublin City councillors failed to use the opportunity they had to amend the plan for Portobello Harbour Plaza to include maintaining a segregated cycle path as had been recommended after safety concerns were expressed.

The Part 8 planning report for the plaza was approved by councillors at their monthly council meeting last night. The project was debated together with two other projects — housing in Ballymum and a floodlight — that were also being delivered under Part 8, the section of the planning acts that allows the council to approve its own projects.

Leslie Moore, the head of the Parks section of Dublin City Council, claimed at a meeting on Monday night that the design reflected the feedback from public consultation. However, the council’s Park department’s plan goes against pedestrian safety concerns by adding shared space on the city’s primary cycle network.

These safety concerns were raised by the council’s own planning section, a mobility review commissioned by Moore’s department, and submissions by the National Transport Authority, cycle campaigners in the Dublin Cycling Campaign and many members of the public.

Moore claimed there was a “greenway element” in the plan, but there is no greenway-like design in the project drawings; there is a plaza area with planting areas and seating. He also compared it to the Dublin Port Greenway, which is a shared path in a totally different context away from the city centre and which does not include any commuter routes.

He also claimed that a “cycle track” could be “very simple” to add to the new plaza if issues arise. However, the project drawings show that once the areas for trees, other greenery, and seating are built, the remaining space will not be large enough to retrofit a segregated cycle path with adequate space for park users beside it.

Cllr Claire Byrne (Green Party) said the concerns by the National Transport Authority were not made clear when the project was presented to the local area committee. She said that signage and monitoring would be key to making the space work.

Cllr Mannix Flynn (independent) said the issues with cycling would be “sorted out in time” without clarifying how that would be the case. He later asked if pedestrians would have priority.

Cllr Danny Byrne (FG) said that the Dublin Cycling Campain had contacted him, and they said that their concerns and those of the NTA have been dismissed. But he said that the plan had taken a very long time for such a small square, and he just wanted the council to get on with it.

Cllr Michael Pidgeon (Green Party) asked why the NTA and accessibility report feedback was not taken on board and whether it would be possible to retrofit a segregated cycle path if there were problems.

Lord Mayor James Geoghegan (FG) said the project was positive and did not mention the shared space issue.

Moore, the head of the council’s Parks section, said: “As has been said already, there was quite an in-depth consultation both with the local community and councillors in relation to Portobello Harbor and its future use as a space for the local community.”

“I think the plan which went to Part 8 reflected the outcome of those consultations which were in-depth,” he said.

He mentioned “widespread approval for the plans,” but the issue of shared space was one of the largest issues raised, which was left unresolved.

“The issue the NTA raised, which was in relation to the shared space, the greenway element, which passes through the park. Now, greenways are, as you’ll have seen this week that there was one launched in Dublin Port, on the wall of Dublin Port, a shared space by cyclists, by walkers. These things work very well, they have been tried and tested elsewhere, and we believe they’ll work well here too,” Moore said.

He made this claim directly after councillors mentioned Grand Canal Square, which includes a similar layout with planners and shared space and has been a recurring issue raised at council meetings over years because of the conflicts between people on foot and those cycling through the area.

He claimed: “Look, ultimately, if it doesn’t work, it can be changed. There is a pavement there, it can be line-marked. It’s very simple to reverse, to create a cycle track. But we believe it’s the wrong way to go to create a new park in Portobello.”

Responding to Cllr Flynn’s question of if pedestrians would have priority, Moore said: “The essence of a shared greenway is that people share the space. So, you have to be respectful of other uses — if you’re cycling, you have to be respectful of pedestrians and that’s the way a shared route goes.”

Moore added: “Look, we have discussed access through the space with the disabled organisations, and we’re satisfied that it will work as a very effective public open space.”

An accessibility review commission by Moore’s department and written by Fionnuala Rogerson Architects included the following observations relating to research on shared space:

  • “A 2020 study on a university campus in Vancouver, where cyclists and pedestrians share public space, showed that while accidents resulting in injuries were rare and underreported between these users, tensions were frequent and had an impact on overall mobility experience. Cyclists were at least as concerned about intermodal conflicts and safety as pedestrians and preferred to avoid pedestrian-dominated areas, but that preference was weighed against travel time, ease of wayfinding and avoidance of motor vehicles. Both pedestrians and cyclists identified crowding and pedestrian inattention as major contributing factors, but they disagreed as to whether cyclist speed was a factor. This is borne out by other studies from both Australia and the UK.”
  • “An URBACT European study also found that spaces shared by pedestrians and bicycles raise safety and comfort concerns as they allow for movements at very different speeds in mainly unregulated environments. The study found that interactions between pedestrians and bicycles, and particularly with e-mobility vehicles occur frequently and increase insecurity levels in shared space. Moreover, falls from bicycles and e-bikes were found to be frequent in shared spaces.”
  • “The Irish National Cycle Manual Section 1.9 notes that shared facilities between pedestrians and cyclists generally result in reduced Quality of Service for both modes and should not be considered as a first option. Cycling for All.ie also recommends that walking and cycling generally need to be segregated.”
  • “A study of four shared use paths in London, Sharing the Space Living Streets (2016) 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. 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.”

The report added that “Where cycle numbers are low, unsegregated paths over 3m in width are preferred and the width of paths is a key determinant of comfort and harmony between path users. Generally, the path widths throughout the park are well in excess of 3m.” However, the number of people cycling in the area is high, and the NTA maintains that it will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

As reported by IrishCycle.com on Sunday, the National Transport Authority wrote to the council and said that it wanted to work with them “ensure that the redevelopment of Portobello Harbour is carried out in a way which supports [the council’s] 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.”

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.”

3 thoughts on “Dublin City Council to change cycle path on primary cycle network into shared space”

  1. As with the area around the Barge Pub the problem is any congested use of the space will shut down cycling altogether.

    The route from Portobello Bridge to Lennox St or Stamer St to Synge St or Heytesbury St to Kevin St to City Centre is a safer cycle route IMHO- no glass, a lot less car traffic. A missed opportunity to develop that route, especially if busconnects has space issues for a decent cycle lane.

    Reply
  2. I think I’m slowly giving up on the Grand Canal cycleway. I stopped using it around Lesson Street bridge because the shared space there is just too contentious. More recently, I can’t turn left onto it heading south down Sth. Richmond Street, because people keep filling up both lanes when queuing for the light, and I’m on a cargo bike; and now this. I guess to some extent it’s just so popular, but all those shortcuts and ducked hard decisions they took back in the day are really biting now; and yet they’re still aspiring to make using it more contentious.

    Reply
  3. It’s an awful pity. It would be simple enough to divert walkers across the canal at Leeson Street, Ranelagh and now Portobello. Just lazy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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