A Dublin TD has said in the Dáil that a part of BusConnects plan to enable more direct access to buses and shorter walking and cycling access to shops and a large number of workplaces “makes no sense” because it would mean that children in the Ayrfield housing estate would have more direct access to the busy Malahide Road.
The objectors are not just about road safety; the issue of “security” was also raised by the politicians and residents.
Residents objecting to opening up permeability access in areas that were designed in a car-centric way is a recurring issue that blocks better walking, cycling, and public transport access.
It is widely recognised by research that residential areas designed in such car-centric ways is a barrier to more people walking, cycling and using public transport.
Travel data outlined in the BusConnects planning file demonstrates that Ayrfield has, according to a planning inspector’s report, the “highest car usage [for travel to work] along the route and exceeds the average mode share for County Dublin as a whole.”
The modal share for car use in the area is 62%, the report outlines.
The NTA told the planning inspector that proposal to remove a section of the wall will bring a total of 619 properties within a 400-800m catchment to bus stops. If the link was omitted, the scheme would only add 35 units to this catchment.
A measurement tool in Google Maps puts the current walk from within the Ayrfield estate to the proposed bus stops on the Malahide Road and the shops across the road at a distance of around 1.3km — a 17 minutes walk or a 6 minutes cycle with awkward turns on main roads. Other bus stops would be around 900m-1km away.
Dublin Bay North TD Denise Mitchell (Sinn Fein) raised the issue in the Dáil in the time allocated to question the Government on policy or legislation.
She said: “I raise the BusConnects project, in particular, a plan in the area where I live to remove a wall between the Malahide Road and Ayrfield estate in Dublin 13. There is a green space behind this wall where children play daily. There are real concerns about the safety of children in the area.”
“Residents have raised their concerns with the NTA as well as elected representatives. The removal of this wall will mean that there is open access into the estate from the Malahide Road, which is one of the busiest roads in Dublin,” she said.
Deputy Mitchell said: “The proposals make no sense. They are not essential to the plan whatsoever. To be clear, we are not objecting to the BusConnects project. Will the Tánaiste raise this with the NTA in the interest of the safety of the children who live in Ayrfield estate?”
Tánaiste Micheál Martin said: “I certainly will. I will raise it with the Minister, who will raise it with BusConnects. This is the Clongriffin core bus corridor and the proposal for pedestrian-cyclist connection, which plans to provide direct access for the residents of Ayrfield estate to the high levels of bus service on the Malahide Road.”
He said: “The Deputy has said that a safety issue then arises. The NTA engages in consultations with Deputies, councillors and so on. It is to be hoped that the NTA will listen to concerns….”
Deputy Mitchell interjected: “It has not”, before Deputy Martin continued.
He concluded: “…about the safety aspect of this because these are important issues that we cannot be oblivious to. It cannot all be just an engineering solution. The needs of the community and of children have to be taken into account.”
Local councillor Daryl Barron (Fianna Fail), who is also a resident, has also objected to the opening of the wall for bus, walking and cycling access.
In a letter to An Bord Pleanála, he wrote that: “I believe they [the NTA] have failed to adequately outline any pros versus cons of allowing this part of the BusConnects plan in its current state to proceed” [referring to the plan to open a gap in the wall and stating that the issue is the health and safety of children playing in the estate.
After claiming that the NTA has failed to outline any pros and cons, he added: “The impact on the estate is extremely negative, and no one can clearly outline any positive for this CPO.”
In an interview with Dublin Live video, which covered a “Save Our Wall” protest in the estate, Cllr Barron said: “There’s no need to open it up. The residents are quite happy to walk 10-15 minutes to any other bus route.”
Cllr Tom Brabazon (Fianna Fáil), in the same Dublin Live video, said that the council has been closing off laneways, and he claimed that opening access would then go against policy. However, closing laneways that hampers walking and cycling access is against both local and national policy.
He said: “This doesn’t need to go ahead for high-frequency, good quality bus service. The benefits of people accessing out here [pointing to the wall] to a bus service are far outweighed by the security concerns that are very clearly there.”
The An Bord Pleanála inspector’s report said that of the 64 submissions which raised concerns on the proposed new pedestrian/cyclist link from Ayrfield Drive to Malahide Road, 58 were from residents of the Ayrfield estate and six were from elected representatives supporting the residents.
The inspector wrote: “In response to the contentions that the need for the new link was not investigated fully the NTA state that CSO data show that Ayrfield has the highest car mode share for travel to work trips at 62%. In addition, this mode share exceeds the average mode share for County Dublin as a whole. There is a continuous boundary wall along the Malahide Road at this estate. Data suggests that areas of higher permeability have higher bus usage. It is considered that the boundary wall acts as a deterrent to achieving the required mode shift away from private car use.”
The NTA told the planning inspector that “The significant improvement to the walking, cycling and bus facilities included within the Proposed Scheme will encourage sustainable modes of transport, therefore reducing the demand for private vehicles / parking along the Proposed Scheme” and that improved accessibility is also expected to increase social cohesion within the local community.
The authority pointed out that the proposal for the new pedestrian and cyclist link supports elements of international policy, European Union (EU) law and policy, national policy, regional policy and local policy.
The plan is supported by the National Sustainable Mobility Policy, the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Street and the National Disability Authority’s ‘Building for Everyone: A Universal Design Approach’ with regards to catering for all users, including those with disabilities.
*insert Helen Lovejoy think of the children gif
I try not to be too inflammatory with responses but this seems to be a pretty hysterical reaction to a very modest proposal. I’ve a lane down the end of my street. It cuts out on a massive detour. It’s great.
Ayrefield also has loads of green space, putting a walking/cycling route inside one is hardly going to destroy the only green space they have access to. It seems odd that they have put it right up the middle of it, a possible compromise would be push the routes to the side keeping some of the utility.
I think it already has a no ball games sign.
Wonder are the residents more worried about certain people from a nearby protest using it as a getaway route
These projects go through years of detailed stages of thoughtful engineering assessment. Public hearings etc.
One person with no engineering knowledge opposes an aspect of the idea and holds up the whole plan for years.
Walking and cycling permeability a good thing. Otherwise how would the residents access the bus stop?
Lets be honest. That wall is to keep the neighbours from Darndale and Coolock out.
As a resident on this road, it is not a small gap they are proposing nor will it stop the residents accessing bus stops. This has been pushed back to them for years now and their only response is they will plant low heding. The genuine concerns are being ignored.
The data being used is from 2016, since then ayrfield has changed massively alongside the rest of the city. They were asked to do their figures again based on current circumstances and refused.
I cycle to work and use public transport, the removal of the wall isn’t going to change that or improve things, at least if i am getting the bus I get a 10 minute walk in.
This green space they wish to remove leaves the children on this road without anywhere to safely play while their parents or family members can keep an eye on them. Younger children wont be allowed out to play anymore, it will take away their youth because the other 2 greens are too far of a walk for young kids.
There is a current one way in one way out system which keeps the estate as safe as it is, this has nothing to do with other areas or people living nearby.
It’s common sense, if a crime takes place and the gardai only have one way in yet someone can run out to one of the busiest roads and get in a car and leave then it becomes an issue of safety. If children are able to run out to the malahide road where cars are breaking the speed limit every day then it becomes an issue of safety. If it goes ahead it will become an unofficial “park and ride”. This is a great green space in the area used by all ages and unless you live there you can’t and won’t understand.
Can’t the criminals not flee out through Slademore? You’re looking at a similar level of access. I don’t think you’d have much park and ride there. I used to regularly drop a friend off into Ayrfield. It’s a pain to get in and out of, especially when Tonglegee gets backed up.
It’s your area and you’ve every right to fight to keep it as you want but I just don’t see the drawbacks being anywhere close to the gains from the increased access. Most people would snap your hand off to shave 10 minutes each way off their commute.