Comment & Analysis: News coverage of the lifting of the Dublin Airports passenger cap is missing one phrase, and no, Im not referring to climate change. Its missing that as well, but Im thinking of the M50.The M50 and the lack of transport capacity to/from the airport are the main reasons for the airports planning cap, not climate change.Although the problems are the same. We clearly have a national inability to plan and consider the consequences of Government actions. Or, as is often more correctly described as the Government acting after decades of inaction in providing the infrastructure we need.On Tuesday, Minister for Transport Darragh OBrien said: This Government recognises the strategic importance of Dublin Airport as our primary international gateway and the vital role it plays in supporting economic growth, connectivity and jobs across the State, but his announcement to remove the cap contained nothing about the road that is often talked about in the same vein.Governments get a lot of stick for inaction. But their actions need to be somewhat intelligent and look at the wider picture.A great example is how flood defences in one spot can make flooding worse in another it was great to hear a Government Minister accept this point recently on the radio. He said a flood upstream can cause flooding further along a river. But just like flooding needs a holistic approach looking at the wider water catchment area so too does transport planning.Our planning system has been put in place in the way it is, at arms length from politicians, because of past issues. But this is now being overruled yet again, and were told it makes sense again this time.To be clear: Im not even hinting at any corruption or other similar illegality with the airport cap, but the consequences can be just as bad or worse. Take your pick between clogging the M50 up more, fines for not reaching our climate targets, and the long-term results of not doing so.Good planning has previously been overridden for landowners and developers, and now its the turn of doing it for Ryanair boss Michael OLeary and pressure from US airlines.While the US and other airlines are heavelly lobbying and putting on pressure behind closed doors, and Ryanair is taking its usual more brash approach (top marks for transparency at least) with a recent press release declaring Michel do nothing Martin dossing in Davos, but no action to scrap Dublin Airport cap as soon as possible and Must Ireland wait until US blocks Aer Lingus flights, or cancels Martins white house visit, before Dublins illegal cap is scrapped??Dont fear; even if you are somewhat like OLeary and want to dismiss the evidence that climate change is already making extreme weather, such as flooding, more likely and more severe, the M50 capacity issue will hit harder and more quickly.The nationally important road, which also acts as a key link to Dublin Port, is at capacity and often over capacity. Only weeks ago, it was the most important issue for a few days in media coverage. The national importance of Dublin Port is often underestimated. Dublin Port points out that ports handle almost 90% of goods coming into Ireland, and that they alone handle almost two-thirds of that. The port also handles 80% of all containerised freight. Much like our other infrastructure issues, the move to shift more freight from road to rail is undermined by historic underinvestment, by people with other interests, and by doubters.With Dublin Airport, the 32 million passengers per annum cap, which planners put as a condition of Terminal 2s planning permission in 2008, isnt some environmental madness as the likes of OLeary like to put it. Its a cap grounded in planning.As well as MetroLink and BusConnects improving public transport access to the airport, Fingal County Council planners also recommended redundancy for road access, with a suggestion of a new access via the N/M3 corridor because the reliance on the M50/M1 route is subject to major disruption from even minor crashes.But in the 17 years since 2008, key projects, such as a metro line, have been repeatedly delayed.Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) recently said that it needs the Government to make policy decisions to take further action on the M50, but the message in headlines and our airways screamed Weve done all we can do to fix M50.Theres quite a difference between those two things.I have made it clear that they are in favour of camera enforcement on the M50 to reduce crashes, thereby reducing deaths, injuries, and congestion. And there are other ways to reduce congestion, such as multi-point tolling and peak pricing to discourage trips that could otherwise be made off-peak.There is a system which displays variable-speed limits on the M50, but it only shows advisory speeds. The law allowing variable speed limits was enacted in 2023, and backing for this was added to the Traffic Signs Manual in 2024, but there has been no apparent progress since.Any measure to improve the M50 in the short-term or long-term requires the Government to take action first and approve the policy decision, and these kinds of decisions are not popular, so they are again and again delayed.We have the same issue with medium to longer-term planning and project-level decisions. One area where those involved in planning transport got it wrong was the ill-fated Metro West unlike MetroLink, which is planned between the city centre and Swords, Metro West, which would partly mirror the M50, is hardly talked about.The National Transport Authority possibly with a bit of realism, given the lack of sustained political will to fund public transport said a number of years ago that Metro West lacked demand. This is just not a tenable position today.Large projects like this need to be both grounded in evidence and also have politicians making decisions. Having Metro West ready to start once or even before MetroLink is finished makes perfect sense, and its this kind of pipeline of projects that makes delivery possible and keeps costs lower.But the firefighting decision-making of Government is too fearful of saying yes to a second metro line while so many powerful voices are against the first, and the Facebook commentators and radio show texters are so obsessed by the Childrens Hospital that all public spending is seen through that lens.There has also been endless commentary on how a rail link from Irish Rails northern line to the airport could replace MetroLink, when such discussion is pointless, as our rail plans say both are needed, and currently, capacity constraints on the northern line south of the airport mean theres also no capacity to service a branch line to the airport.In the shorter term, more investment in buses, including an acceleration of the BusConnects infrastructure plan, could also offer some extra capacity to the airport. The Government could even go further by looking at how local buses and intercity coaches could have dedicated routes at least between the Swords Road and M1 and the terminal buildings.But were not hearing of any of this. Its just celebrations from some that the cap be removed. Planning is gone out the window, again.

A new surface on the Boyne Valley to Lakelands Greenway will make it more accessible to a range of users with wheels, local campaigners have said.Sealed hard-top surfaces are more accessible because they are easier for bicycles and wheelchairs to navigate, less damage to the paths from heavy rainfall, and the grit in fine gravel surfaces can cause damage to these and other devices.The route runs 30km from Navan in County Meath to Kingscourt in County Cavan, and the surface upgrade is on the Gibbstown-Wilkinstown, north of Navan.A spokesperon for Navan Cycling Initiative said: Exciting news! The greenway surface on the Gibbstown-Wilkinstown section of the Boyne Valley to Lakelands Greenway will be upgraded this month. TII funding has been secured to apply a bituminous surface, with works scheduled to take place in February.The new path between Gibbstown and Kilberry will also be completed later this month. This means we will have 20km of smooth, high-quality bituminous surface all the way from Navan to Wilkinstown and on to Nobber (with the remaining 10km to come), the spokesperson said. The group added: Navan to Wilkinstown has proven to be hugely popular with all sorts of wheeled users so this will make it even more accessible! New maps are also in the works which will be installed in the display panels at various points along the greenway.

Contrary to preconceived notions it provides improved safety, says French authorities. A pilot programme allowing bicycle users to turn right on red while yielding to road users with a green light is to be put in place at at least one south Dublin junction over the next 6 months, the Minister for Transport has said in a written parliamentary reply.The measure wasincluded in the Irish Governments Road Safety Strategy in 2021andwasgiven legal backing last year, along with other changes.As in other countries where the measure has been in place for a long time, such as France and the Netherlands, yielding at a red light will be permitted only when a road sign indicates it is allowed. The design of the sign (pictured above and below), with a yield sign depicting a bicycle in it and an arrow indicating the direction permitted, follows the design of the same measure in France, where authorities state that it is a safety feature.A video by the French Ministry of Ecology, in English, explains: In France, traffic managers can allow cyclists to ride through red lights after giving way to the different users going through on green. This authorisation is indicated by a plaque [sign] placed on the frame of the lights. It was first limited to right turns, but has now been extended to all traffic movements.The video outlines how cyclists are often not visible to truck or bus drivers turning, which creates dangerous situations. It states: In addition to improving the comfort of cyclists, this measure, contrary to preconceived notions, also provides improved safety.Unlike in France, the legal provision in Ireland only provides for cycling left on a red light and cycling straight at the top of a T-junction while the light. Both area also only allowed where the signs (below) show the direction allowed). The Ministry of Ecologys video concludes: It should never be forgotten. That traffic lights are primarily a tool for regulating motor traffic. Even though they sometimes allow pedestrians to cross streets more comfortably, they are, in general, very restrictive for non-motorised users. Giving cyclists right of away to red lights is a simple and innovative way to make cycling more comfortable. It is also and somewhat less intuitively, a safety device that facilitates cycling without endangering cyclists or other users.A parliamentary reply this week was published in response to a question by Maeve OConnell, a Fine Gael Dublin Rathdown TD, who asked the Minister if his Department is considering enablingcycliststo turn left at red traffic lights.Minister of Transport, Darragh OBrien, said: A feasibility and international best practise review into cyclist turning left on red provision is now complete, and a pilot location has been identified with Dn Laoghaire Rathdown County Council agreeing to act as the pilot local authority.It was outlined that the National Transport Authority (NTA) are responsible for the management and delivery of the pilot scheme and is working with the council on this.Minister OBrien added: Planning for undertaking the pilot project is advancing for implementation over the next 6 months, with a steering group to be established shortly. The proposed membership of the steering group will consist of representatives from the Department of Transport, the NTA, Dn Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and An Garda Sochna.

Officials this week are to brief Dublin City Councils Mobility and Public Realm committee generally on how national guidelines outline that active travel trials no longer should have public consultation before the trials start, and instead, public consultation is to be run as part of the trial.This is according to documents provided to committee members and published online. Another separate document in the agenda pack for the meeting shows that the Strand Road trial has been allocecated 250,000 in funding for 2026.Its unclear when councillors will be briefed on the Strand Road trial, and questions put to the councils press office since the funding was allocated have gone unanswered. The Strand Road trial was first proposed in 2020 before a group of residents, and Cllr Mannix Flynn blocked it with legal action. The High Court ruled against the council in 2021, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision last year.The plan included making Stand Road one-way and then installing a two-way cycle path using one of the current traffic lanes. Less reported on it also includes continuing the trial route out of the Merrion Gates, and along the Merrion Road. There, the two-way path would then run to the county border and link with the DLRCCs Coastal Mobility Route, which runs from the Rock Road to Sandycove. While the council were criticised for procurement shortfalls, the Court overturned all the substantive points on which the High Court had ruled against the council. The Court of Appeal concluded that the High Court judgment was wrong in ruling that planning permission was required, and was wrong that a full environmental EIA screening was required. The appeal court ruled both were not required. The Court ruled that the case was not moot because the city council plans to proceed with the scheme in the future, so the outcome of the case was concrete and not abstract.The Court of Appeal criticised the national government for the lack of guidelines for Section 38 of the Road Traffic Acts, although guidelines have since been put in place. The section of the guidelines dealing with trials is the one to which councillors and other committee members are to be briefed on. In documents on the briefing planned for this weeks meeting, Claire French, a senior engineer in the councils transport section, outlined the details of trail to be undertaken under Section 3French said: The Guidelines clearly set out the steps for implementing a trial. The key differences in the process compared to permanent Section 38 measures is that there is no consultation prior to the start of the trial, 14 days notice is required before a trial commences, and consultation on the trial measures is held throughout the trial once it has commenced. Within the final three months of the trial date a report is prepared assessing the trial which provides a recommendation on whether to make the measures permanent, modify on a permanent basis, not implement on a permanent basis or consider [an] alternative trial scheme for implementation, she wrote in a report to the committee. She added: A determination on the future arrangements, which is an Executive decision, having regard to the recommendation of the report will then be made and the determination published on the local authoritys website.French said that guidelines outline the procedure that must be followed for a trial.The national guidelines outline: The core rationale for a trial is to allow particular proposals to be implemented on a temporary basis, for a defined period of time, allowing the impacts of the proposal to be monitored. This then informs a subsequent decision on whether the proposals should or should not be implemented on a permanent basis. Accordingly, instead of seeking public feedback on draft proposals in the usual manner, the consultation process should be focused on obtaining feedback on the trial scheme in operation.The guidelines outline procedural steps that must be followed prior to, during, and upon completion of a trial.This includes how a notice should be published 14 days prior to the commencement of a trial and how local councillors should also be informed.The guidelines outline: Where the above process for the implementation of trial schemes requires notification to the elected members of the Council, such notification may be to the full Council, the members of the Strategic Policy Committee of the Council dealing with transport matters, the elected members of a Municipal District or to the elected members of a local electoral area.MORE:Breafing to Committee: Guidelines & Procedures under Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act (1994) Trials ProcedureNational guidelines:Guidelines and circulars covering standards for roads, greenways and active travelDOWNLOAD:Guidelines on Traffic Works Procedures covering Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act (1994)

This is a clip with more coverage to follow that looks at the gates and signs being added to Irish greenways, including at this example on the Great Western Greenway in Mayo:

Members of the public in Cork City are being asked to get behind the wider adoption of 30km/h speed limits in the city, campaigners have said.The move to set 30km/h speed limits in cities and towns was delayed when the Government abandoned a system that would have made 30km/h the base limit for urban areas. The new system of councils rolling out the lower limits has started.Cork City Council hae not yet outlined what roads and streets they an to reduce the limit from 50km/h to 60km/h, but they out lined that guidlines say 30km/h speed limits should be applied to housing estates, other residential streets, roads and streets adjacent to schools, and roads in the urban area where there is significant and regular interaction with vulnerable road users.The council also pointed to guidelines that state that higher speed limits may apply within the urban area on National, Regional, and arterial roads, as well as on key public transport routes, dual carriageways, and motorways. It added that a lower speed limit of 20 km/h may apply in pedestrian zones, shared spaces and narrow laneways.The councils public consultation runs until next Friday, February 13th, and details of it can be found at consult.corkcity.ie. Campaigners said that public support is key.Without a strong voice from the people of Cork, were concerned that the slow, piecemeal rollout of lower speeds will take many decades, said the Cork Cycling Campaign. The group said: Were writing to draw your attention to Cork City Councils speed limit consultation and to ask you to make a submission calling for lower speed limits in Cork. While the government signed up to the Stockholm Declaration on a default 30 km/h urban speed limit, it pushed the responsibility for rolling out this vital road safety measure to local authorities. Without strong public support for lower speed limits, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. We need your help! Cork Cycling Campaign said that it strongly supports 30km/h in urban areas, with exceptions for arterial roads. For people willing to take further action, the group recommends contacting councillors and explaining your concerns to them, and asking them to support a broad rollout of 30km/h limits. Safety is the main motivation for lower speed limits. A collision between a person and a car at 30 km/h is fatal in 1 in 10 collisions, but chances of surviving plummet with vehicle speed, falling to 50% at 50 km/h and 10% at 60 km/h. Higher speeds also produce more noise and air pollution, making nearby areas less pleasant for everyone, they said. The campaigners said that lower speed limits will not necessarily increase travelling times as most trips are slowed down by congestion or features such as traffic lights.The Cork Cycling Campaign said: Perhaps you live in an estate with short streets and kids playing outside. Unless there are speed limit signs saying 30 km/h, the official and legal speed is 50 km/h, however inappropriate and dangerous such speeds are. And this matters: we want our kids to be able to play outside and enjoy their own neighbourhood, and to grow into confident and independent people. That wont happen with vehicles speeding around.

Mandatory helmets and high-vis for cyclists are now not being looked at by the Government, the Department of Transport has confirmed. The introduction of mandatory Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for bicycle users is outside the scope of the current measures being looked at by the Government, a Department of Transport spokesperson has said this afternoon.The Department issued what it terms a clarification about 24 hours after it said that bicycles were included in a move to make helmets and high-vis mandatory for e-scooters and e-bikes, and hours after the Tnaiste, Simon Harris, contradicted the Departments statement from yesterday. This afternoon, a spokesperson at the Department of Transport said: The Government decision of Wednesday 4 February noted that Ministers for Transport would return to Government with proposals for updated regulations on e-scooters and e-bikes.The first regulations to allow for the legal use of certain e-scooters and e-bikes were introduced in May 2024. As we approach the two-year anniversary of that date, it is appropriate that we look at the evidence and consider if additional regulation is warranted to promote road safety, the spokesperson said. Proposals are being developed and will be subject to Ministerial decision.The Department added: Requirement for personal protective equipment on e-scooters and e-bikes will form part of any consideration. The introduction of mandatory PPE for users of bicycles is outside the scope of the current measures. Measures to protect the safety of all road users are kept under constant review.

Despite an official Department of Transport response outlining that all bicycles are part of a plan for mandatory helmets and high-vis, Tnaiste Simon Harris has said in the Dil this morning that bicycles are not included, but he left the door open for electric bikes to be included. In Irish and EU law, there is no distinction between pedal bicycles and those with electric assistance, provided the assistance cuts out at 25km/h, and the maximum continuous rated power does not exceed 250W.As covered in the IrishCycle.com explainer on scooters and e-bikes, helmets are already required for all e-bikes that do not meet the above-mentioned requirement to be classified as a bicycle. In a written reply yesterday, a Department of Transport spokesperson said: Requirements for mandatory helmets and high-visibility equipment are currently being considered for e-scooters, bicycles and e-bikes.In the Dil today, the Tnaiste said: Im certainly not behind that proposal, nor is there one. He said this in response to questions from Green Party leader Roderic OGorman. Deputy OGorman said he welcomed measures to tackle illegal scrambler users, and said: From media reports, I understand that a second report was withdrawn at or before Cabinet, one [a proposal] that would have made helmets and high-vis jackets mandatory for people using e-scooters and e-bikes. But also for people using ordinary push bikes.OGorman said no EU country makes helmets mandatory for cyclists because they know criminalising ordinary bicycle users in this way makes no sense. He said it would likely impact the uptake of cycling and questioned how DublinBikes and other bike share scheme such as Bleeper, would work. Of course, helmets are an important part of how cyclists can protect themselves, but criminalising the absence of a helmet is basically saying that youre going to reduce cycling deaths and injuries by reducing cycling itself, he said.He said the Governments focus should be on evidence-based proposals, such as those proposed by cycling groups at yesterdays joint transport committee meeting, including cycle paths and the abandoned 30km/h default limit rollout.He added: Irishcycle.com reports that you are one of the main people pushing mandatory helmets for cyclists, on a push bike. I dont know if thats true or not. Is it true?Tnaiste Simon Harris said: Im certainly not behind that proposal, nor is there one but firstly, thank you for raising this issue because road safety is an extraordinarily important issue, and our road safety stats, in this country, are going the wrong direction.And again, I think most people agree on this in relation to e-scooters, we do need to do more, most particularly in relation to our children. Its already not allowed for somebody under the age of 16 to be on an e-scooter. However, when we talk to our doctors, as we all do, the number one cause of childhood brain trauma in Ireland now is e-scooter accidents; its horrifying. Yes, it is illegal. But when I talk to Gardai, I think the current structure, in my view, is a bit cumbersome, he said.Harris said he wants to make it easier for Gardai to seize e-scooters operating illegally and ensure the devices are not returned to people. He said that the Minister for Transport, Darragh OBrien, and Minister of State Sen Canney are to return to a future Government meeting with proposals. He said more needed to be done around wearing education on our roads, and that helmets were important, but they should not be mandatory for cyclists of non-electric bicycles.There are no plans to change the law to make that mandatory [helmets for cyclists]. Quite frankly, I think that would be a really bad use of Garda time. On one level, I dont think the immediate answer to everything has to be new law, he said. He said: I actually saw some reporting of the comments yesterday [made by cycling groups at the Transport Committee], and I found myself largely in agreement to a lot of the points we made by Cycling Ireland, which is why I was rather abused with some of the reportage this morning, but such is life.He directly added: But we can differentiate. I think we should differentiate in this country. I think the letter e is a bit of a giveaway, and like, if something is motorised, if something is electric, if something can do great speed, I think thats one thing, and I think that needs to be looked at.As covered above, all e-bikes except pedal bicycles with electric assistance already have a helmet-wearing requirement. The Department of Transport regularly refers to electric-assisted bicycles as e-bikes.Deputy OGorman said: Thank you, Tnaiste, I absolutely welcome your confirmation that there is no plan, no proposals, for mandatory helmets for cyclists using push bikes. The Tnaiste said: We all want to see a reduction in deaths and injuries. I think were all alarmed. Im certainly alarmed at the the dangers that were seeing on our roads more distractions than ever before in cars and some distractions that are illegal that shouldnt be happening, others are just seem to happen that the environment in general being more distrcting, more road users, more volume of vehicles and indeed an increase in cycling, which is a good thing that we want to continue to support, but also both driver and cycle education is really important too.On e-scooters, I take your point that there are laws and regulations there. I remain to be convinced that theres not more to be done on e-scooters. I just think there is. Im deeply concerned about this, he said. He said he wants the Government to listen to the Gardai to ensure that whats in place for e-scooters is enforceable and practical.He added: Im happy to have further engagement with Cycling Ireland on this.

Plan was expected to be put to the Cabinet today before it was withdrawn from the meeting of Government Ministers. A reported plan by Irelands Government to make the wearing of helmets and high-vis mandatory for e-scooter and e-bike users includes all bicycles, even those without a motor, the Department of Transport has confirmed this afternoon. People not wearing the gear would be subject to fines issued by Gardai, similar to the fines issued for offences such as cyclists running red lights or not using bicycle lights.Late this afternoon, a Department of Transport spokesperson said: Requirements for mandatory helmets and high-visibility equipment are currently being considered for e-scooters, bicycles and e-bikes.The Department has referred to it as being considered and under review, but others have said that it is a draft plan that should be taken seriously. Sources told this website that the Tnaiste Simon Harris and Minister of State, Sen Canney, were the main people pushing for mandatory high-vis and helmets at Cabinet today, and that he wanted the issue brought back to Government at the earliest opportunity.The move would make Ireland the only EU country to mandate bicycle helmets, and possibly the only member State to force people to wear high-vis generally. The effectiveness of both high-vis and helmets is widely questioned, including by researchin the areas of road safety and public health.Australia mandates helmets, but this is linked to years of decline in cycling, and mandatory helmets are also linked to low use of bicycle share schemes in Melbourne and Brisbane. 61% of survey respondents said mandatory helmet laws were their main barrier to using bike share in Melbourne and Brisbane, blocking significant health benefits which are linked to such programmes.In Ireland, it is expected that primary legislation will be required to legally require people to wear high-vis and helmets.The Department of Transports confirmation that bicycles are included was in response to questions from IrishCycle.com as to what e-bikes are included after The Journal reported this morning that a plan to make high-vis and helmets mandatory for e-bike and e-scooter users was being brought to Cabinet today.It is understood that the plan regarding mandating clothing and helmets was seen as being too complicated to deal with at this time, as it would distract from work on closing claimed loopholes on the use of scrambler motorcycles and the move to making it harder for seized scramblers to be returned to their owners, which currently happens at least in some cases after a fee is paid.The reason for the delay in making the helmet and high-vis equipment mandatory is reflected in comments from Taoiseach Michel Martin after todays Cabinet meeting. The Taoiseach said that they are very focused on scramber issue, which he said would be named Graces Law after 16-year-old Grace Lynch, who was killed when she was struck by a scrambler being driven by an 18-year-old man who has been charged. He added that they would then move onto work on e-scooters. This refers to the review, which also includes e-bikes and bicycles.The inclusion of bicycles in the plan to force peope to wear building site-like gear was first reported on by IrishCycle.com last week after a parliamentary answer in the name of Minister for State, Canney, said: The Department has begun examining this issue, with a view to considering mandating helmets for these and other vulnerable micromobility users the paragraph proceeding it mentioned bicycles, e-bikes and scooters, and besides e-scooters, micromobility usually refers to bicycles and electric bicycles.This was put to the Department at the time, and they did not deny it, but today was the first time that they have made it clear that all bicycles are included in the draft plans

Comment & Analysis: Ok, so that headline is clearly being provocative. I should clarify its not for clicks, but to make a point. For the avoidance of doubt, this is an article about the Wicklow to Greystones Greenway, and how it was covered in an article published in Saturdays The Irish Times, which ran with the headline: Richard Nairn: How green are greenways?As seems to be the case more and more with some media outlets, the headline is dressed up to address the wider question, but it offers little substance on the issue, and much of what is included could be classified as misinformation or, at best, only part of the story.The answer to the wider question of how green are greenways isnt clear-cut althougt it is worth exploring. How they can be made greener and what project teams can do to avoid impacting the environment. But thats not what we get in the article.The sub-header gives us a better idea of what the article is about: The proposed Wicklow to Greystones Greenway route runs right along the edge of the ecologically sensitive coastal area known as the Murrough Wetlands.Nairn writes of the success of some greenways and outlines how the routes have spawned new local businesses like bike hire and repair shops, cafes and saunas, and that As asustainableform of transport that gets people out of their cars, they are certainly welcome.But as well as misinformation, the article contains a lot of exaggeration, a lack of context around some points, and little in the way of solutions from somebody who has expertise in the area of mitigation on much larger and more destructive projects.Before we go any further, the public consultation page for the project with the preferred route maps can be found at wicklowgreenways.ie, while this video from Wicklow County Council gives a reasonable overview of the greenway project:The segment of the route shown below is where it connects into Wicklow Town the draft route is the red lne and it shows just how far in line the route goes to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. It also shows how the route zigzags around the edges of fields to avoid impacting farms.But from wind turbines to active travel projects to greenways, its worth noting that the paper of record is all too often sympathetic to conservative voices when it comes to some projects, especially public transport and active travel ones, but not so much when it comes to roads.In that vein, its fitting that the article is authored by Richard Nairn. He was, when interviewed by the Wicklow People in 2021, called one of Irelands leading ecologists. Interestingly, in that article, he came across as unapologetically involved in the destruction of part of the Glen of the Downs for the widening of the N11 as it passed through the environmentally sensitive area.The Wicklow People article opens: First things first, as Richard Nairn makes clear. Please, he requests politely but firmly, there will be no mention of precisely where this interview was conducted. Suffice it to say that we are talking somewhere near Ashford, give or take a few kilometres.That means Nairns farm and landholding could be close to the greenway, or even on it. We dont know, and its not really the point that he shouldnt have a say if the greenway was right on his land. The point is that this is the kind of conflict of interest youd think might be mentioned in an Irish Times column? But as some readers might know, Michael McDowell has written against MetroLink repeatedly in The Irish Times and has never disclosed how close his home is to a tunnelled section of the line.At best misleadingNairn writes that greenways incorporate two-way cycle tracks and walkways that are a minimum of 4 metres in width, sometimes wider to accommodate crossing places for pedestrians. But that is just not true most greenways are shared paths, not separate cycle tracks and walkways, and most of these shared paths are also typically 3 metres.Some are narrower. Although there are usually green buffers on both sides of the shared paths, these are not part of the paths.Separated paths are more suitable in high-demand areas, especially where theres also going to be commuting cycling use of the greenway and also higher volumes of pedestrians walking near large towns or cities. But separated paths are rare on greenways and not planned as part of the rural sections of the Wicklow to Greystones route, as shown in the photomontage below.IMAGE: Photomontage of the Wicklow to Greystones Greenway. Nairn continues that: Add an embankment beneath the hard surface and the total footprint may be up to 10 metres wide, especially in low-lying or wet ground. This is equivalent to a small country road.A total footprint for a greenway of 10 metres wide seems very much not in keeping with how greenways have been built around Ireland to date. Such a width may be needed in exceptional circumstances and most likely for short sections.The idea that 10 metres is equivalent to a small country road is again misleading. New construction of a rural road would likely include lane widths of up to 3.25 to 3.5 metres wide with verges or turning lanes, the carriageway alone could be 10 metres as standard width, before we get to hard margins, verges, hedges, etc, or extra width required for embankments.Added to the above point, he said: However, like any form of new infrastructure in the countryside, these greenways need to avoid sensitive areas. But he did so without much of a clear mention that the project team for the greenway seemed to have attempted to do so.Nairn said:On the east coast, the Wicklow to Greystones Greenway is being proposed jointly by TII andWicklow County Council. After initially proposing three wide corridors, the emerging preferred route is the one that largely follows the inland boundary of two European protected areas (SAC and SPA), crosses about a dozen farms and a number of rivers, including the Vartry. The proposed route runs right along the edge of the internationally important coastal area known as the Murrough Wetlands, which is separated from the sea by the Dublin to Wexford railway.But runs right along the edge is a strange way of saying runs mostly or totally outside of it.Nairn said that the main impacts of this scheme on birds are likely to be loss of habitat in wet grassland and marsh, interference with water flow to the wetlands due to culverting of streams and drains, disturbance during construction and due to people and dogs when it is in operation.So, given his expertise in outlining how far more impactful road projects can be built while reducing or eliminating different harms, does Nairn suggest anything for the greenway? No, he says, People are asking: How green is this greenway? and then quotes a local farmer with the talking points which will sound familiar to anybody whos listened to farmers against many greenways around the country.I mean, how can anybody take claims that therell be huge issues around public safety and biosecuritywhen greenways as well as public roads and walking routes have been successfully operated around or even through farms?Parkways, a term used mainly in the US, are not parks; they are roads through parks. Greenways are not as impactful as parkways or any roads, but they are routes. Nothing can be built with zero impacts; the goal needs to be to minimise the impact. Greenways are partly about addressing the lack of public access and safe routes for people outside cars in rural areas across the country. We have to keep that in mind when were talking about farmers and other landowners who are privileged to own part of the countryside in a country with so little non-road access to rural areas and no right to roam. Some farmers have taken a different approach by volunteering their land for such projects or, with others, not objecting to the use of CPOs or coming forward to make agreements. This has some impact on farmers but enables their community and visitors to access the countryside without fear of being run over by a car, without those people impeding on active farms. We need more of that. More people who are willing to step up and ask: What can I do for my community and my country?