No, the project is not just a cycle lane: It adds accessibility and safety measures. Saying youre all for safety and active travel while outright objecting to them makes no sense. Objecting to cycle paths on main roads should be seen the same as objecting to footpaths.Comment & Analysis: 1 dont agree with any of this! said one submission, and if somebody I trusted made all the claims about a project, as two local political representatives have in this case, Id be of the same view. The problem is that their claims just dont stack up. The reps and others have willfully or otherwise misled people. The build-up of opposition is sadly a well-trodden formula for politicians who see some level of opposition and push that to exploit it by pushing peoples fears and getting people worked up. In this case, its a project with very limited effects on motorists, balanced with wide road safety and accessibility improvements. And while theres clear and strong opposition, the claim that nobody wants the Church Street Pedestrian & Cycle Scheme is just not true a number of people who use the street have bothered to make submissions in favour of the project.People talk of meaningful engagement (see more below), but that does not mean having a veto on road safety and accessibility funding. The project which is planned to run along part of Portlaoise Road and mainly on Church Street before heading towards the town park. Like the Graiguecullen area where the project is planned, the route crosses council boundaries, so here are two public consultation pages: one for Carlow County Council and the other for Laois County Council.Most of the opposition seems to have come after local Sinn Fin rep Aaron Kelly teamed up with Independent Ireland councillor Cllr John Cassin to actively push against the active travel and road safety project. The two of them and others have put a lot of focus on the cycling side of active travel, but little to none on the pedestrian and accessibility side of the project. The reps also distributed a templated letter and submitted signed versions en masse. This deals with most of the more mainstream claims made against the project. Below Ill quote the template objection and deal with the problems with the claims made within it:Dear Sir/Madam,I wish to formally object to the proposed Church Street Pedestrian and Cycle Scheme in Graiguecullen.At the outset, I wish to make it clear that I support investment in road safety, walking and cycling infrastructure and active travel where such projects are proportionate, evidence-based and enjoy broad community support. However, I do not believe the current proposal meets these criteria and I have significant concerns regarding its necessity, impact on the local community and overall value for money.This is strangely much the same as what is said by most objections to safe walking and cycling routes, not just in Ireland but around the world. But lets see how much their claim of being supportive fits with their arguments 1. Lack of Demonstrated NeedA fundamental question remains unanswered: what specific problem is this scheme seeking to solve?Church Street currently serves as a key route through Graiguecullen for residents, businesses, school traffic, public transport, delivery vehicles and emergency services. Before major alterations are made to an established transport corridor, the Council should clearly demonstrate:Existing cyclist numbers using the route.Projected cyclist numbers following completion.Collision and road safety data specific to the area.Evidence that the proposed intervention represents the most effective solution.Residents are entitled to understand the evidence base underpinning the project. Public funding should be directed towards projects where the benefits can be clearly demonstrated and measured. I have carried out my own research on collision data via the RSA website and found there to be only one record of an incident which involved a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle, with no bicycle involved. Just one incident in the past ten years! From living just off the proposed route myself and as someone who drives this section of road several times per day, I am aware that there is currently a maximum of ten cyclists using the road.This image was invented for arguments just like the above one:Under the header of Lack of Demonstrated Need, even the claim that A fundamental question remains unanswered: what specific problem is this scheme seeking to solve? is highly misleading. The public consultation report outlines theprojects justification, including how it fits within Carlows planned cycle network andaligns with local and national policy. If the template writers wanted to blur the lines, they could have claimed that Carlow does not need a cycle network. But the project is part of that planned network. And a route that gets people from residential areas to a school alone is a good starting point; add in to the town park and access into the town centre, its a huge bonus (see below re the town park).Its stunning to state that Church Street currently serves as a key route through Graiguecullen for residents, businesses, school traffic, public transport, delivery vehicles and emergency services, yet then suggest that such a key route should exclude a safe cycle route and safer crossings. Its also stunning that people claim to care about value for money and then expect council officials to jump through even more hoops to deliver basic active travel infrastructure.Theres detailed national guidance on this, but to simplify it a bit, in towns, there are two main types of provisions on streets and roads suitable for cycling for all ages:Segregated cycle paths for main roads and streets with higher volumes of traffic and high speedsMixed with traffic on low-traffic, low-speed streets, or streets that can be made into such.Church Street is clearly not a low-traffic, low-speed route, and trying to make it such would cause even greater backlash. So, were left with segregated cycle paths. This approach aligns with best international practice.1. Impact on Traffic CongestionChurch Street forms an important connection between residential areas, schools, businesses and the wider Carlow urban area. Many residents already experience delays during school drop-off and collection times. The proposed reallocation of road space risks reducing traffic capacity and creating bottlenecks at peak periods. Where road capacity is reduced, traffic does not disappear. Instead, it is frequently diverted onto neighbouring streets and residential estates. This may create new problems in areas that currently function well. The Council should publish detailed traffic modelling demonstrating:Existing traffic volumes.Predicted traffic volumes following implementation.Estimated journey time increases.Likely displacement routes.The impact on surrounding residential roads.Without this information, it is difficult for residents to assess the true consequences of the proposal.Imagine people who claim they are all for active travel saying that a road and street in their area which forms an important connection between residential areas, schools, businesses and the wider area should not have active travel upgrades.Does that really sound supportive of active travel? The claims above about possible extra traffic congestion are basic fearmongering, but theyre also cleverly phrased in a just asking questions way.However, these questions are asked in bad faith. How do I back that up? If the project was likely to have a significant impact on traffic, the objectors would be able to clearly point to what elements of the project would cause this. With the argument that Where road capacity is reduced, traffic does not disappear. etc, I could normally point to established and repeated evidence that the claim is not true, but in this case theres nothing in the project which would likely divert any traffic, and theres also no logical route such as a minor parallel residential street where that traffic would be diverted to. Its based on nothing. Its just stirring the pot. 3. Impact on Local BusinessesChurch Street and the wider Graiguecullen area contain a range of local businesses that depend on convenient customer access. Many customers travel from surrounding rural areas where public transport options are limited. These customers rely on private vehicles and require convenient access and parking. Any reduction in parking availability or ease of access has the potential to negatively affect local businesses, particularly at a time when many small businesses continue to face significant economic challenges. One example that comes to mind for me is ORourkes Coal Yard. The Council should publish a detailed economic impact assessment outlining:Expected effects on customer accessibility.Effects on parking provision.Impact on delivery and servicing arrangements.Measures proposed to support affected businesses.Local businesses should not be expected to bear economic risks arising from a scheme whose benefits have not yet been clearly demonstrated.Who expects anyone from rural areas to use public transport to visit a coal merchant or any of the other businesses along the road? Nobody does. This is disingenuous, to say the least. Besides ORourkes, the other businesses, including the two filling stations, takeaway, driving test centre, Aldi, the farming co-op, etc, have their own car parks and do not have or rely on on-street parking. And with ORourkes, parking is being provided within a reasonable distance outside their premises. If, as a business, ORourkes cannot as has been claimed cross the planned two-way cycle path for deliveries or customer pickups, then serious questions need to be asked about how they manage to get across the footpath to do the same things. If the reps or anyone else were genuinely supportive of active travel, theyd look at concerns and issues, then examine how a project can be adjusted to provide an active travel route while also avoiding issues with businesses. For example, by asking the council to look at having the active travel route cross to the opposite side of the road to keep away from the side entrances to the businesses. Something like this:4. Impact on Schools and FamiliesGraiguecullen is home to a large number of families and school-age children with a further approximate 400 houses being built or planned at the moment. The area experiences significant traffic activity associated with school transport already. Parents, school buses, carers and support services all depend on safe and efficient road access. We cannot create further bottlenecks and reductions in road sizes. Any scheme that changes traffic patterns should be assessed in terms of:School access.Student safety.Bus movements.Traffic queues at peak times.The potential for increased congestion on alternative routes used by families.It is nothing short of outrageous to claim youre all for safety, argue against a project which includes a school entrance traffic calming scheme and then claim that project will make things worse for safety. But hey, its done in a just asking questions way, so theres another disclaimer.Theres a long wait for schools across Ireland to get Safe Routes to School treatments, while the planned project will deliver such measures as part of the project. It will significantly improve safety at the Church Street entrance to the school. The number of assessments and evaluations being sought for a basic project and a relatively small one with relatively small impacts on motorists is just amazing when the objectors claim to care about costs, not wasting money and proportionality. This was also under the Impact on Schools and Families header:Parents should have confidence that the proposal will improve, rather than complicate, daily school journeys. From talking to parents in the area who live on the route, they have told me that they would not allow their children to cycle on the proposed cycle lane due to the number of side roads and driveways leading on to the route. At peak times, this would be far too dangerous. If we take the entrance to Aldi, for example. Cars exiting Aldi already have to edge out on to the road to have visibility of the main road. This means that cars will be edging out on to the cycle lane, creating even further safety hazards as a result. If anything the proposed cycle lane will create accidents instead of reducing them.The driveway issue is a bit of a red herring as far as children cycling to school because currently, where there are no cycle paths on busy roads, children cycle to school using footpaths which are closer to driveways and have poorer lines of sight.I would somewhat share the concern for the cycle path at the Aldi entrance, but its not an insurmountable issue. Between the already planned school traffic calming measures and possible extra measures at the detailed design stage, there should not be a significant issue for school children using the cycle path compared to the default of them using footpaths. The Aldi entrance and the road now, before traffic calming is put in place, cannot be compared to what itll be like after the traffic calming is in place. Added to this, the planned speed limit guidelines suggest a limit of 30km/h at all times or at least around school run times, in locations like this outside urban schools.This is a bit detailedm but possible extra measures could include (1) moving some of the planned green space from the opposite side of the road to the Aldi side to create a buffer between existing motorists and the cycle paths, (2) including a raised junction table at the entrance (with school zone bollards to protect the footpaths and cycle path), and (3) if there are visibility issues for motorists exiting Aldi, the council should work with them to fix those. 5. Impact on Elderly Residents and People with DisabilitiesPublic infrastructure must serve all members of the community. Many elderly residents, individuals with mobility difficulties and people living with disabilities depend on private vehicles for everyday activities including shopping, attending appointments and accessing community services. There is concern that the proposal places a disproportionate emphasis on one mode of transport while potentially making access more difficult for those who are least able to adapt. The Council should demonstrate how the needs of these groups have been considered and addressed within the scheme design. There are two things here the general claim of impacting elderly residents and people with disabilities and the details of one small part of the project.First, speaking on the general point: According to the CSO, nearly 300 households in the Graigue area have no car and a large chunk of the total households have only one car, so not everybody is the same. Adding an extra option for households with no or only one car improves mobility. The project will improve safety and accessibility with safer junctions and new crossings, including for footpaths, and it will increase options for people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices for non-cycling users of the cycle path. If the objectors cannot see even the footpath and crossing improvements from the drawings and project description, they have been misled.The authors of the template and rhetoric that preceded it, claiming the project was all about cycling, share much of the blame (the council may too, but I have not seen that clearly). On the more focused issue of parking a relatively small number of homes:For example, there are several elderly residents who park outside their homes on Church Street as they do not have driveways. With the proposed route in its current form, these residents will lose their parking and may not have the financial means to install driveways. They will then have to park elsewhere which causes a huge inconvenience for them, particularly those who are elderly or suffering with poor mobility. This will also have a knock on effect in terms of creating tension with other households in the area if this people have to park outside their houses going forward.If the issue is that a small number of residents cant pay for a driveway, one possible solution would be for the council to pay for it. And very few residents at the location do not have driveways. Politicians should be leaders, and this issue should not form the basis of a general objection. Leaders should seek solutions. Even if they dislike or generally object to a project, they should still look for solutions in case the project moves ahead. Looking for compromises and working on solutions used to be the way with town councils maybe its also a more fractured system of politics, but the larger area of municipal districts does not seem to help with sorting the details that actually affect people.6. Community Facilities and Local AccessGraiguecullen contains a range of important community facilities, sporting organisations and churches that attract significant numbers of people throughout the week. Any alteration to traffic arrangements should be carefully assessed to ensure that access remains convenient and safe for users of these facilities. Residents should not experience reduced accessibility to amenities that form an essential part of community life.The project will deliver extra mobility options and enhanced accessibility.7. Value for MoneyAt a time when public resources are under considerable pressure, residents are entitled to ask whether this project represents the best use of available funding with an estimated cost of 3m. Many local people would argue that there are other infrastructure priorities within Graiguecullen that warrant urgent attention, including:Road maintenance and resurfacing.Footpath repairs.Traffic management measures.Public realm improvements.Community and recreational facilities.The Council should provide a transparent cost-benefit analysis demonstrating why this project has been prioritised and what measurable outcomes are expected. I understand that the funding is ring-fenced under the Active Travel Scheme but the community feel that this money could be better spent elsewhere. What other route options were considered? It is worth mentioning that the proposed Southern Relief Road is really what Graiguecullen needs as they would relieve a lot of traffic congestion in the area and a potential cycle lane could be implemented on this, particularly considering it is expected to cross the river next to SETU. I would much prefer the Council to hold the Active Travel funding to add it to the cost of a cycle lane on the proposed Southern Relief Road.Yet again, this is not something people who generally support road safety and active travel projects say. The cost/benfit of active travel projects is well proven and repeated time and time again around the world. Thats not a conspiracy; its because getting people active has huge benefits to the State and to people. The local reps are acting like populists rather than leaders. Leaders show leadership and lead (even if that means they object to a project that they think is wrong). Good leaders try to work through issues and bring people with them rather than add to the notion that its the people against the system. People who dislike sports/public education/public health services/public transport, etc, may think funding for those things could be better spent elsewhere. That does not change the fact that all of those areas have funding allocated in the national yearly budgets.Say if I say military project spending would be better spent on hospitals that would be me objecting outright to spending on new defence projects. If youre going to do the same for active travel, at least be honest about what you are doing.8. Community OppositionA significant number of residents have expressed concerns regarding the proposal. While consultation is an important part of the planning process, consultation must be meaningful. Community concerns should not simply be noted but should genuinely influence decision making. Residents who live, work and raise families in Graiguecullen possess valuable local knowledge regarding traffic patterns, access requirements and community needs. Their views should carry substantial weight in determining the future of the area. Following recent work on the Kilkenny Road area of Carlow town, residents fear that this project will create safety concerns, traffic congestion, negatively impact local business and significantly effect peoples way of life in terms of parking, travelling, etc.Based on the submissions, residents of the area and users of the roads and streets involved do not have a single view.Meaningful consultation requires good-faith submissions and a willingness to engage this is clearly not the case when the template writers have not read even the first content pages of the consultation report, are making scattergun arguments, and are misinforming people about the project and its likely impacts, including engaging in fearmongering. 9. Start and End PointsThe proposal in its current form starts at the entrance to Barrowvale housing estate despite Graigue na hAbhainn housing estate, which contains 77 houses, being situated just a few metres up the road but yet has not been factored in when deciding on the starting point of the works. When we look at the end point of the proposed route, it ends at the entrance to Carlow town park, which is a non-cycle zone. This means that cyclists can cycle as far as the park before they must dismount from their bike, and then return to cycling once they exit the park on the far side. This makes no sense and I would imagine cyclists would prefer to stay on their bikes and just cycle over Graigue bridge where they do not have to disembark. Again, this shows a lack of consultation and planning with local residents and a clear lack of understanding of the routes that cyclists take when cycling in Graiguecullen.Rome wasnt built in a day, and only so much of a network can be built at once. But lets look some more at the claims madeIn reality, rather than showing a lack of consultation and planning with local residents and a clear lack of understanding the consultation which is happening this response shows that the objectors have not read the consultation report.This is on the first contents page of the report: The project would greatly improve access for pedestrians and cyclists to nearby retail premises, educational facilities and recreational amenities and would link into the current pedestrian & cycling facilities at Carlow Town Park which further links to the centre of Carlow Town.Even if the council has made an error in its report, and cycling is not yet allowed in the Town Park, it is the councils clear intention to allow cycling there as part of its active travel network. Why are political reps who are objecting to cycle routes not aware of this?The suggestion from the objectors to route the active travel route via the Graiguecullen Bridge is nonsensical because implementing an active travel route to and over the bridge would be much more disruptive to motorists and/or costly if a new bridge were to be included (theres no space on the current bridge). Given that the template is also objecting outright to the proposed Church Road cycle path, this shows that a scattergun approach is being taken to objecting. The route using the town park to create a safer and more attractive active travel link to the town centre is pragmatic. 10. Croppy GravesThe proposed cycle route passes in close proximity to the historic Croppy Graves, a site of immense local and national significance associated with the 1798 Rebellion. There is a reasonable possibility that burials connected with the mass burial site may extend beyond the existing boundary walls, particularly given the age of the site and the burial practices of the period. Any excavation, ground disturbance or construction works in the vicinity should therefore be approached with the utmost caution. Until comprehensive archaeological investigations have been carried out to establish the full extent of any potential burials or associated archaeological remains, it would be inappropriate to proceed with works that could inadvertently disturb this important heritage site. The Council has a duty to protect and preserve our archaeological and cultural heritage, and the uncertainty surrounding the extent of the burial ground is, in itself, a compelling reason to reconsider the current alignment of the proposed cycle route. We must respect our patriot dead.Theres no evidence presented for these concerns about the Croppies Grave site, and it raises the question of why theyre only being raised now. Is there no concern about this as a general issue? That with the current path, people may be walking over graves? Or even driving over the Croppies Grave? Is there any concern that the modern roadway was also built on top of the Croppy site? IMAGE: The front of the Croppies Grave site.Below is whats currently in place at the rear of the site this is the path to be widened.There are a number of solutions and options to avoid any issues: Widen the path on the side of the Croppies site.Use non-dig or low-dig methods near the site.Divert the path on a wider arc away from the site. ConclusionFor the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that Carlow County Council reconsider the proposed Church Street Pedestrian and Cycle Scheme. The Council should undertake further engagement with residents, businesses, schools and community organisations and provide clear evidence demonstrating the necessity, demand, effectiveness and value for money of the proposal.Until such evidence is provided, I do not believe the scheme has justified the significant changes proposed to one of Graiguecullens most important local routes.I therefore request that the proposal be withdrawn to better reflect the needs and priorities of the local community.This could be better accepted if the objectors were suggesting any alternatives or any vision for a more accessible area. But we dont get any vision of what would better reflect the needs and priorities of the local community. Nothing, just negativity against a road safety project.