Chapter 5: Sustainable Movement
I strongly object to the replacement of committed language with vague terms such as “potential” in the Clondalkin planning report, particularly in relation to Safe Routes to School.
This change weakens intent, accountability, and delivery. Safe Routes to School are not aspirational — they are a basic road safety and public health requirement, especially directly outside schools where children are most at risk.
Clondalkin is a diverse community. Many residents — including migrant families and frontline workers — do not rely on private cars and are well accustomed to walking, cycling, and public transport when safe infrastructure exists. Yet street design and planning priorities continue to centre car storage and car movement, effectively forcing car dependency where it is neither wanted nor necessary.
Consultation processes are repeatedly accessed by a narrow, car-oriented cohort, while large parts of the community — visible every day on bus routes such as the 68, W4, W2, 151 and 13 — are effectively excluded from shaping decisions that directly affect their safety and mobility.
Children do not need more junction capacity for cars. They need continuous, safe routes to school. No family should be forced into car ownership because streets are designed without safe alternatives.
By weakening language around Safe Routes to School, the Council signals hesitation in places where European best practice demands certainty and action — particularly at school gates.
I urge the Council to:
-
Commit clearly and unequivocally to Safe Routes to School;
-
Align language and action with European safety standards around schools; and
-
Move from repeated consultation to implementation of well-evidenced measures that serve the whole community.
Clondalkin deserves streets designed for people, not just for cars.