Premature to proceed with this plan without a wider vision for a greener village amenity to enjoy, to shop in and work in, particularly in terms of minimising through-traffic
Premature to proceed with this plan without a wider vision for a greener village amenity to enjoy, to shop in and work in, particularly in terms of minimising through-traffic
Wider plan needed alongside or in advance of this proposal
Overview
Lucan is a beautiful heritage village with many positive if under-represented features. When the sun is shining and traffic is light and people are out walking, it is a great example of a suburban village with links to its past still visible. Covid showed us the potential for more people to be out and about and reignited a desire for a more pleasant experience. It needs measures to enhance these desirable features.
The flipside of this is that, at times, Lucan village has become a traffic-congested kip. Row upon row of cars spewing diesel and petrol pollution, broken occasionally by a thimbleful of EVs and bicycles. Much of this traffic is not aiming to go to the village, but rather through the village and parking spaces at pinch points are at premium for those who visit Lucan to shop, to attend medical appointments, travel to and from their nearby homes, visit relatives, or do other related business. It needs measures to mitigate these undesirable features. The Government needs to be encouraged to abolish or relocate the M50 tolls and, within its remit, the local authority needs to discourage through traffic, enable people who need to access the village to do so and to provide real alternatives to driving without penalising those who have no other option.
Premature plan
While people want to see an attractive and more pedestrian friendly village, with lots of interesting things to see or do, it is telling that the CHL Survey quoted as part of this Part 8 Presentation sees addressing parking and traffic needs as the key issue. However, this plan does not address parking needs, by reducing key parking spaces and does nothing whatsoever to address the crucial traffic congestion issue identified.
As such, the parking element of this plan should have been done after, or worst case, alongside a one-way trial.
It should be frozen pending such a trial, or possibly trialled along with the traffic trial, but it should not go ahead without certainty on future plans. It would be pointless to do so, as any positive impacts cannot be felt until the wider traffic issues are assessed and addressed.
If anything, taking away parking spaces without restricting through traffic will neutralise any attempts to slow down traffic as there will be less vehicles reversing in and out.
The vision of a quieter village and the effect on the area is highly desirable, but would be better assessed after a decent effort is made to manage traffic in the village.
Parking space issues
This plan proposes to take away key parking spaces in the village and replace them with some adjacent spaces, resulting in an estimated overall loss of 11 spaces.
Other submissions have queried the calculations of actual available spaces and suggest that the overall number of spaces in Lucan is less than suggested and that the overall spaces being reduced is more. But even taking the Council proposals at face value, most of the existing parking spaces along the stretch from AIB to Griffeen Bridge will be taken away.
The key question here is a) Can the village do with at least 11 less parking spaces and b) are the ones replacing those along the Main Street stretch of the village green of comparable quality?
I believe the village could indeed take 11 less spaces, even allowing for congestion at peak times or during bad weather. The Council are correct that village parking is not always full, at least not all the time. That said, through close observation as a resident who lives nearby, at least 50% of the time I go into the village walking or in a vehicle between the hours of 10am and 6pm, the area around the village green is usually full. On Friday evenings at around 6pm in particular, it is often impossible to get a spot within a short walk of the village green area as parked vehicles stretch well beyond the Circle K garage. How much more spaces could go is questionable as of now, even if fears of up to 60 spaces being taken away have no factual basis, because the pinch points are pinch points for a reason. And it's not primarily down to laziness.
There is an argument that suggests that a good cohort of drivers living locally could walk instead, or park further away. I agree that this is the case for some activities and that more of us could and should get off the couches or the car seats. Perhaps the Government should post out a Fitbit or equivalent to every house in Ireland given its positive influence on people maximising their “steps”. It might have a positive impact.
But while there are certainly those who could walk further, this is not the situation in every case. There’s a lot of credible arguments that driving is essential, or not driving would be a massive inconvenience, in terms of short-term pickups of multiple grocery items, attending the GP or physio, picking up take-aways that need to stay warm. This problem is exacerbated for the area along Main Street being covered under this consultation. Especially when you look at Lucan Village Medical Centre, the pharmacy, the Centra shop and to a lesser but significant extent the banks and other businesses.
The demographics of the village residential area between Ardeen estate and Esker Lane before Woodies shows that there are approximately 6,000 people living here. About 1,200 are over 65 and most of these are living independently and many can walk a fair distance. However, there would be several hundred people of various ages who are not mobile and who need to drive or be dropped to the village. Not every disability is visible. A person with a heart condition or other illness can drive down, walk a little and even look agile, but that doesn’t mean they can actually walk very far A healthier lifestyle may help keep people healthier in the future, but you cannot penalise those who are ill for various reasons, nor can moral judgements be made on those who are ill. We have to respect all our citizens and look after the most vulnerable in our society.
These are the people who will be most affected by taking parking away from the location in question. And there is no evidence that the specified spaces being left will be sufficient unless this is trialled first (and in such a case the Council should surely leave more as a starting point).
The arguments around the medical centre are particularly strong. I will not repeat the key arguments made by Dr Lombard and others as they stand in their own right, They are being made on medical considerations not because the business could be accused in any way of fearing less customers. There is a significant shortage of GPs in Lucan right now. And there are no suitable places to relocate to either.
But even in terms of access to the shops, it is worth going into more detail. The Circle K and Maxol garages are close enough to the village anyway but don't offer very large ranges, so it is clear that the only convenience store in Lucan village right now is Centra. Add in the bakery, the butcher and the greengrocer for sure, but the same arguments remain. They are all in the village, down hills.
When I grew up in Lucan you had Toolan's Spar in the village. You had Carey's. You had Fuch's (then McDonald's) on the Lucan Newlands Road beside Cherbury. You had the "Candy Store" and "Murrays" at Esker Lawns. You had Harris's (Corbett's, Keane's) at Beech Park. You had Molloy's and A1 Stores on the Lucan Road. All of these retailers were a walk around the corner. All have now closed; you only have Lynch's Centra remaining.
Therefore, if anyone out of these 6,000 residents wants convenience shopping as opposed to driving further to a shopping centre, they have to go to Centra. And yes, many can walk down for one or two items. People who live in the village itself, estates and individual houses, Esker Lawns, Beech Park, Lucan Heights, maybe Cherbury Park, Beech Grove and Roselawn should be thinking in this regard; it gets to be a push after that from Ballydowd Grove and all the estates in Esker Lane, but I take the points made in some of the submissions.
However not everyone who goes down to the village to shop just picks up a newspaper, or a small carton of milk, or some bread or a bag of apples or a pound of mince. A lot of the shopping would include two litres of milk, a tin of something, a breakfast cereal, toilet rolls, yoghurts, butter/spread. Once it gets bulky or heavy, it's no longer possible to walk any distance with ease. So most people in this situation will desire out of necessity to be within a 120-second walk of the shop, some will need to be less than 60 seconds.
Yes, some shoppers could easily lug lighter bags for longer and should be encouraged to do so. Some people can park a little bit farther back, but not every shop visit is for a packet of sweets or a sliced pan. Those who want more often have no alternative but to park, or face driving another 10 minutes. Then there are people who are mobile enough, but for whom a walk of 500m or more is too much. Some people are brave enough to cycle, but the Council cannot tell anyone that the current routes to the village are safe for an average cyclist, let alone a beginner one. And again, carrying bulky items is difficult and the hills are a challenge meaning that some people would have to walk back with their bike. Show the safe cycling routes and some of these arguments will be negated. But we don’t have them yet. Hence this plan is premature.
From lifestyle and climate change perspectives we need to make Lucan more pedestrian friendly and cycle friendly and create wider footpaths for those in wheelchairs and those wheeling buggies. I want to see the Council being very proactive and visionary in this regard, but you cannot ignore the needs of the people who live in the area; the plan as proposed causes inconvenience without any significant clean, green alternative being provided. You need to put these alternatives in place alongside or beforehand, reduce rat-running traffic, calm existing traffic, create safe cycling spaces, locate off-street parking, create the scene, and make it a pleasant, attractive place rather than force these people to shop elsewhere and reduce traffic by local exodus. This is recipe for removing people from the village, destroying business
And, given the shortage of GPs, you can't force vulnerable people to seek primary medical support elsewhere or have them make a second journey to get medication, currently available next door.
All the above arguments refer to the people living in the village hinterland. Add in the other visitors to Lucan village from outside this immediate residential area and the impact worsens. Because of historic bad planning, which I have fought against all my adult life, the greater Lucan area has become a traffic-congested commuter town, with a dearth of public transport options.
Public transport and cycling incentives needed
The Bus Connects launch has not led to any noticeable improvement in access to the village. In fact, there have been complaints. The people who used the 239 before will use the L51 and L52 and for those who don't have cars, these services will still allow access to the village. There's an argument that says people from further afield visiting the village for a coffee or meal, possibly alongside a visit to a physio, a bank, a psychotherapist etc could get the bus also. I agree wholeheartedly - even if ultra-local fares need to be cheaper - but this cohort is a small subsection. Most of those able-bodied people who would go to the village and who have access to a vehicle would likely have other business after the doctor or physio etc and may need to get back to work, to pick up kids, to go to the supermarket after. If they cannot park in the village, they will not use the village, pure and simple. I wish it were otherwise and that a little nudge will get them out of their vehicles, but we have to strike a balance. We need a living breathing village on the one hand without turning into a “Disneyland” on the other hand, as someone else described it.
There is an element who would cycle more in the village area if safe routes were available. A decent route as part of the Canal Route Project or a link would assist in making more people feel comfortable about cycling to Lucan once it's done right. I've contended that this needs to be through the village rather than a circuitous route through Sarsfield Park that bypasses the village and discourages the recreational and tourism cohort of such cyclists from using the village amenities and spending money in Lucan.
Therefore, such a route needs to be in situ so that people who can and should be more active can see a viable alternative to driving. And, to make this attractive and safer it would be desirable so see off-street parking to compensate for - and possibly enhance - on-street parking that could be put to better use.
However, you cannot remove on-street parking at critical pinch point locations right now, and you cannot remove any at all without providing alternatives.
Off-street parking
It is hard to know where such off-street parking can be located, but here are a few ideas which the Council will not be able to comment on one way or the other due to commercial considerations. And obviously they are mostly privately owned and I respect the right of owners to do what they want with their own property. But perhaps there is a commercial opportunity for some, if the Council was proactive.
With a new Ambassador being appointed, a renewed case needs to be made in terms of the purchase of Lucan House and grounds. It is unfortunate that many years back local traders were offered a parcel of land for car parking but turned down the opportunity to purchase the area. Either way, to the extreme right of the main entrance of the embassy grounds there is a grassed area that is regularly used for parking for visitors to open days and events. If made available to the Council, as an outright purchase of the entire lands or this specific section (with the Italian entrance being recessed), or in lieu of the cost of repair works to the wall opposite the Maxol, or on a leasehold basis, this area could be weatherproofed for parking without damaging any of the mature trees in situ. It would be absolutely necessary for parking here were Lucan house to become a public amenity and destination location, but it would also be hugely advantageous to have such off-street parking in Lucan village.
There is also a large private garden area behind the houses adjacent to Carroll's pub and restaurant. Has anyone been approached about this? While I understand some of the buildings through the gate access may be preserved, making it impossible to access from this route, it might be possible to secure some access via Dispensary Lane or Carroll's Car park. These items need to be examined at least.
Up the east end of the village, a site has been available alongside the purchase of buildings with existing tenants behind Collins's butchers. The area behind is unlikely to ever be granted planning permission for residential development because of the overdrop to the back gardens of Sarsfield Park, but given that there is already an unofficial car park at this location, the entire area could be upgraded, flattened and possibly made multi-storey or underground, subject to a survey.
Vesey Park is grossly under-utilised by the public and the entrance stretch at The Hollow area is primarily grass with the ecological benefit in the tree corridor to the left and the river area to the right. There is scope to put in sensitive car parking at this location for approx 20-30 spaces similar to those at Farmleigh close to the village without damaging the amenity and perhaps enhancing it, especially once the link from the entrance to Vesey Park estate towards the bridge at Cherbury Park is completed. This would require some road reconfiguration, but it would create meaningful parking spaces, which could be free or lower cost than the ones nearer both parts of Main Street in Lucan. It would also enhance the argument for the canal route cycleway to be diverted to the village via Vesey Park.
There are also a small number of diagonal spaces that could be provided near the health centre in Dispensary Lane with a cut into the grassy area before the bollands. Every additional space needs to be considered before taking away other spaces in other areas.
One of more of these locations could help increase quality parking spaces in the village and no argument to reduce spaces further should be made until a comparable quantity/quality is secured.
Dealing with through-traffic and the absolute need for a one-way system trial
SDCC's Chief Executive has worthy visions of Lucan as a “food destination” and the Council wants to push tourism. Our heritage is valuable, so, If it’s done properly, we can have the village thriving. Alternatives to cars is a good thing, especially if you’re looking to bring more new people to the village. The balance is to make sure you don’t take existing users away, still keeping them in cars, but driving further and longer and still spewing out pollutants. We still need to look at a few traffic management options and ways to make the overall village experience more pleasant.
As someone who has tabled motions calling for a radical approach to dealing with traffic in Lucan it was great to see that a good number of people in the study commissioned by the Council last year suggested that some form of one-way system is required.
This is essential. We know nothing has been worked out yet. But a trial needs to be carried out before this village scheme and it needs input from all stakeholders even as a trial.
The village traders will need reassurance that a temporary trial is just that. Residents near the village need to be able to access their homes. At the same time, we will all need to realise that a trial will be extremely basic and not best practice compared to something well-funded and drawn up to a high standard.
My own unqualified current idea for a permanent system is one way access south from Collins’s to Church of Ireland for all vehicles, two-way for bicycles, two-way for buses (using retractable bollards) and two-way for elsewhere (except maybe specified designated times to be determined).
SDCC has outlined a different idea in its tentative drawing suggesting, one way from Courtney’s, which to me would cause certain problems.
There's also the issue as to what direction a one-way section for cars would take. The Council appears to be tentatively suggesting that vehicles should head east. However, that means that any cars trying to access the village would have to do a loop around again and this would include a very difficult crunch point to turn right at the top of Chapel Hill.
An alternative would be to make the small one-way section head west. This means that any queuing traffic would largely be on Chapel Hill as opposed to in the village itself. There are arguments that say that increasing the flow at this location to compensate for the added volume on this side would ensure access for residents to estates such as Laraghcon. This would not get rid of traffic over Lucan bridge but would get rid of traffic in Lucan Village.
An alternative is for flows to cause some disruption to residents from one direction, but which would make it easier coming from the opposite direction, an overall neutral effect. This needs to be modelled and, with the proposed cycleway most likely going over the bridge and a clear desire not to destroy the historic vista. Allowing free cycle and pedestrian access, but potentially putting a one-way car traffic light system over the bridge like that up at Confey in Leixlip, would allow flow to be controlled based on the backup towards Woodies at peak evening times or the backup from St Catherine's Park at weekends, for example.
It has also been suggested that a roundabout on the far side of the bridge could be an option, so all engineering solutions need to be examined in detail.
All this needs to be worked out. It must be worked out before tinkering with the parking at the village green. And it’s fair to say a trial would be rudimentary and possibly more disruptive, which is why a vision needs to be pushed that has some business and residential buy-in, but which will increase alternative options to cars while not encouraging people who use the village now to drive elsewhere.
It’s worth looking at this proactively and positively, even as a trial, because a trial will influence a permanent system going to consultation if it’s shown to have met its traffic management aims.
Village Green Works
Wall capping
Some other submissions have pointed out that removing the stone wall and capping will destroy the identity of the village green, open it more to traffic pollution and make it less safe for young children. The only scenario that this might work with is if traffic is reduced to one way through the village and calmed significantly.
Safety issues
While there are positives to creating access down to the river, there are also safety issues as, with heavier rainfall, the flow will increase, making it dangerous for young children. Clarification needs to be provided regarding what safety precautions will be in place to prevent anyone falling in.
Flood considerations
When the original 2015 bridge plan from the Green to the footpath on the other side near O'Neill's was being considered, engineers highlighted the potential impact in terms of water backing up during a flood scenario. While this risk was found to be minimal, and while the ponds upriver in Griffeen Valley Park will alleviate such risks further, it is also the case that our climate is changing rapidly, and heavy rainfall events will occur more frequently. Any combination of heavy rainfall and insufficient maintenance of waterways could lead to water leaving the Griffeen again and coming into the village from various directions. The impact of water backing up at the bridge beside Weir Interiors needs to be assessed further as taking away walls could lead to more water flooding out in the village.
Trusting these arguments can be considered as part of the consultation.
Observations
Overview
Lucan is a beautiful heritage village with many positive if under-represented features. When the sun is shining and traffic is light and people are out walking, it is a great example of a suburban village with links to its past still visible. Covid showed us the potential for more people to be out and about and reignited a desire for a more pleasant experience. It needs measures to enhance these desirable features.
The flipside of this is that, at times, Lucan village has become a traffic-congested kip. Row upon row of cars spewing diesel and petrol pollution, broken occasionally by a thimbleful of EVs and bicycles. Much of this traffic is not aiming to go to the village, but rather through the village and parking spaces at pinch points are at premium for those who visit Lucan to shop, to attend medical appointments, travel to and from their nearby homes, visit relatives, or do other related business. It needs measures to mitigate these undesirable features. The Government needs to be encouraged to abolish or relocate the M50 tolls and, within its remit, the local authority needs to discourage through traffic, enable people who need to access the village to do so and to provide real alternatives to driving without penalising those who have no other option.
Premature plan
While people want to see an attractive and more pedestrian friendly village, with lots of interesting things to see or do, it is telling that the CHL Survey quoted as part of this Part 8 Presentation sees addressing parking and traffic needs as the key issue. However, this plan does not address parking needs, by reducing key parking spaces and does nothing whatsoever to address the crucial traffic congestion issue identified.
As such, the parking element of this plan should have been done after, or worst case, alongside a one-way trial.
It should be frozen pending such a trial, or possibly trialled along with the traffic trial, but it should not go ahead without certainty on future plans. It would be pointless to do so, as any positive impacts cannot be felt until the wider traffic issues are assessed and addressed.
If anything, taking away parking spaces without restricting through traffic will neutralise any attempts to slow down traffic as there will be less vehicles reversing in and out.
The vision of a quieter village and the effect on the area is highly desirable, but would be better assessed after a decent effort is made to manage traffic in the village.
Parking space issues
This plan proposes to take away key parking spaces in the village and replace them with some adjacent spaces, resulting in an estimated overall loss of 11 spaces.
Other submissions have queried the calculations of actual available spaces and suggest that the overall number of spaces in Lucan is less than suggested and that the overall spaces being reduced is more. But even taking the Council proposals at face value, most of the existing parking spaces along the stretch from AIB to Griffeen Bridge will be taken away.
The key question here is a) Can the village do with at least 11 less parking spaces and b) are the ones replacing those along the Main Street stretch of the village green of comparable quality?
I believe the village could indeed take 11 less spaces, even allowing for congestion at peak times or during bad weather. The Council are correct that village parking is not always full, at least not all the time. That said, through close observation as a resident who lives nearby, at least 50% of the time I go into the village walking or in a vehicle between the hours of 10am and 6pm, the area around the village green is usually full. On Friday evenings at around 6pm in particular, it is often impossible to get a spot within a short walk of the village green area as parked vehicles stretch well beyond the Circle K garage. How much more spaces could go is questionable as of now, even if fears of up to 60 spaces being taken away have no factual basis, because the pinch points are pinch points for a reason. And it's not primarily down to laziness.
There is an argument that suggests that a good cohort of drivers living locally could walk instead, or park further away. I agree that this is the case for some activities and that more of us could and should get off the couches or the car seats. Perhaps the Government should post out a Fitbit or equivalent to every house in Ireland given its positive influence on people maximising their “steps”. It might have a positive impact.
But while there are certainly those who could walk further, this is not the situation in every case. There’s a lot of credible arguments that driving is essential, or not driving would be a massive inconvenience, in terms of short-term pickups of multiple grocery items, attending the GP or physio, picking up take-aways that need to stay warm. This problem is exacerbated for the area along Main Street being covered under this consultation. Especially when you look at Lucan Village Medical Centre, the pharmacy, the Centra shop and to a lesser but significant extent the banks and other businesses.
The demographics of the village residential area between Ardeen estate and Esker Lane before Woodies shows that there are approximately 6,000 people living here. About 1,200 are over 65 and most of these are living independently and many can walk a fair distance. However, there would be several hundred people of various ages who are not mobile and who need to drive or be dropped to the village. Not every disability is visible. A person with a heart condition or other illness can drive down, walk a little and even look agile, but that doesn’t mean they can actually walk very far A healthier lifestyle may help keep people healthier in the future, but you cannot penalise those who are ill for various reasons, nor can moral judgements be made on those who are ill. We have to respect all our citizens and look after the most vulnerable in our society.
These are the people who will be most affected by taking parking away from the location in question. And there is no evidence that the specified spaces being left will be sufficient unless this is trialled first (and in such a case the Council should surely leave more as a starting point).
The arguments around the medical centre are particularly strong. I will not repeat the key arguments made by Dr Lombard and others as they stand in their own right, They are being made on medical considerations not because the business could be accused in any way of fearing less customers. There is a significant shortage of GPs in Lucan right now. And there are no suitable places to relocate to either.
But even in terms of access to the shops, it is worth going into more detail. The Circle K and Maxol garages are close enough to the village anyway but don't offer very large ranges, so it is clear that the only convenience store in Lucan village right now is Centra. Add in the bakery, the butcher and the greengrocer for sure, but the same arguments remain. They are all in the village, down hills.
When I grew up in Lucan you had Toolan's Spar in the village. You had Carey's. You had Fuch's (then McDonald's) on the Lucan Newlands Road beside Cherbury. You had the "Candy Store" and "Murrays" at Esker Lawns. You had Harris's (Corbett's, Keane's) at Beech Park. You had Molloy's and A1 Stores on the Lucan Road. All of these retailers were a walk around the corner. All have now closed; you only have Lynch's Centra remaining.
Therefore, if anyone out of these 6,000 residents wants convenience shopping as opposed to driving further to a shopping centre, they have to go to Centra. And yes, many can walk down for one or two items. People who live in the village itself, estates and individual houses, Esker Lawns, Beech Park, Lucan Heights, maybe Cherbury Park, Beech Grove and Roselawn should be thinking in this regard; it gets to be a push after that from Ballydowd Grove and all the estates in Esker Lane, but I take the points made in some of the submissions.
However not everyone who goes down to the village to shop just picks up a newspaper, or a small carton of milk, or some bread or a bag of apples or a pound of mince. A lot of the shopping would include two litres of milk, a tin of something, a breakfast cereal, toilet rolls, yoghurts, butter/spread. Once it gets bulky or heavy, it's no longer possible to walk any distance with ease. So most people in this situation will desire out of necessity to be within a 120-second walk of the shop, some will need to be less than 60 seconds.
Yes, some shoppers could easily lug lighter bags for longer and should be encouraged to do so. Some people can park a little bit farther back, but not every shop visit is for a packet of sweets or a sliced pan. Those who want more often have no alternative but to park, or face driving another 10 minutes. Then there are people who are mobile enough, but for whom a walk of 500m or more is too much. Some people are brave enough to cycle, but the Council cannot tell anyone that the current routes to the village are safe for an average cyclist, let alone a beginner one. And again, carrying bulky items is difficult and the hills are a challenge meaning that some people would have to walk back with their bike. Show the safe cycling routes and some of these arguments will be negated. But we don’t have them yet. Hence this plan is premature.
From lifestyle and climate change perspectives we need to make Lucan more pedestrian friendly and cycle friendly and create wider footpaths for those in wheelchairs and those wheeling buggies. I want to see the Council being very proactive and visionary in this regard, but you cannot ignore the needs of the people who live in the area; the plan as proposed causes inconvenience without any significant clean, green alternative being provided. You need to put these alternatives in place alongside or beforehand, reduce rat-running traffic, calm existing traffic, create safe cycling spaces, locate off-street parking, create the scene, and make it a pleasant, attractive place rather than force these people to shop elsewhere and reduce traffic by local exodus. This is recipe for removing people from the village, destroying business
And, given the shortage of GPs, you can't force vulnerable people to seek primary medical support elsewhere or have them make a second journey to get medication, currently available next door.
All the above arguments refer to the people living in the village hinterland. Add in the other visitors to Lucan village from outside this immediate residential area and the impact worsens. Because of historic bad planning, which I have fought against all my adult life, the greater Lucan area has become a traffic-congested commuter town, with a dearth of public transport options.
Public transport and cycling incentives needed
The Bus Connects launch has not led to any noticeable improvement in access to the village. In fact, there have been complaints. The people who used the 239 before will use the L51 and L52 and for those who don't have cars, these services will still allow access to the village. There's an argument that says people from further afield visiting the village for a coffee or meal, possibly alongside a visit to a physio, a bank, a psychotherapist etc could get the bus also. I agree wholeheartedly - even if ultra-local fares need to be cheaper - but this cohort is a small subsection. Most of those able-bodied people who would go to the village and who have access to a vehicle would likely have other business after the doctor or physio etc and may need to get back to work, to pick up kids, to go to the supermarket after. If they cannot park in the village, they will not use the village, pure and simple. I wish it were otherwise and that a little nudge will get them out of their vehicles, but we have to strike a balance. We need a living breathing village on the one hand without turning into a “Disneyland” on the other hand, as someone else described it.
There is an element who would cycle more in the village area if safe routes were available. A decent route as part of the Canal Route Project or a link would assist in making more people feel comfortable about cycling to Lucan once it's done right. I've contended that this needs to be through the village rather than a circuitous route through Sarsfield Park that bypasses the village and discourages the recreational and tourism cohort of such cyclists from using the village amenities and spending money in Lucan.
Therefore, such a route needs to be in situ so that people who can and should be more active can see a viable alternative to driving. And, to make this attractive and safer it would be desirable so see off-street parking to compensate for - and possibly enhance - on-street parking that could be put to better use.
However, you cannot remove on-street parking at critical pinch point locations right now, and you cannot remove any at all without providing alternatives.
Off-street parking
It is hard to know where such off-street parking can be located, but here are a few ideas which the Council will not be able to comment on one way or the other due to commercial considerations. And obviously they are mostly privately owned and I respect the right of owners to do what they want with their own property. But perhaps there is a commercial opportunity for some, if the Council was proactive.
With a new Ambassador being appointed, a renewed case needs to be made in terms of the purchase of Lucan House and grounds. It is unfortunate that many years back local traders were offered a parcel of land for car parking but turned down the opportunity to purchase the area. Either way, to the extreme right of the main entrance of the embassy grounds there is a grassed area that is regularly used for parking for visitors to open days and events. If made available to the Council, as an outright purchase of the entire lands or this specific section (with the Italian entrance being recessed), or in lieu of the cost of repair works to the wall opposite the Maxol, or on a leasehold basis, this area could be weatherproofed for parking without damaging any of the mature trees in situ. It would be absolutely necessary for parking here were Lucan house to become a public amenity and destination location, but it would also be hugely advantageous to have such off-street parking in Lucan village.
There is also a large private garden area behind the houses adjacent to Carroll's pub and restaurant. Has anyone been approached about this? While I understand some of the buildings through the gate access may be preserved, making it impossible to access from this route, it might be possible to secure some access via Dispensary Lane or Carroll's Car park. These items need to be examined at least.
Up the east end of the village, a site has been available alongside the purchase of buildings with existing tenants behind Collins's butchers. The area behind is unlikely to ever be granted planning permission for residential development because of the overdrop to the back gardens of Sarsfield Park, but given that there is already an unofficial car park at this location, the entire area could be upgraded, flattened and possibly made multi-storey or underground, subject to a survey.
Vesey Park is grossly under-utilised by the public and the entrance stretch at The Hollow area is primarily grass with the ecological benefit in the tree corridor to the left and the river area to the right. There is scope to put in sensitive car parking at this location for approx 20-30 spaces similar to those at Farmleigh close to the village without damaging the amenity and perhaps enhancing it, especially once the link from the entrance to Vesey Park estate towards the bridge at Cherbury Park is completed. This would require some road reconfiguration, but it would create meaningful parking spaces, which could be free or lower cost than the ones nearer both parts of Main Street in Lucan. It would also enhance the argument for the canal route cycleway to be diverted to the village via Vesey Park.
There are also a small number of diagonal spaces that could be provided near the health centre in Dispensary Lane with a cut into the grassy area before the bollands. Every additional space needs to be considered before taking away other spaces in other areas.
One of more of these locations could help increase quality parking spaces in the village and no argument to reduce spaces further should be made until a comparable quantity/quality is secured.
Dealing with through-traffic and the absolute need for a one-way system trial
SDCC's Chief Executive has worthy visions of Lucan as a “food destination” and the Council wants to push tourism. Our heritage is valuable, so, If it’s done properly, we can have the village thriving. Alternatives to cars is a good thing, especially if you’re looking to bring more new people to the village. The balance is to make sure you don’t take existing users away, still keeping them in cars, but driving further and longer and still spewing out pollutants. We still need to look at a few traffic management options and ways to make the overall village experience more pleasant.
As someone who has tabled motions calling for a radical approach to dealing with traffic in Lucan it was great to see that a good number of people in the study commissioned by the Council last year suggested that some form of one-way system is required.
This is essential. We know nothing has been worked out yet. But a trial needs to be carried out before this village scheme and it needs input from all stakeholders even as a trial.
The village traders will need reassurance that a temporary trial is just that. Residents near the village need to be able to access their homes. At the same time, we will all need to realise that a trial will be extremely basic and not best practice compared to something well-funded and drawn up to a high standard.
My own unqualified current idea for a permanent system is one way access south from Collins’s to Church of Ireland for all vehicles, two-way for bicycles, two-way for buses (using retractable bollards) and two-way for elsewhere (except maybe specified designated times to be determined).
SDCC has outlined a different idea in its tentative drawing suggesting, one way from Courtney’s, which to me would cause certain problems.
There's also the issue as to what direction a one-way section for cars would take. The Council appears to be tentatively suggesting that vehicles should head east. However, that means that any cars trying to access the village would have to do a loop around again and this would include a very difficult crunch point to turn right at the top of Chapel Hill.
An alternative would be to make the small one-way section head west. This means that any queuing traffic would largely be on Chapel Hill as opposed to in the village itself. There are arguments that say that increasing the flow at this location to compensate for the added volume on this side would ensure access for residents to estates such as Laraghcon. This would not get rid of traffic over Lucan bridge but would get rid of traffic in Lucan Village.
An alternative is for flows to cause some disruption to residents from one direction, but which would make it easier coming from the opposite direction, an overall neutral effect. This needs to be modelled and, with the proposed cycleway most likely going over the bridge and a clear desire not to destroy the historic vista. Allowing free cycle and pedestrian access, but potentially putting a one-way car traffic light system over the bridge like that up at Confey in Leixlip, would allow flow to be controlled based on the backup towards Woodies at peak evening times or the backup from St Catherine's Park at weekends, for example.
It has also been suggested that a roundabout on the far side of the bridge could be an option, so all engineering solutions need to be examined in detail.
All this needs to be worked out. It must be worked out before tinkering with the parking at the village green. And it’s fair to say a trial would be rudimentary and possibly more disruptive, which is why a vision needs to be pushed that has some business and residential buy-in, but which will increase alternative options to cars while not encouraging people who use the village now to drive elsewhere.
It’s worth looking at this proactively and positively, even as a trial, because a trial will influence a permanent system going to consultation if it’s shown to have met its traffic management aims.
Village Green Works
Wall capping
Some other submissions have pointed out that removing the stone wall and capping will destroy the identity of the village green, open it more to traffic pollution and make it less safe for young children. The only scenario that this might work with is if traffic is reduced to one way through the village and calmed significantly.
Safety issues
While there are positives to creating access down to the river, there are also safety issues as, with heavier rainfall, the flow will increase, making it dangerous for young children. Clarification needs to be provided regarding what safety precautions will be in place to prevent anyone falling in.
Flood considerations
When the original 2015 bridge plan from the Green to the footpath on the other side near O'Neill's was being considered, engineers highlighted the potential impact in terms of water backing up during a flood scenario. While this risk was found to be minimal, and while the ponds upriver in Griffeen Valley Park will alleviate such risks further, it is also the case that our climate is changing rapidly, and heavy rainfall events will occur more frequently. Any combination of heavy rainfall and insufficient maintenance of waterways could lead to water leaving the Griffeen again and coming into the village from various directions. The impact of water backing up at the bridge beside Weir Interiors needs to be assessed further as taking away walls could lead to more water flooding out in the village.
Trusting these arguments can be considered as part of the consultation.