FAO: Sligo Country Council
Active Travel Interventions in Cleaveragh
I wish to make a submission as a Tonaphubble resident regarding the proposed Active Travel Intervention scheme for Cleaveragh, currently in public consultation. While I welcome the safety measures introduced, the enormous scale of the project is totally out of proportion to the stated benefits.
Some stated goals of Sligo County Council are to improve “the current facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists”, to “encourage active travel”, “improve connectivity” and to reduce the “environmental impact”.
The solution, in a nutshell, is to
- Widen the space allocated to vehicular traffic (from approx. 4.5m to 6.5m).
- Add safety measures and accessibility (crossings, lighting, traffic calming, protected cyclepaths)
Resulting in
- Removal of broad swathes of mature oak, beech trees and others
- Removal of wildlife habitats
Please consider the concerns and questions and suggestions that I have listed below.
1. How will an 800m stretch of footpath and cyclepath “improve connectivity”?
I am active cyclist and participate in a local school cycle bus. The proposed scheme connects the Sligo Sports Complex with Tonaphubble Road, a road that has no cyclepath whatsoever. Cyclepaths, especially in the context of active travel, should be first built where they are most useful. Since the purported objective is to promote active travel, adding protected cyclepaths to the Tonaphubble Road and the Cleaveragh Road should be the highest priority since these are main corridors into the town from residential areas.
2. How does the removal of the trees and wildlife habitats “encourage active travel”?
Cleaveragh Drive is a unique and beautiful location in Sligo, with mature canopies and a sense that you are in the countryside. Many people walk and run along this road because of this factor alone. Nobody wants to walk in a barren landscape. By removing the trees from the roadside, you are removing the very aspects that make it so appealing for walking and running. The effect may actually be to diminish active travel.
3. What is the total cost of this scheme to improve “the current facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists”?
Cycling on the Cleaveragh Drive is currently extremely dangerous especially when travelling from the racecourse uphill to Tonaphubble Road. The paint for cycle lanes has worn away and there are bends where cars often overrun these invisible lines. To improve the facilities for cyclists, to make it actually useable for cyclists, why not enforce speed limits and protect the existing cycle paths? Put the budget instead towards the development of a town-wide active travel network, on the principal of developing where it will have the greatest impact and tap into the highest latent demand.
4. How will an 800m stretch of cyclepath and footpath “reduce air and noise pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption” as part of the “environmental impact”?
The Public Consultation pamphlet says that the scheme will provide a “safe future link from the ATU to Tonaphubble”. Why would a cyclist or walker coming from Tonaphubble take this route to the bridge when it is much faster to take a route along Devins Drive? In fact, it is more than twice as fast to take the Devins Road route when measured from the corner of Tonaphubble Road and Cleaveragh Drive. Speaking as a cyclist, few will choose a much longer way around on a daily commute.
Or are the Council suggesting perhaps that the Cleaveragh Drive is the principal route for all traffic coming across the new bridge? If so, put the active travel budget towards Devins Drive and Cleaveragh Road where it will have a real, and not an imagined, impact.
Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) acknowledge the reality of the Induced Demand phenomenon, where additional infrastructure induces more vehicular traffic. In the context of the likely enormously negative environmental impact of the Eastern Garavogue Bridge (EGB) scheme it is whimsical for the council to tout the environment benefits of this inadequate Active Travel Scheme. And that is, when allowing a generous assumption that there are any positive environmental benefits at all.
5. Why create an isolated 50m stretch of isolated cyclepath on Tonaphubble Road?
Every cyclepath on the drawing on Page 6 peters out immediately beyond the borders of the drawing. What use to anyone is a 50m stretch of protected cyclepath when there are dangers before and after?
The drawings suggest substantial development on the southern side of Tonaphubble Road but the existing lay-by is not included in the drawings so the impact cannot be assessed. Please include this in the drawings. How can local residents make informed submissions on this proposed change without this information?
6. What is the impact of the planned EGB on traffic volumes on Cleaveragh Drive?
How can local residents assess the Cleaveragh Active Travel scheme without knowing the projected traffic volumes against current volumes, the composition of that traffic (HGVs vs cars), the congestion at peak times etc. as a result of the new bridge? Again, how can local residents make informed submissions on the suitability of the Cleaveragh Active Travel Interventions without this information?
Suggestions
Include EGB traffic impact assessments relevant to Cleaveragh Drive along with the public information on the Cleaveragh Active Travel Scheme.
Prioritize first the most useful parts of a town-wide Active Travel network
Protect the beauty of amenity we currently have and love
Enforce the existing speed limits on Cleaveragh Drive
Convert the cyclepaths on Cleaveragh Drive into protected cyclepaths
To summarise, the scale of the project and the details of the proposed changes themselves are out of proportion to, and sometime directly contradict the stated benefits of the project. Local residents should receive more information in relation to the costs and a justification for both the scale of the project and the destruction of a local amenity.
Respectfully,
Rory Noone

Carraroe and District Regeneration Association