skip to main content

Proposal over revoking Salthill cycle lane to be considered

An aerial shot of Salthill, Galway
An aerial shot of Salthill, Galway

Galway City Council is to consider a proposal to revoke plans for a temporary cycle lane along the promenade in Salthill.

A motion under Standing Order 32 to "amend or revoke" a resolution of the council is on the agenda, for next week's meeting of the local authority.

Councillors voted by 17 to 1 in favour of the temporary cycling infrastructure last September.

But as many as 14 members seem set to do a U-turn on their earlier position, following concerns over traffic management and car parking.

Fianna Fáil Councillor, Peter Keane, has proposed the motion to revoke September's decision. It is suppported by his party colleagues, Fine Gael, Labour and a number of independents.

A public consultation on two proposed routes attracted over 7,000 submissions in recent weeks. In addition, councillors have been sent hundreds of emails from those in favour of the cycle lane, as well hundreds more from those opposed to the plan.

A report on the consultation will be presented to elected representatives ahead of next Monday's meeting.

But the requirement for one way vehicular traffic along a section of the proposed cycleway has galvanised opposition from some local residents and businesses.

Potential access difficulties for emergency service vehicles have also been identified, while others point to the the removal of car parking spaces along the route as problematic.

Those in favour of the cycling infrastructure say it would make the seaside resort more attractive, encourage sustainable transport and help contribute to reducing emissions. They argue that blue badge parking spaces for those with mobility issues could be incorporated into the design of the temporary lanes, which are scheduled to be in place from March to September.

The initial proposal for the cycle lane was passed without discussion at a council meeting in September. Independent Councillor Donal Lyons was the only member to oppose the move.

He argued that further debate was needed and that the council should consider detailed design plans, before any vote was taken.