Time to face facts on Clew Bay Greenway

That we live in a time when there's wealth enough for cycling infrastructure to be a government priority is something we should all be thankful for. However, we mustn't lose our sense of proportion, or sight of what matters most: the safety, security, and wellbeing of the community, and the measured and accountable use of public finances.

The Clew Bay Greenway project has proven to be the most contentious issue in the locality because it affects people's lives, livelihoods, privacy, and properties. It has got to the point now where we hear that it may not happen at all if one of the routes, Option 2, is rejected. As the route selection stage draws to an end, after sixteen months, we would like to once again try and steer the greenway project team back onto the right track.

In September 2023 Mayo County Council announced that two options were being presented as prospective greenways from Belclare to Murrisk: Option 1, which runs along the R335, and Option 2, which would create a brand new road, and right of way, through fields, forests, and farms from Aughavale Cemetery to Murrisk, rising 60 metres above sea level according to the last preferred route made public, back in February.

We now know, after many Freedom of Information requests, that Option 1 was the council's original plan. MCC successfully drew funding from the Rural Regeneration Development Fund in 2019 for the greenway from Belclare to Murrisk as the "work is shovel ready and is strategic as it bridges a gap in the greenway network (there are greenways at either end of this section)". In 2021 independent consultants prepared detailed drawings which showed how a two-way, three-metre wide, greenway could be built along the R335, with a half-metre wide grass separation from the road, without a single building being demolished, a far cry from MCC’s latest fear-mongering estimate of 15.

The consultants in 2021 planned to improve the R335 in four ways in the next two years: laying down broadband infrastructure, piping freshwater to Murrisk, upgrading the greenway, and realigning and resurfacing the road. Sadly, it wasn’t to be. A pandemic and a MCC miscoding incident, which resulted in the forced repayment of €1.2 million to central government, almost ended the Clew Bay greenway extension, until, under the auspices of TII, the project was newly proposed and made public in September 2023. The responsibility for developing greenways had become TIIs responsibility and herein lies much of the controversy, as according to their guidelines Option 1 is undeliverable. This raises an immediate question about the process to date: if Option 1 was never viable, why was it proposed as an option? The answer is because despite TII guidelines it makes the most sense.

Only by imposing the strictest application of the TII design guidelines can MCC explain their ‘emerging’ selection of Option 2, and how exactly we still don’t know as they have never made this information public, and don’t plan to until an application is submitted. Irrespective, there is a solution, provisioned for in the TIIs very own guidelines: “at some locations, it may not be possible to provide minimum design parameters owing to site constraints, economic constraints, or environmental constraints. In such cases, sufficient advantages might justify either a Relaxation within the standards or in more constrained locations a departure from the standards.” On all three counts, the economics, the environmental impact, and the site’s constraints, the proposed Belclare to Murrisk greenway is an absolute case in point of where a departure from the standard is warranted, not to mention the many advantages that would be brought by an improved R335.

The Clew Bay greenway loop, which has the potential to be a wonderful amenity and a world class tourism destination, is being threatened by the bureaucratic intransigence of the MCC. In five years, they have failed to deliver a five kilometre greenway. At this rate our grandchildren will be lucky to cycle around the finished loop.

It’s time to face the facts:

• The best chance now of getting a greenway to Murrisk, and out to Louisburgh and beyond, is upgrading the main road, Option 1.

• No one is against greenways; everyone is against CPOs being used to split farms and open new access routes through people’s back gardens.

• There’s a world of difference between improving a main road by broadening its cycle and walkway, upgrading existing infrastructure, and building an entirely new road through farms, forests, and gardens.

• The solution is simple. Option 1 can be developed using TII’s own guidelines. This is a perfectly reasonable recourse which would allow MCC to complete the greenway they originally planned, cause the least amount of destruction to the environment, or to people’s property, privacy, and security. Furthermore, it could be replicated all along the R335 to Louisburg.

• Option 1 is a practical solution which will benefit the entire community with a flat, direct, and accessible route with many drop off and collection points. Option 2 will only benefit users fit enough, and have time enough, to go on a circuitous, elevated, route that has no parking or drop off except at the Aughavale Cemetery.

• Option 2 will continue to divide the community, and risks sinking the whole project, not just the stretch planned through the Owenwee flood valley (pictured).

We as a committee feel it is time for the greenway project team in MCC to face the facts and get behind Option 1.